March 18,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 4

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine business I would like to welcome

to the gallery, on behalf of all members, Mayor Walwin Blackmore from the Town

of Grand Falls - Windsor, Deputy Mayor Bob King, Mr. Mike Pinsent, Town Manager

of the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor, along with Mayor Oliver Rose from the Town

of Bishop's Falls, and Mayor Lloyd Thompson from the Town of Botwood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome to the

gallery today, thirty-two Level II students from Coaker Academy, in the District

of Twillingate - Fogo, accompanied by their teachers, Gerald Peddle, Ann-Marie

Dalley, Guidance Councillor, Chaperon Jo-Anne Lilly, and bus driver Danny Rice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like at this time to rule on

a point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Terra Nova on Friday.

The point that was raised by the hon. Member for Terra Nova had to deal with an

exchange that took place between the hon. Member for Conception Bay South in

response to an answer given by the Minister of Health.

The Member for Conception Bay South stated: Mr. Speaker, I

really and truly do not believe what I just heard. It is not the courts whose

job it is to set the policy for the government, I say to the minister. It is the

job of the fifteen Cabinet ministers who sit opposite.

I want to quote Beauchesne , page 149, 491, which

says: "The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should

be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by

virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which is parliamentary in

one context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be

unparliamentary".

It appears, in the context of the remarks that the Member for

Conception Bay South made, he did not impute intentional falsehood to the

minister. The member's view of how the minister and the Department of Health

carried out responsibilities with respect to the Broderick case appears to be

different from that of the member, and therefore I rule there was no point of

order.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, on February 5, 1997, the federal

and provincial governments announced the creation of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Film Development Corporation. One million dollars was invested from the

Canada-Newfoundland Agreement on Economic Renewal to spearhead development of

this relatively new industry in the Province over the next five years.

The Corporation has been charged with the responsibility to

direct the growth of the indigenous film and video industry and to market the

Province, both nationally and internationally, as a competitive place for

on-location shooting of films and videos.

I am pleased today to inform members of this House of

government's appointments to the Board of Directors of this Corporation.

The film industry within Newfoundland and Labrador is

organized into three umbrella industry groups. Government sought nominations to

the Board from each of these three organizations and has accepted the names

brought forward. Ken Pittman will represent the Producers' Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador (PAN), Jennie Ripley will represent the Newfoundland

Independent Filmmakers' Co-operative (NIFCO), and Lisa Porter will represent the

Film Crew Association of Newfoundland (FilmCAN). All of these individuals have a

distinguished track record in promoting the development of the local film

industry.

Robert Joy, who currently resides in New York City but is a

native Newfoundlander, will serve on the Board as a member-at-large. Mr. Joy has

been involved in both the performing and business aspects of the industry in

Canada and the United States, and will bring an external industry perspective to

the Board.

The federal and provincial governments will also be

represented on the Board by two senior individuals. Edna Hall, Director General

of Heritage Canada in Newfoundland and Labrador, will serve on behalf of the

federal government. John Scott, Deputy Minister of Development and Rural

Renewal, will represent the Province.

The vice-chair will be Katy Binden, Principal of the School

of Fine Arts at Memorial University's Corner Brook campus. Ms Binden has brought

a strong businesslike approach to the affairs of the School of Fine Arts and

possesses a broad-based knowledge of the film industry as a whole.

The chair will be Danny Williams, a well-known lawyer and

successful businessperson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Williams is President and CEO of Cable

Atlantic.

The Board of Directors has been mandated by Government to be

aggressive in its efforts to develop the provincial film industry to its fullest

economic potential, and is expected to operate on private sector business

principles to achieve this objective.

As a relatively new sector of the provincial economy, the

film industry offers exciting new prospects for diversifying the economic base

of our Province, attracting new investment, and generating significant new jobs

within the private sector for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to inform the House that, members of

the Film Development Corporation and I met with a number of key industry players

in Los Angeles late last week. The purpose of this mission was to pursue a

number of new business opportunities for film production in the Province and to

promote the establishment of the Corporation itself.

Contact was made with eight major film production companies,

the Los Angeles Film Development Commission, as well as an independent

production company based in Los Angeles. Meetings were also held with the

Canadian Consulate to make them fully aware of the Province's new approach to

development of the film industry and to seek their support and assistance within

the Los Angeles area.

This was a very productive mission and reflects the

seriousness and commitment which government attaches to this new initiative, as

well as its determination to be proactive and aggressive in attracting new

investment and economic activity to this Province.

On behalf of Government, I wish to publicly thank the

individuals who have accepted to serve on this board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We see in this announcement today the names of some very

reputable people within our community however, I have to ask the question, when

forming the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation, is this a

matter of too little too late? Clearly we have seen a track record of many of

our producers have been forced to leave Newfoundland and Labrador in the past.

We have seen many members of the acting community again being forced to leave

our Province and we have to look at where the national standards are here, Mr.

Speaker. Where is the national commitment? We see cuts to the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation seemingly being endorsed and fostered by the federal

government and presumably also endorsed by this government when one listens to

the silence coming from this government with respect to those cuts. One has to

ask questions as well, Mr. Speaker, where is the infrastructure within our

Province to ensure that producers and those within the film industry can

adequately perform their task here in Newfoundland and Labrador? I support those

individuals, I wish them well however, Mr. Speaker, I truly submit that this is

a case of too little too late. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say without reservation that this announcement

today is a very positive one for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As

one who - prior to my entry into politics - has been involved in an attempt to

develop feature films in this Province, I know what a great struggle it is. The

people who are on the names of this board, particularly those who have been

involved in the industry, the Producers Association, the NIFCO group and the

film crews, are all very experienced in trying to develop an industry in a

Province where the scenery, where the locations, where the creative talent and

the imagination is there and now there is an opportunity for the government to

be involved in a direct way in supporting this industry. I think the people who

have been involved in the development of this corporation regard it as being,

the fact that it is being done now, believe that it is being done right because

they have had time to look at other operations and I think it is very positive -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - all of the people who are on the board are

very credible people and I wish them every success in the development of the

future of films for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It gives me great pleasure today to announce an initiative of

this government to better provide quality service delivery to clients. The

Department of Social Services has committed $175,000 to enhance the staffing

component in the Post Adoption Services area. This will serve to eliminate the

long waiting list and ensure the delivery of a more timely service to

applicants.

The post adoption services provided by the Department of

Social Services deliver services to adoptees, birth parents and relatives to

adoptees, and adoptive parents. These services include the provision of the

person's medical and general information. The Department conducts individual

searches to determine the whereabouts of the natural parents and provides

counselling to help bring about a successful reunion between birth parents and

the child. The process follows four stages which include the registration,

summary compilation, individualized searches, and reunification of adoptees and

their birth parents.

This program is delivered on a Province-wide basis from St.

John's. Currently, the program has a significant waiting list, and we are

pleased to be able to provide this service to the many people who have been

trying to find their birth parents for many years.

Additional funding is being provided to the Department to

eliminate the backlog and the long waiting list for services. We recognize the

current waiting period is too long. This initiative is in response to the need

to address this very important component of Child Welfare.

The Department expects to erase the waiting list for service

requests within one year of positioning the new staff to work on the elimination

of the backlog. This will improve service to the many adoptees, birth parents

and relatives to adoptees, and adoptive parents, in terms of efficiency,

effectiveness and equity.

Finally, if monthly referrals remain relatively stable, then

the program will be able to be maintained by the current level of staffing. This

initiative should ensure that the future waiting time for post adoption services

will be more in keeping with the expectations of people who need these services.

Mr. Speaker, this is a positive step to address the long waiting periods

encountered by many adoptees seeking reunification with their birth parents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister for

her initiatives, however, I have to say what is needed in this Province is an

overhaul of the overall adoption procedures. As the minister knows, in the

Province of British Columbia they have done just that. With adequate

consultation they have made a greater openness about adoption. In fact, the

minister should know that of the 50,000 adoptions in British Columbia from 1924

to 1996 only 12,000 people registered a disclosure veto. That tells all of us

that people today want to know more about their birth parents, and every child

has a right to know the names of his or her parents, in the same way as all the

rest of us, if they are adopted.

Mr. Speaker, we want a trend towards greater openness. We

thank the minister for that. She did not say whether or not the new procedures

will have a price tag attached to them. We do not know whether it is going to

cost something for these searches to occur. That was not said, so I assume there

is no cost to the individual for the searches.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. H. HODDER: By leave for a moment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, as well, we wanted to say

that we want the minister to look at what is happening in other provinces, look

at what is happening in Europe, and work towards new adoption regulations and

procedures in this Province, and make sure that our adopted children are treated

in the same way as all the rest of us are.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. The Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation stated on Friday that the Auditor General's

report on Cabot 500 has been turned over to the Minister of Justice for an

assessment. We recalled this is the same minister to whom government turned over

the Trans City file for an assessment of whether an inquiry was warranted: a

blatant conflict of interest for a minister who was in that up to his ears.

Will the Premier assure us that the Cabot file will not go

into the same black hole that the Trans City file went into? Will the Premier

assure us that this government will order an inquiry to get to the bottom of the

administrative mess that led to the abuse and waste of millions of taxpayers'

scarce dollars?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, neither the Minister of

Justice nor any minister in the Cabinet nor the Premier determines, in the case

of an investigation by the Department of Justice, or for that matter, an

investigation by the police, whether or not further action is required. That

decision is made entirely independent of the government, the Minister of

Justice, every member of the Cabinet, and every member of the Legislature and

that is the way it is going to stay, no matter what the Leader of the Opposition

may suggest to the contrary.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier does not listen very well at all. Your minister

said it has gone for an assessment. We did not indicate it is gone for an

investigation; it is gone for an assessment to your department. That is your

responsibility and your department's responsibility, I say to the Premier. Maybe

the Minister of Justice can tell us whether the RCMP is investigating government

accountability. Is it investigating breaches of the Public Tender Act? I ask the

minister. Since the minister knows full well it is not the RCMP that is

responsible for setting and evaluating and correcting government policy and

administrative practices, will he immediately order a public inquiry to get to

the bottom of this entire Cabot 500 Corporation fiasco?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Leader

of the Opposition was doing on the weekend, on Friday, but I understand that the

RCMP have issued a press release indicating that in fact they are investigating

the matter now in question.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier confirm, then, that the police are

investigating government accountability and whether the Public Tender Act was

broken? Is that what I hear the Premier saying?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

is not interested, obviously, in seeing that there is a fair and unbiased

examination of the facts here. The Leader of the Opposition is interested in

trying to play political games with an issue that is being dealt with in the

proper way. The fact of the matter is, within a day of the government being made

aware of the report of the Auditor General, the matter was referred to the

Department of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was back in November.

PREMIER TOBIN: Back in November. The Department of

Justice has referred the matter to the police and the police have announced they

are doing an investigation. The proper procedure is being followed.

What is improper is to try to take a matter of justice and a

proper investigation and proper accountability and turn it into a political

football on the floor of the House of Assembly as some kind of desperate measure

to try to raise one's political profile. I say to the Leader of the Opposition,

he should take advice from the Justice critic in his own party and allow justice

to unfold as it properly should, without favour or fear or interference by any

Member of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is nonsense. The Premier should know by now, it is not

the role of the RCMP to question government policy and administrative practices.

It is your responsibility, Premier, as the leader of this government, to

investigate lack of accountability by your ministers, by ministers of this

government, in doing the job they were elected to do. That is not the RCMP's

responsibility.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The Auditor General lays out many reasons

why the Public Tender Act was violated. I ask the Premier: Does he realize that

if the Corporation was indeed subject to the Public Tender Act, then it broke

the laws of this Province? We all know what happened in Trans City, I say to the

Premier. I ask him: How are the Premier and the Minister of Justice going to

determine whether in fact the Corporation was subject to the Act or whether it

was not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

is really stretching it a great deal across the floor of the House. The Leader

of the Opposition knows that we are talking about a corporation that went out of

existence in 1995. There is no reason for this Premier or this government to

stand and be worried about having a proper investigation by the proper

authorities into the facts.

The Auditor General has brought forward a report. Instantly

the report was brought forward by the Auditor General and the information made

available to the Cabinet, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice has taken the appropriate action, and the RCMP have

now said, to the extent it is appropriate, they have an investigation under way.

This is into a corporation that disappeared out of operation in 1995.

So I say to the Leader of the Opposition, let the appropriate

authorities do their job. Once we see the outcome of that assessment, we will

see what if any further action is required by government. In the meantime, the

Leader of the Opposition should get on with trying to bring some constructive

and responsible opposition and critic's role to the floor of the House of

Assembly and stop, in an irresponsible way, playing these kinds of reckless

games with the administration of justice in this Province.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Your own minister confirmed in this House on Friday, in case

the Premier was not aware, and I notify you, that it is still a legal entity and

it has not been dissolved from its legal entity. The Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation stated that in the House on Friday, I say to the Premier.

Maybe you are a little behind, Premier. Maybe the Premier is a little behind.

Now, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation pretends

that the Cabot Corporation for its mandate operated at arm's length from

government. That is what the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

indicates, but, Minister, that is not the way it is. I want to ask the Minister

of Tourism, Culture and Recreation: Will he confirm that a high-ranking

representative of the minister's office was present at each and every meeting of

the Cabot Corporation executive and was a voting participant on behalf of

government in all decisions regarding expenditures and all other decisions that

are now under scrutiny? What assurance can the minister give us that this

investigation will go right to the top?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want the people of the

Province to reflect upon the nature of the questions being asked by the Leader

of the Opposition. He is asking about an entity that went out of operation in

1995 - went out of operation before the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation was even a member of the House, let alone the Minister of Tourism.

This is a matter that was brought to the attention of the government in November

and instantly it was referred to the Department of Justice and was referred by

the Department of Justice on to the RCMP for their proper deliberation. They

have now indicated they are going to investigate some of the matters raised.

What is wrong with allowing the RCMP to do their job without having a political

debate in the House about the matter in question, Mr. Speaker? Why the Leader of

the Opposition finds it necessary to doubt the impartiality of the RCMP or, for

that matter, the public prosecutor, to look at this matter in an impartial way,

I do not know. I do not know why we would want to have a kangaroo court on the

floor of the House of Assembly with the names of all of the members, all of the

members of that board, all volunteers, in advance of waiting the outcome of the

investigation. I would really ask the Leader of the Opposition to pause and ask

himself whether this is responsible representation across the floor of the

House.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not the volunteers that are my concern, I say to the

Premier, it is your ministers that are the concern, ministers sitting here in

the front benches. The question is about accountability, I say to the Premier,

just as the Premier right now is evading accountability to this very question. I

ask him: Why do you not put forth a new three-year plan of accountability to

parallel your accountability and your budget for the next three years? Will you

commit to tabling in this House a three-year parallel plan of accountability

that will address the documented concerns that the Auditor General gave in this

report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the concerns that have been

raised by the Auditor General is being addressed in the appropriate way, by the

appropriate individuals, both the officials of the Department of Justice and, in

the case of the need for an investigation, by the RCMP. I do not know what more

thorough review, an objective review, could occur than that. Mr. Speaker, if

anybody is going to suggest that you are going to have a thorough and objective

review across the floor of the House of Assembly with respect to a matter

involving justice in this Province, surely they have to be kidding. Now, I say

to the Leader of the Opposition, if this government called a Royal Commission of

Inquiry every time the Leader of the Opposition called for one, we would have

full employment and everybody would be working on Royal Commission of Inquiries

in this Province.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If you had had one on Trans City, we would not have wasted

hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars trying to fight it at all levels

of the court, and that was six years ago when this government and this Minister

of Justice -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier, what is he going to do

to investigate the report that Bill Hogan, a well-connected Liberal -in fact, I

believe a brother-in-law of the former Premier and a former Cabinet colleague of

members sitting here in this government - applied for a 1-800 call centre number

five weeks before the announcement of a tender call. Now, what is the Premier

going to do to weed out the pork barrelling and the nepotism and restore the

faith of business and integrity in the Public Tender Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker.

If the Leader of the Opposition believes that this is the way

to improve his public standing, then I wish him well, but I tell him I doubt

very much it will meet with any success whatsoever.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health. Mr.

Minister, how many more pieces of evidence do you need before you acknowledge

that the people are suffering because of cuts you have made to systems you were

appointed to administer? How could you look people in the eye last night on TV

while they are crying out to you for help and tell them their cries are

pointless because the system is adequate?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To answer the members question rather concisely, let me say

that I have no difficulty in looking him or the people of this Province in the

eye. Speaking on the very serious and important issue to all of us, health care,

this is a government that has many times said, we have recognized that health

care, on behalf of the people of this Province, is the single, most important

thing to them, to all of us, at what point we need health care services, and the

commitment that we have given as a government to the people of this Province, is

that we will put forward the maximum effort humanly and fiscally possible to

ensure that there is a sustained health care system in this Province that is

there to meet their needs and to respond to the services that they need, at what

point they have a difficulty with health care. Health care is important, health

care is a priority for the people of the Province of the highest order, and I

can assure the hon. member that health care is of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - highest order priority in terms of public

services that this government delivers.

MR. J. BYRNE: Every question has the same answer.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would get a

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, a

supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish the minister would get a new recording.

The minister says that resources in the health care sector he

administers are limited, so what does he say about one of his hospitals

delivering significant amounts of medication? Two Fridays ago, in a brown paper

bag marked `pharmacy', left it out in the open in a corridor of an apartment

building for a gentleman who used to live there. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, the gentleman had not lived in the apartment for the past seven months.

Is that what the minister would call appropriate administration of our very

limited health care dollars?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member on the other

side of the House who has been appointed by his party to be the health critic

for the Province, has a responsibility to bring forward significant concerns,

and I look forward to hearing his concerns and to addressing them.

If the hon. member has information that I do not have, that

alleges or indicates or otherwise may point to something inappropriate being

done in terms of the expenditure of health care dollars, I say to that member,

let him bring forward the information to me and this minister, on behalf of this

government, will be on the top of the file, at the very moment the information

comes to us to ensure that we investigate and if necessary, take remedial or

corrective action.

I am not aware of the proposition that he has put forward and

so I am not prepared to speak to an hypothesis that may or may not in fact be

something that happened or did not happen, but if he wants to put the

information forward, he can be assured and he can rest well tonight and sleep

very well with the understanding that this government takes it and deals with it

in an appropriate manner.

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

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A copy has already been delivered to the Health Care

Corporation. The gentleman who wrote the letter, Mr. Minister, and sent it over,

when the doctor replied from the Health Care Corporation, just about took this

gentleman's head off, because he dared bring it up. This afternoon -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: I will certainly see that you get this

information.

The minister may be interested to know that the drugs in

question were AIDS medication, expensive medication worth in excess of $1,000.

That is not just something to toss on the floor and walk away -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: - it could have been stolen or lost had the

superintendent not discovered it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this minister: When is the minister going

to pull his head out of the sand and admit that the cuts he denies he has made

to the people's health care system have devastated health care in this Province

and are causing needless suffering and grief?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let me again say to the hon.

member that, if he has information that inappropriate expenditures are taking

place, that inappropriate dispensing of pharmaceutical products are happening in

the health care system or that people who work in the health care system are

giving an inappropriate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - response to a question that is put

forward or to an issue that is raised let him put the information on the table

and I will be the first to deal with it through the Health Care Corporation or

whatever structure is out there that is responsible for health care. But to the

points that he is raising specifically, I cannot deal with information that I am

not aware of, I cannot deal with propositions that are laid out in general

terms, in generalities, I ask for the information and I assure you that there

will be a response.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the deadline for proposals for taking over a

provincial park is April 4. Does the minister honestly believe that this gives

sufficient time for new operators to put in place an operating plan, to put in

place financing, to put in place a staff, and to operate these parks at an

acceptable standard for this tourism season which is opening in the very near

future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the date is April 4, as of today.

The first employee meeting is being held today here in St. John's, and there

will be others held in the next couple of days, and we are assessing, with

people who are requesting proposals, whether they need more time. We will know

by tomorrow if we will extend the date to April 11, but as of today the date

stays at April 4.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: A very well laid out plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: The applause is from the only people who

support this in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, on March 7, 1995, twenty-nine parks were closed

and offered to private operators. I ask the minister: How many of these parks

were actually operated as a business in 1995? And of the operators that actually

eventually opened, which were very few, how many of them were actually in a

position - or how long did it take them to actually put in place a service that

they could offer to the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I could easily get that

information for the hon. member. I would have to go back and evaluate and look

at each of the records because I think the numbers, the days or the weeks, would

be very different for each of them. But if it is information that is of interest

to the hon. member, I can certainly get it.

Of interest to my department right now is a very successful

privatization of the twenty-one parks. We have received over 450 inquiries, and

are working very closely with employees, municipalities, tourism associations,

and private operators to ensure that all of these parks are up-and-running for

the year that we anticipate ahead of bringing in thousands of extra tourists. We

are focusing on the success of the Cabot celebrations, and working with the

people of this Province to ensure that this is a banner year, that it will be

the most successful year our tourism industry has ever experienced.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I was at a meeting last night and people concerned

about the privatization of these parks asked me to ask you: Why, if this was a

well laid out and methodical plan on your behalf, you did not consult with them,

the people of our Province, before you put this plan in place to privatize the

parks.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my

hon. colleague that we have been consulting with the people for one year. All

through the pre-Budget consultations we have consulted with people. We have, in

all of our parks, an information feedback whereby we ask questions and do

surveys, and we have been continuing to do that in the parks all throughout this

past year, and we have evaluated every response from the public from both

in-Province tourists and non-resident tourists.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but in his absence maybe I will

direct it to the Premier.

Would the Premier inform the House as to the status of a

report commissioned by the federal Minister of Fisheries? The Fishing Industry

Renewal Board was to make recommendations to the federal minister on allowable

size ranges for replacement fishing vessels. Would the Premier inform the House

if this report has been completed and if his minister has received the

recommendations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a detailed

answer today. I can only tell him that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

is indeed looking at all of the recommendations from the so-called Cashin

Report, and I know on a broad range of those matters, particularly those

involving questions of quality, with respect to questions of establishing a core

plant criteria, and also questions surrounding the future of some of the shell

fisheries, notably crab, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture will be

coming forward in a matter of days to make a more detailed announcement. With

respect to the particular

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question.

PREMIER TOBIN: I understood the question - with respect

to the particular question that the member has raised I am sorry to inform him

that I cannot give him a more detailed answer because I do not have the

information myself at this time.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Premier, my information tells me that

the federal Minister of Fisheries has had this report in his possession since

way back in November. That is five months, now. This is ridiculous, and your

government remains silent. Will the Premier inform the House if he has been in

touch with Minister Mifflin's office regarding this report and what are his

recommendations? Here we have fishermen who are trying to get their fishing

boats ready to take

part in a fishing season that is just about upon us, and up

until now they have no idea if they are allowed to replace their boats or if

they are allowed to make sizes to them. I ask the Premier is he would respond to

that because it is certainly not something that is outside of the normal and not

something that is too much to ask?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, on the question which the

member is now putting: has the government made representation to the federal

government, has the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture made representation to

his colleague the federal minister, the answer is absolutely, yes, and we agree

entirely with the observation of the member opposite, that the Government of

Canada needs to move very soon to clear the air and to allow fishermen to plan

this season.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Premier, so you are saying today that

you support the fishermen's recommendation that they be allowed to go outside

government policy, if you would, and replace their vessels with sizes that they

feel their industry can support, that they feel their enterprise can support,

and government not interfere in such replacement, whatsoever? Is that what you

are saying you recommend?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said.

What I said was we concurred with the view that if fishermen are going to be

ready for this year, and are going to have the appropriate time and notice to be

ready for this year, whatever decisions are going to be forthcoming from the

federal minister have to be announced very soon to give the fishermen of

Newfoundland and Labrador a chance to gear up with whatever gear size, or boat

size, they are going to be allowed to us.

Mr. Speaker, we are awaiting the decision of the federal

minister, and we are urging the federal government to make that decision known

without delay.

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

final supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I totally agree with you, Mr. Premier,

because here we have a situation where government should not be involved at all.

It is time for government to get off fishermen's backs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: They are not looking for handouts. All

they are looking for is to be allowed to go and fish and return in some degree

of safety and comfort. I ask the Premier if he today would get in touch with his

federal cousin to have this release put forward, and if it is not supporting the

fishermen to speak out in favour of that so as they may be allowed to look after

the size and the replacement of their vessels?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture has been in touch with his colleague in the federal government a

number of times on a variety of subjects, including this one, over the last

number of weeks and I am sure if he were here could give a detailed update of

all of the representations that have been made. Suffice it to say we will

continue to make representation in seeking an early declaration of federal

government policy in this area.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the

Minister of Social Services. I am wondering if the Report of the Strategic

Social Plan Committee is ready? It was promised in November, promised in

January, and promised last week. Could the minister give us the time and the

date that it will be released publicly?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to

report to my hon. colleague that the report was dropped off at my home late

Saturday evening. To remind again, this House, that this document, of course, is

a government document which was prepared by an arm's length group comprised of a

number of community representatives and community leaders. Our intention at this

point in time is to refer the report to Cabinet, and in the overall period of

time we will use this report to help the government write a Strategic Social

Plan.

We will rely very heavily on the recommendations that are

coming forward, that will be going forward to my Cabinet colleagues in the very

near future, and we will decide at that point in time exactly how we will be

putting forward the report. But we are quite anxious to start working on that

report and we look forward to putting forward a new Strategic Social Plan at our

earliest convenience.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

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

We understand that some reports gather dust with this

government after they are released. This one, I think, is gathering dust before

it is released, because we understand from people who served on the committee

that it has been ready for a great number of days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When will

her government be ready to release this document? Again I ask that. How long

will it take for your government to prepare its presentations? And is there any

truth to the commentary that has been made that your Cabinet colleagues have

instructed you to rewrite it in precise terms and to put in a budgetary figure

of about $300,000 as the allocation to implement it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I do not know if my hon. colleague is implying that my house

is dusty. I only got it on Saturday, and we are going to refer it to Cabinet as

soon as we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think it is quite obvious we are very

committed to writing the report, but I only got it on Saturday and we are very

anxious to move it along. This is not a plan; this is a consultation plan, and

from that we will develop a strategic plan for the Province. That is our

intention - it has not changed - as soon as we can, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if I could return to, in the

same theme of the Strategic Social Plan, last week the minister, in talking

about child tax benefits, mentioned that she would be taking the child tax

benefit away from the poorest people in this Province. I asked her a question

relative to the people who are on social assistance but are unable to work

because of health reasons or any other circumstance. Is it the minister's

intention to take money from the children of these families who have parents who

are unable to work for various reasons, and to spend that money in implementing

programs to assist the people on social services who are able to work to find

jobs?

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

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

As I said when I answered this question in the previous two

Question Periods, I also started off by saying that every government across this

country has supported the National Child Benefit. Ralph Klein and Mike Harris'

government, even our right-wing NDP, B.C. government, who imposed a residency

rule, are supporting the National Child Benefit.

I will say again, in response to the question, that we are

not taking money away. There is no decrease in the amount of money that will be

coming forward. The payers will change, but the amount of money will not change.

And yes, Mr. Speaker, we will use it to develop new programs and services for

the people who need it. Indeed we will!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on

Ways and Means to consider the Raising of Supply to be Granted to Her Majesty.

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow move that the

House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider Certain

Other Resolutions for Granting of Supply to Her Majesty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if I could, with leave, and

members can have ample time to prepare for the debate tomorrow, give the House

notice that the Private Members' Motion to be debated tomorrow, Wednesday, is

the one which stands in the name of the Member for Ferryland - so all members

can be adequately prepared.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

the following resolution:

WHEREAS poverty and its effects are serious problems for so

many in this Province and things are getting worse not better - now more than

one-third of Newfoundland and Labrador children live in families on social

assistance; and

WHEREAS child hunger and child poverty 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 schoolchild a good nutritional meal every day;

and

WHEREAS school reform and other changes to education 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

student lives;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly direct

the government to establish a universal comprehensive school lunch program for

every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and give our

children a better chance.

Petitions

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of All Saints

Primary School in Foxtrap. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly, the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to

accept the following petition:

We, the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department

of Education to legislate a paid adult bus monitoring program for all school

buses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We find that students are

presently unsupervised and are at risk in their safety going to and from school

on school buses. The safety of our children is being compromised. We ask the

hon. minister and his government to show compassion, leadership and

understanding to ensure the safe transportation of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I present that petition today on behalf of All

Saints Primary School, and certainly, in presenting the petition, not only

present it but support it as well. I know of people who have signed this

petition who have had the unfortunate incident of having a child killed in a bus

accident while coming from school. I think that one child is one child too many.

School bus safety is a very critical concern to the residents

of this school. They find themselves in the primary school with no adult

students, of course, who could serve the role as bus monitors. They also find

themselves with a number of parents - the two parents in a lot of the households

are working and find it very difficult for a bus monitoring system where the bus

monitoring system is voluntary. They just do not have the people to support such

a system.

Therefore, they ask this House and this government to install

or to hire immediately, people who would serve as full-time paid monitors to

ensure that the safety of their children, and indeed, all of our children, is

granted to them and to all families who have children, especially small

children, Mr. Speaker, attending school in this Province.

This committee encourages all persons concerned, of course,

with the school bus safety issue to become very, very vocal in this matter. We

had a very tragic incident last fall in Paradise, Mr. Speaker, where, again, a

child lost his life because of a bus accident. I had an opportunity - I do not

know if you would call it an opportunity or not - to talk to the gentleman who

drove that bus, and believe me, he will be a long time in his lifetime getting

over the effect that this very tragic accident had on him and on his family. It

is something that he will never forget and it is a tragedy when you see what

happened to him in this particular incidence where he had a busload of children

and himself trying to do the job of bus monitor and everything else. When he had

thought that the children were no longer in sight of the bus or near the bus, he

moved ahead, and a very tragic accident occurred.

Again, I have to say to the government, it is time we looked

at this. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the cost would prohibit such a

service being offered and I would urge this government, and especially the

Department of Education, to look into doing something in this matter. Now, we

said some time ago that the money saved in education would go back into

education. Well, I say here, Mr. Speaker, what better way - when we are taking

money out of education, what better way than to put a very small amount of it, a

mere pittance of it back into the educational system of this Province where it

may save the lives of other children.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. FRENCH: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly

support this petition.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the petition of my colleague, the

Member for Conception Bay South. I am pleased to support the petition and the

subject matter of this petition as it relates to a call for a paid bus monitor

service in our Province. It is a very sensitive issue. It is an issue which is

very dear to the hearts of thousands and thousands of parents across our

Province, and indeed, the students and children of these parents.

We have seen unfortunate incidents in the past and there is

now a cry by the parents of these children in this Province to have our

Department of Education do whatever it takes, Mr. Speaker - do whatever it

takes, to place first and foremost the safety and the security of young

children. Unfortunately, this Department of Education thus far has not seen it

important enough to place the security and safety of the young children of our

Province as a priority. We only have to see in recent decisions and

announcements by the minister, in fact, even a decision made by the minister and

an announcement in this House several months ago that he did not see within the

education budget the possibility of a paid bus monitor service, and that, Mr.

Speaker, is regrettable. That is why, when there is a petition such has been

brought forward by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, when there

is a petition which deals with the very livelihood, life, protection and

security of young children, I will stand in support of that petition. Mr.

Speaker, it is shameful that this government has acted so cavalierly to this

whole issue. It is shameful that this government has neglected to listen to

petition after petition on this issue. It is shameful that they do nothing about

it, Mr. Speaker, and we will, as an Opposition, continue to impress upon this

government the importance and the sanctity of this very important matter in our

system.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Newfoundlanders who are petitioning the House on the issue of a school lunch

program. Mr. Speaker, the petitioners ask the House of Assembly to direct

government to establish a universal, comprehensive school lunch program for

every school in Newfoundland and Labrador, to help end child hunger and to give

our children a better chance.

Mr. Speaker, these petitions that have been presented thus

far, and I understand there are many more to come, represent a concern in our

Province about the ability of children who have improper diet and nutrition to

be able to properly participate in the learning experiences at school and to

enjoy the benefits of school and in fact, enjoy the benefits of a full stomach,

Mr. Speaker. It is shocking, and many people in this Province and even in this

House, do not want to hear about it, do not want to talk about the reality of

child hunger every day in the schools of our Province, in the homes of our

Province and, in particular, the young children who are affected by this and

whose ability to learn in school is affected by it as well.

Mr. Speaker, one of the groups who have taken an interest in

the dietary needs, the nutritional needs of the people of our Province, is the

Newfoundland Dietetic Association. They have recently released a report in which

they express very grave concerns about the household food problems in this

Province, and the grave difficulty of people on low income and social assistance

to be able to provide a nutritious diet for their families.

One statistic which I find quite interesting - they have

managed to do a survey and have determined that the basic cost for a basic,

nutritious food basket for a family of four, costs in St. John's, just over $120

per week, and that is taking advantages, now, of all the specials that are

available, economy packaging and all sorts of other advantages. If you shop

wisely and you are in a situation like in St. John's where you do have some

choice that is the cost in St. John's, $120 per week. That, Mr. Speaker,

represents almost 85 per cent of the basic social assistance allowance for a

family of four in this Province, 85 per cent, just to get enough food on the

table to provide a nutritious diet.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the case in St. John's, you can

imagine what the cost is in your district or in the districts of members even

far more remote than yours because of transportation costs, because of the lack

of choice and variety and the higher cost for lower volume in smaller stores.

You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, what the cost would be in more remote areas of the

Province.

One thing which I think all members in this Province will

find interesting is that the cost of food in St. John's is comparable to

Yellowknife, that people in St. John's - this is again, not going outside of St.

John's where transportation is more expensive -

In St. John's alone, the cost of food is comparable to

Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. We have some serious issues to examine

here in this Province but, Mr. Speaker, one of the means of addressing some of

these problems, is to use some of that money that the Minister of Education is

saving. He is talking in recent days about saving many millions of dollars

because of the number of school teachers who are not needed because the number

of children in our schools has gone down, and he is going to save 448 teachers;

that is going to save considerable millions of dollars. I do not know the exact

figures. I have heard the NLTA use figures in the range of $20 million.

The school bus savings, Mr. Speaker, the school consolidation

savings as well as teacher reduction savings in our education system - perhaps

the Minister of Education will address this, as to what he is going to do with

all of that money. A small proportion of that money would be all it would take,

Mr. Speaker, to guarantee a universal, comprehensive school lunch program across

the Province. What the minister has done so far is increase the cost of

education to parents by charging them for school busing in places such as St.

John's, Gander and Labrador - increasing the costs, not decreasing them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just briefly like to comment on the petition as

presented by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, an issue about which he is

obviously passionate. He has raised it on many occasions in this hon. House; and

it is an issue which I, obviously, as critic for this area, have no difficulty

in supporting.

A program such as being envisioned by the hon. member is one

that, like the previous issue in dealing with the protection of children as it

relates to school transportation, is an issue which ought to be given some

priority by this government. And, like the previous issue, it is one which

apparently continues to fall on deaf ears. One has to ask the question: How can

that be? When we have issues dealing with the security of children, or the very

issue of poverty as it relates to some 40,000 children within our Province, how

can it be that this type of issue does not have an appropriate response by the

members opposite?

I used the word `shameful' before, and I will use it again.

This is an issue which has been raised repeatedly by members on this side of the

House, in particular by my colleague to my right, and it is one which this

government has to treat seriously.

I strongly endorse the content of the petition, and it is an

area which I would ask this government to again carefully reconsider.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

on behalf of a number of people in my district, and actually outside of my

district. It is concerning the parks issue.

To make sure that we do not upset the Minister of Education -

he is pretty sticky on the wording of these petitions - I will read the

petition:

To the honourable House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the

House of Assembly to accept the following prayer.

A good job? The minister shakes his head; a good job.

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to

petition the Provincial Government, the Minister of Tourism, and the Premier, to

immediately reverse the decision to privatize the provincial parks, as they are

the people's resource.

We feel that this decision was made in haste without any

consultation with the people who own the parks, the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I have signatures on this from Fleur de Lys, St.

John's, the Goulds, Torbay, Bauline, and Flatrock.

Mr. Speaker, last Monday night, a cold winter's night, I had

approximately sixty people attend a meeting in my district in Torbay. To be

talking about parks in Newfoundland on a cold winter's night, and have sixty

people show up, I think in itself speaks volumes and volumes as to what people

want in this Province.

After the minister announced that this program or this policy

was going to take effect, I went on one of the Open Line shows and made a number

of points. There are a lot of people out there picking up on these points now,

across the Province, and it is starting to grow and grow and grow.

One of the points I made at the time was the backtracking of

this Administration on this policy. If this were a well-planned,

well-thought-out policy, of course, there would be no backtracking on it, but

within days the minister was in the media backtracking. She had stated in her

press release that they were going to privatize Middle-Cove Beach and Topsail

Beach. Now, these are federal properties, the shorelines, from my information,

and they talked about privatizing these beaches. I was one of the first to bring

that to the attention of the public and, of course, immediately the public got

onto it. The point I was making was that we have people from all over the Island

on these public beaches. They go down to Middle Cove. I am sure the Member for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi has been down to Middle Cove Beach with his rubber

boots on catching caplin. There is no doubt about it. The point I was making,

what would be the cost of just a single beach to the Province, Mr. Speaker? Very

little money!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I am getting to that. The point I was

making is that it is costing the government nothing. I fought for a couple of

years to get them down there to do some work on it, and they went down last

year, put down a bit of gravel and did the road up and whatever, probably after

ten years. Now, they are going to privatize that beach. What could they charge

for it? I do not know, not very much. They put a gate across the beach, not

costing any money at all, a couple of hundred dollars, and then anybody who

wanted to go down to Middle Cove Beach, the only access to it was down this

little narrow road and you would probably pay $1, $2, or $5 to a private

individual, probably a buddy of this Administration, who would own the park, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jeff Stirling walked around the shore -

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, he could do that, I suppose, the man

who owns the land next to him could walk to get to the beach free. There is no

doubt there, but that is beside the point. The problem is the masses, the

public, and the people in this Province who go to that beach. We have Topsail

Beach, we have Bellevue Beach, and we have other beaches, but the one I am most

familiar with is Middle Cove Beach.

Of course, the minister then got in the media, right away,

and said, no, the beaches would not be privatized, that it was a mistake in

The Evening Telegram .

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it a typographical error?

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, the minister made a statement that

The Evening Telegram made a mistake in saying that the beaches would be

privatized - Middle Cover Beach and Topsail Beach - but it was actually right in

the press release. Now, there are one of two things happening, either there was

a typographical error in the minister's release that should not have been there

and that was not properly checked, or in actual fact, it was the intention but

when the people got up against it, they backtracked. So that will tell you how

much planning and thought went into this project.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there was a review done by the department

on privatization of the parks this year, but it was recommended the officials of

the department to stay away from privatization of the parks this year because of

the Cabot celebrations. Yet, again, they ignored the recommendations of the

department, just as they ignored the recommendations of the people on

transshipment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: No leave? Mr. Speaker, the government of

the day hate to hear the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice. Does the hon. the Minister

of Justice wish to speak?

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I thought we had him. I

thought he was going to stand up and support the Member's petition. If he had

any sense he would do it. I thought we had him, Mr. Speaker, but we did not.

MR. DECKER: What is the prayer?

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like to hear it?

AN HON. MEMBER: He should have been listening.

MR. E. BYRNE: `To the hon. House of Assembly of the

Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask the House

of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to

petition the Provincial Government, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

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

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

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

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.'

Mr. Speaker, the petition is not only correct in the

Parliamentary sense, it is correct in terms of a public policy issue. The

reality is, Mr. Speaker, that when the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation on behalf of the government made the announcement on the

privatization of the parks, there was a number of reasons, good and solid, that

she put forward, in her own view, for the privatization initiative. One, she has

said publicly - she said at a press conference and she has said on numerous

occasions - that it is certainly in line with government's philosophy that it

will not jeopardize the ability of incoming tourists to be able to stay in those

parks this Summer, and that it would strengthen the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to examine some of those points.

First of all, will the parks that are privatized be ready for this tourism

season? The minister has said they will. She has offered on behalf of government

no tangible evidence to that effect. The only evidence that we have, and the

only thing we can look at to determine if those parks will be ready in time for

this tourist season - which, by the way, is the most important, according to

government, because of the upcoming Cabot celebrations - is the more recent

privatization of parks some two years ago.

Let us ask the question: Of the parks that were privatized

two years ago, did the privatization initiative take place in a timely manner, a

timely manner according to the

schedule the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation has put forward on behalf of government? that timely manner being

between now, the end of March, coming up on a new fiscal year, and the May 24th

weekend when the parks are opened. Will those parks be ready then? Two years ago

they were not. In fact, it took some nine to twelve months for the privatization

of parks two years ago, to leave government's hands on the one hand and to get

into the private sector on the other hand, and then, for the private sector to

get those parks ready for upcoming tourists. So there is no evidence whatsoever

being put forward by this minister on behalf of this government that those parks

will be ready for this tourist season, because they will not.

The other question that must be asked, and it is a

fundamental question that we must ask about this issue: Has government gone

against its own advice? In terms of program review, did the program review

process recommend that these parks be chopped, that these parks be sold off at

bargain basement prices? The answer is, all indications are that program review

said: Not during this season, that these parks should not be privatized during

this time; that it would be not only costly, bad timing in view of the Cabot

celebrations, but signalled correctly that in view of the fact of late

privatization, these parks would not be ready in time for this tourist season.

Certainly, that is an issue.

Let us talk about the minister's other statement, when she

talked about: `These parks surely will remain open.' There is no guarantee. If

the minister has any guarantee that has been provided to her by people who are

interested that all of these twenty-one parks will remain open, then I would ask

her to table it. I suspect that if she had those guarantees and if she had the

evidence to put forward that they would remain open, we would already see it.

But we have not, because the minister is not in a position to guarantee that.

She can only go as far as she can, to the greatest extent possible within the

boundaries of governing can she do that, but she cannot ultimately guarantee

that. She knows it.

Let us talk about the parks that were privatized two years

ago. How many of those parks are open today? All of them? Are they all open? All

the parks that were privatized two years ago, is every one of those parks open

today?

AN HON. MEMBER: They are.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) no, they are not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let us talk about employment, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: All the employees who were employed in

those parks two years ago, are they all working today in those parks?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: No they are not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no reason for this initiative to

proceed, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a petition to present on the privatization of

the provincial parks.

The prayer of the petition reads:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to

petition the hon. House of Assembly to voice our concerns over the government's

decision to privatize our provincial parks. We are asking the government to

immediately reverse its decision to privatize the parks, as we feel the decision

was made in haste and without consultation with the people who own the parks,

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as many of the Members of the House of Assembly

know, I have gone to a number of meetings now to consult with the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador on the privatization of the parks, to consult with the

employees of the provincial parks, to consult with people who camp in our

provincial parks - basically, in a nutshell, to consult, something that the

government has not done, something that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation has not done. The Minister of Tourism has not consulted with the

people of our Province on the privatization of our provincial parks. She made a

statement today that they have been consulting with people now for a full year.

Mr. Speaker, I did not see any meetings advertised on the consultation of the

provincial parks. I did not see any meetings advertised asking people to come

out and voice their concerns on the privatization of the provincial parks. This

decision to privatize the provincial parks was a very quick and hasty decision.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of meetings now. One of the

meetings we had was held last night, and the room was blocked. There were over

100 people in the room. The room was blocked solid - there were people standing

in the hallway. As a matter of fact, we were told there were people turned away

because the room was over-blocked. We were told that there were people turned

away and that the management of the hotel were actually considering clearing out

the room because there were too many people in the room. It was filled beyond

capacity, beyond the allowable limit accepted by the fire regulations.

Mr. Speaker, the thing here is that the Minister of Tourism

has made a number of statements that she has had to retract. She has made a

number of statements and said that people misunderstood her statements; people

made a mistake, that is not actually what she said.

Mr. Speaker, the minister made a mistake in announcing she

was going to privatize these provincial parks. There were twenty-eight parks put

up for privatization in 1995. There are only ten of those parks now still

operating. Based on that ratio of these twenty-one parks up for privatization

now, can we expect that in two to three years time there will only be seven or

eight of those operating?

Mr. Speaker, the stark reality of this whole proposal is the

fact that there is just simply not enough time for people interested in taking

over the operation of these parks to put together a proposal and to put together

financing, and to put together a staff and an operating plan, and to

successfully operate these parks to a standard that is acceptable by the people

of our Province, a standard that is commonplace in our provincial parks today.

There is just simply not enough time.

Mr. Speaker, the decision to privatize these parks was made

in haste, without any consultation with the people of the Province. It was a

rushed decision. Just days prior to the decision being made, each one of the

members of the House received information on how students in our particular

districts -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No leave.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am glad to see the Minister of Education over there

pounding his desk for me. He usually does.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place to support the petition put

forth by the Member for St. John's South on the privatization of parks in this

Province. He talked about consultation, a very good word, a word that is thrown

about a lot this day and age in politics.

We talk about this Administration during the last election,

in February of 1996, going around this Province talking about how they were

going to have consultation on this, consultation on that, consultation on

everything, and we see no consultation. We see consultations on absolutely

nothing, Mr. Speaker, from this administration.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and the Member for St. John's East

just told me what is going to happen next, they are going to have consultation

on consultation. That is what is coming down the tubes, Mr. Speaker, a lot of

wind, a lot of gas but nothing of any substance from this administration.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the parks, as we said, a

few years ago we saw a number of parks being privatized in this Province and the

whole intention then was take the money to enhance the new public park system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I know, what can I say?

And to enhance the new public park system, that was two years

ago. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have the minister coming out and they are going to

privatize so many more parks, Mr. Speaker, more parks being privatized and they

are going to save I think thirteen parks, core parks or whatever the name they

have on them. Some fancy name, Mr. Speaker, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Core it is, it depends on how they are

going to use it. So there are going to be some core parks but at the meeting

that I held last week in Torbay -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, at a meeting in Torbay one

very important point was brought up and that is this, we see this now happening

in step progression. So are we actually going to get out of the public park

system in this Province? Are we going to see someone that is coming into this

Province, Mr. Speaker, or maybe some Liberal buddy maybe? I am only asking the

question now, I am not saying it is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, but are we

going to see some Liberal buddy come in and make an unsolicited proposal to

government to take over the remaining parks in this Province -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Education wants me to keep

my voice down. Well, Mr. Speaker, we see the Minister of Education over there

nodding off when there are members up, especially when there members up on this

side speaking. So I just wanted to keep my voice up a bit to keep the minister

awake and to keep him alert so he might want to ask some questions of us on this

side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and if he asks questions to us on this side of

the House he will get answers. He won't get answers like the Minister of Health

gave last night in an interview on CBC which were non-answers, Mr. Speaker.

Today the should be Minister of Health asked a question, the Member for

Conception Bay South, the should be Minister of Health asked a question to the

Minister of Health and got no answers again, Mr. Speaker, the same old answer

all the time. It all boils back to cuts and to tell you the truth I am getting

sick and tired of hearing the word cuts and the people in the Province are

getting sick and tired of hearing the word cuts and cutting.

There are people now, Mr. Speaker - and I brought this up in

the House of Assembly two or three years ago - talking about morale. I want to

put it on record that the Minister of Education, says no cuts associated with

the budget on Thursday. Now last year, Mr. Speaker, we heard the same thing. We

heard there was no tax increases. It is all related to finances and the reason

why they are cutting the parks is because they are going to save $1.8 million.

So it is all relevant.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, the Minister of Education says the

parks will all operate. Now that is not necessarily a true statement to make. He

may think that it is a true statement but in actual fact it may not be a true

statement because we know that there were twenty-nine parks privatized two years

ago but they are not all operating today. So now we have another

twenty-something going to be privatized. So you can't tell me - you don't know

who is going to make proposals to government. Are they going to be the employees

or is it going to be some people out in the public? We don't know who is going

to be evaluating the proposals. We contacted the department and asked: are these

parks going to be privatized? The answer that was given was: well they may not

be privatized for park purposes. Now, Mr. Speaker, what does that say? What does

that mean? That is a very big statement to make. That is an all encompassing

statement. That means they may be not privatized at all, it means they may be

privatized for parks, it means they may be privatized for something other than

parks, Mr. Speaker. So therefore there is a lot of doubt out there. People in

this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: - people in this Province have major

concerns, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the privatization of parks.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 2, Committee of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Barrett): Order, please!

Shall the resolution carry?

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) now.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I rise today to speak on the Interim Supply Bill what is

referred to as the Interim Supply Bill and I am going to get immediately into

the parks issue, because the Minister of Education has requested that he wants

to hear me speak on the parks again.

Now I can get into that but before I get into the parks issue

and it is all related of course, but the question on this Interim Supply Bill,

Mr. Chairman, is that they are asking for $1,019,465,700 -

AN HON. MEMBER: `Jack', it is not enough grocery money

for the Government House Leader for three weeks.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is a wonder they don't have two cents in

there - and two cents, Mr. Chairman, because they don't have two clues to rub

together over there. This request, of us, two or three days before the Budget's

coming down, two or three days -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, $1,019,465,700 and two cents.

Mr. Chairman, someone made a comment over here that, that would not be enough to

feed the Government House Leader for a month. What? I can't believe it. No, he

does not eat that much, no way my son. Those braces straps are going to burst

any day I say to the minister.

Mr. Chairman, two or three days before the Budget comes down,

now this is approximately one-third I think, of the Budget of this Province. Why

do they need so much money at this point in time? If the Budget is coming down

in a few days, if the Budget is going to be that good, they would assume I would

imagine, Mr. Chairman, that there would be no opposition from this side of the

House, that we will agree with the Budget and it will go ahead; no problem at

all, that we would not have any questions whatsoever to ask but, that is not the

case. Obviously, if they are asking for $1 billion, they must be expecting a lot

of questions from this side of the House. They must be expecting a lot of

questions and concerns from the public out there so they know that the Budget is

not going to float automatically through the House of Assembly, and it is not

going to, I would say to members opposite, Mr. Chairman.

As I said earlier, this Premier who sits in this House today

made enormous promises during the last campaign, enormous promises, promises

that people knew he could not keep but, he rode in on the white horse, he almost

walked across the Straits. The media had him built up that much that they

believed what he was telling them in the last election and leading up to the

last election and he made promises and the one that sticks out in my mind the

most, Mr. Chairman, and has really hit home to the people of this Province, is

the fact that he said: You can't cut, cut, cut your way to prosperity.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what he said, Mr. Chairman, and the

Minister of Education over there is agreeing that is what the Premier said, and

he did. But what have we seen ever since, Mr. Chairman? We have seen people

being laid off in the civil service and that had repercussions in the private

industry. Now preacher, don't get going because I will get going on you.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, that had repercussions in private

industry. We saw people in private industry being laid off; we saw the effect

that it is having on municipalities in this Province so, it is having a chain

effect and Mr. Chairman, millions and millions of dollars have been taken away

from the municipalities. The health care - the health care in this Province and

they are asking for $1 billion - and by the way, I expect what is going to

happen in the Budget - it just popped in my mind- with this $30 million slush

fund, was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: Thirty million bucks that the government

put aside for emergencies last year, in the Budget -

AN HON. MEMBER: Slush fund.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, well that is what I referred to you

know, thirty million bucks that they could have to spend on anything without

having to come back to the House for approval, $30 million so they will come

down now in the Budget and say: Well now, Mr. Chairman, it looks better than

what we had anticipated. Oh yes, that is what they may say but, Mr. Chairman, we

have other factors too to factor in here.

The Minister of Government and Services and Lands, last year,

in the Budget, was expecting to take in $6 million on the conversion of Crown

lands, cabin lots and recreation leases and what have you and residential

grants, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tax grab.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, the Minister of Education is over

there saying that it is a tax grab and all I can do is agree with the man, he

obviously agrees with me. I have said it before. - he said it was $6 million

but, Mr. Chairman, I did the number crunching and it was $21 million and the

Minister of Government Services and Lands did not disagree with that.

He is over there now going through his satchel or whatever

the case may be looking for the facts and figures, I suppose, to see what actual

money was taken in and what percentage of application was made of the potential

that could be there.

What may be coming down the tubes is that in actual fact they

will want to stay the course and they are going to be tightening their belts. We

have to attack the deficit. The deficit is something that we have to address. To

me, I think that the people not only provincially but federally, have gone

overboard with the deficit. The deficit is used as the big bad bogeyman in this

Province and in the country. The deficit has to be attacked; we have to do this

and that because of the deficit. Every minister will stand in his or her place

and use that. If you answer questions with respect to financing or what have

you, it generally comes back to the deficit. The people in the country are

getting fed up with it, I would say, they are getting fed up with the cuts to

the transfer payments, health care, municipalities, education.

Education in itself, that was a farce, the way that has been

handled. The Minister of Education will sit in his chair and he will smile and

you get up and you will ask him a question and he will go on for ten minutes

before he finishes saying hello when you ask him the question. He will get on.

He is pretty smooth, I will give him that, he is probably the smoothest over

there when it comes to answering questions, there is no doubt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) sharp as a bowling ball.

MR. J. BYRNE: As sharp as a bowling ball but he is

smoother answering the questions. He is smooth with rolling around the answers,

Mr. Chairman. That is what he does. The bowling ball. You bowl a bowling ball;

you roll it down the alley. The Minister of Education rolls around questions. He

won't answer questions.

To get back to the seriousness of education in this Province,

what is going on? Two years ago we had a referendum. What happened? We put the

people in this Province - you had a potential to rip this Province apart like it

was done back in the 1940s when they talked about Confederation. You can see at

that point in time, two years ago, a year and a half ago, the polarisation of

the different groups in this Province. What was it all for? To do things that

could have easily been done without an amendment to the Constitution.

We are looking at busing. We had agreement on the number of

school boards, from twenty-seven down to ten, I believe. We had agreements on

the - in actual fact, we had situations within the Province that were developing

naturally with respect to the....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Give us a copy, Beaton, boy, give us a

copy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Make no wonder, yes. Mr. Chairman, that is

a bill. It is the only one, is it? The Government House Leader is over there

saying I'm the only one who held the bill in my hands when I got up to speak on

interim supply. How can anyone not hold a bill like this in their hands? I mean,

$1 billion. I find it hard to believe, I say to the Government House Leader,

that there is no one on this side who has held this bill in their hands. Because

they told me about it. I was speaking to these guys before and they told me all

about this, they knew.

Just look at the breakdown, the head of expenditures. Now,

let me see. Well, Finance, $12,034,500. That is to pay, I would say, overtime.

You got all the people working to prepare the budget, $12 million I would say.

Government Services and Lands is looking for $7,521,000. Sure, he took that much

money in extra money from the converting of the cabin leases, the Crown leases,

to grants. The Legislature, well, $2,634,100. The Public Service Commission,

$407,000. Works, Services and Transportation, $155,700,500.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: One hundred and fifty-five million for

interim supply, two or three days before the budget comes down. They know that

it is such a good budget it is going through like that; it is going to go

through in probably two or three days. So they are planning on spending $1

billion within a month or two. Wicked!

The Department of Development and Rural Renewal, $14,001,800.

That was supposed to be a department that was going to regenerate, rejuvenate,

and get rural Newfoundland going in this Province. What have we seen in this

Province with respect to rural Newfoundland? Massive out-migration, Mr.

Chairman. You drive through the communities now and you will see windows boarded

up, houses vacant and what have you, across this Province.

I've been preaching this for the past four or five years

about the resettlement program. There was an

article in the paper not long ago

that I read and it was like I should have written it. It was with respect to how

- what is the right word? Behind the scenes, how quiet, aversive I suppose, the

program is to resettle people in Newfoundland. And we are not only talking about

resettling to the major centres like St. John's, Gander, Corner Brook, Grand

Falls, and the major communities. I think there is some kind of a plan afoot,

and I don't know if these front benches are even smart enough to realize what is

on the go in the Province, but it is on the go that they want people resettled

out of this Province. There is a plan somewhere, and someone knows about it, to

resettle people out of this Province to get our numbers down.

That in itself is going to have a negative effect on the

Province because, of course, we have a Liberal administration in Ottawa that all

they want to do is cut, cut, cut, to the provinces. We have transfer payments

being cut, and if we have a smaller population we get less money in this

Province; so that, in itself, is having an adverse effect, I suppose, on the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is having an adverse effect on the

people who are putting this Budget together.

The Minister of Education says that we ran out of questions.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I just want to take a couple of minutes in

this particular debate to point out why it is that there is a continuing

confidence in the Province with respect to this particular government, and the

fact that if the people of the Province were asked to vote on this Interim

Supply Bill it would be unanimous. They would say: By all means, give them this

money and more because they have done such a good job they should have more

money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: Because basically what the people do when

they reflect upon whether or not they have confidence in a particular group that

they have elected to govern them, is they look at very non-partisan documents

like this one, The Record To Date . They like, every now and then - I have

found it in three elections so far - to have little things that they put upon

their refrigerator as score cards and report cards. I have been invited into

people's homes where they have said: Look, here is the list of promises you guys

made and the other fellows made in the last election. We have them all ticked

off, and that kind of stuff, and it is all done or all not done.

Over the years, when I was thinking about politics, I used to

go into homes and people had little lists up there from the days of the

Progressive Conservative administrations - Premier Peckford and others - and

they used to have a report card up there and there were all Xs or blanks because

there was nothing done. There were a bunch of promises made and they were either

Xed because they did not keep them, or just blanks because there was nothing

done.

Mr. Chairman, just let me give you an example of five or six

things that were referenced a year or so ago with respect to education, just as

a small example. I guess in this Interim Supply we are asking for the money for

education again in the tune of $219 million for about one-third of the year, so

we certainly expect to spend a lot more than that in a full year, and people

think we should. As a matter of fact, I believe the members opposite have been

crying out that we spend more. They would like, I am sure, if they were to

rearrange this sheet, if they were ever to become the government, they would

probably put more in education and less in some other places.

In fact, if you look at a few of the specific statements made

just over a year or so ago when there was a campaign in the Province about who

should be given a vote of confidence to run the affairs of the Province for the

next four years or so, it talked on education about the fact that people had

already spoken in a referendum and that education reform will proceed.

Here we are, just over a year later - as a matter of fact the

group opposite exercised some really good judgement before Christmas and

unanimously agreed with the government in terms of bringing in the new Schools

Act, the new Education Act, and going forward with the changes in education

based upon the referendum, based upon the new constitution that passed through

the Parliament of Canada, and the group opposite even gave us three or four

really good recommendations that we incorporated into the new act because the

Opposition critic took the time to seriously examine the bill, and we

incorporated a number of issues in there.

So the people of the Province know that education reform is

very well under way, very close to full implementation, and we have all been

reaching a target and stretching and striving to reach a target that says before

we leave school this year in June people will know what kinds of schools and how

many will be open in September. So there is a little bit of work left to do but

with the support of the Opposition we know that the people of the Province will

give full marks that anybody who has their little report card or their little

check list up on their refrigerator they have absolutely marked a tick in that

block saying it was a promise. Was it kept? Absolutely, done! Not in a four year

term, not in a three-and-a-half year term, not in a five year term, almost

instantaneously. If they were asked then would they vote $219 million to the

Department of Education for Interim Supply, the answer would be unanimous,

unquestioned, absolutely, do it and give them even more.

Then, Mr. Chairman, we talked about in the campaign a year

ago in the red book, as it was called, compared to the blue book that talked

about opening up fish plants and all those kinds of things and a few other

things of that nature, then it said that we are committed, the government would

be committed to dialogue and discussion on all elements of implementing

education reform before decisions are made and we did that, Mr. Chairman, in

spades. The group opposite was involved with us in lobbying in Ottawa. We

travelled around the Province, had probably the most sense of - arranged and

series of public meetings held on any issue in the Province and came forward

with the changes that the members opposite participated in and gave us unanimous

support for before Christmas dealing with the education legislation that came as

a result of that dialogue.

Mr. Chairman, members opposite get up from time to time and

they will talk about an issue now like the parks for example, and they say: done

without any kind of discussion. Big surprise! The issue about privatization and

running parks through the private sector instead of running them through

government has been in the Strategic Economic Plan of the government for over

five years. The Strategic Economic Plan was developed through the most extensive

public consultation ever undertaken in the history of the Province. It states

right in there because as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago

we did the first phase where we took ten or fifteen, we offered them to the

private sector, they are still running and now we are at Phase II. We are

implementing the Strategic Economic Plan which was in fact arrived at, at the

urging of the people of the Province and we have heard from the Opposition. We

have heard from the great infiltrator of the open line programs that works full

time for members opposite as a researcher in disguise -

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: If I could ask the hon. Minister of

Education that if he gets a chance, while he is waxing eloquent here before all

members of the House, to elaborate somewhat on what the people in his area think

about the eighty-eight teacher positions that are going to be eliminated from

his area of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, talk about.

CHAIR: No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to the parks issue, we are at the second stage

of implementation and we have heard from, as I indicated, the open line queen

who also gets paid full time to be a researcher for the Leader of the Opposition

because he can't do any researches himself. He knows nothing. He pretends in the

House he knows everything about everything so he had to hire the queen of the

open line to come in and do some research for him so that he could get on with

some gossip and speculation the same as they do on the open line shows. Mr.

Chairman, if the researchers actually looked at the public consultation and the

development of the Strategic Economic Plan, private/public partnering and

privatization in the provincial parks - we did Phase I a couple of years ago

because that was the direction that was urged upon the government, Mr. Chairman,

by the people of the Province. We didn't go out and say: we want to privatize,

we want to do this. The people of the Province, Mr. Chairman, came forward and

said: Stop doing that government. You don't need to do that. We want to do this.

We want to run some parks because we think we can do it better.

Mr. Chairman, everybody should take a lot of comfort in the

fact that these parks will be operating this summer. There will be all kinds of

things available to the hundreds and thousands of additional visitors that we

will have in Newfoundland and Labrador and we have heard from the people who

unfortunately think they might be out of a job. They are overstating the case

because most of them, Mr. Chairman, will in fact be accommodated somewhere in

the system.

In fact, back to the education issue, Mr. Chairman, where in

Interim Supply the point I was making that for $219 million in Interim Supply,

if you could get outside the partisan political debate in this Chamber the

people of the Province would say don't vote $219 million, make it $419 million,

make it $819 million. Spend some more money on education. The members opposite,

Mr. Chairman, in fact the critic for education, the hon. member has been up on

his feet several times in this House saying: The people want you to spend more

money in education.

There would be no doubt that based upon, as I indicated, this

very non-partisan accounting of what has happened in just one short year, and

taking education as an example, that the people of the Province would clearly

check off the items and say: Well done, government. It didn't take you four

years; it didn't take you five years. In one short year you have done what you

said you would do. You are well on the course to delivering upon the commitments

made during the campaign.

The notion that there would be no new school viability rules

for September 1996 -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: - didn't happen, Mr. Chairman.

By leave, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The Chair is well aware of the hon. the Member for

St. John's South standing, but the Chair is not going to recognize him until

there is some semblance of order in the House.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad the

Minister of Education got up and entertained us for ten minutes. In 1995

Minister Roger Grimes on March 7 stated that: Government is committed to

protecting and preserving the Province's most important natural areas that have

been selected to represent the ecological diversity of our Province.

At that time those parks identified to remain in the system

were done so under the direction of the 1995 task force. I wonder now has the

ecological significance of these areas changed in two short years. Has the

Province decided that the wise words of the then-minister Roger Grimes have

changed in two years?

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

I remind hon. members that they are supposed to refer to

members by districts and ministers by portfolios.

MR. OSBORNE: The Minister of Education who was then the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, I do believe.

Maintaining a world class and nationally awarded provincial

park system is the responsibility of everybody in this Province, Mr. Chairman.

By privatising these provincial parks we are putting these parks in the hands of

private individuals, and we are probably unable to ensure and guarantee, with

the same level of confidence, that these parks will be protected in the manner

that they are today. There is evidence of that with the provincial parks that

have been privatised in the past. We all know of reports of trees being cut in

the outlying areas of those parks and so on that probably would never have been

done if those parks had remained in the provincial park system.

The first park put into the provincial park service was on

February 27 1954, the Sir Richard Squires Memorial Park. From that day up to

1995 our Province worked vigorously to put in place a park system; so much so

that in 1987 we received the F.P.P.C award for provincial park systems, a

nationally credited award. After forty-five years of dedication to acquire,

protect and maintain these unique lands it was almost eliminated in 1995 with

the privatisation of twenty-eight parks, and further decimated just last month

with the privatisation of another twenty-one parks.

Whose hands are these parks going to go into? Are these parks

already assigned, to give such short notice to have somebody put in place a plan

and financing and staff, an operating plan for these parks? Do these parks

already have special people assigned to take them over? Are we going to find out

that they are probably friends or associates of members of the House?

Mr. Chairman, in the provincial park review, or the

department review on provincial parks, the minister's own department states that

the provincial parks provide high quality outdoor recreation opportunities in a

safe and environmentally secure manner. In addition, provincial parks are

legislatively protected and policy-driven to ensure that they provide the

highest level of service for the nature-seeking tourist. Mr. Chairman, if these

parks go into private hands, will the operation of the parks remain

policy-driven? While the land will remain Crown land, can we ensure that it will

have the same level of protection that they do under the provincial parks

system?

Mr. Chairman, I have mentioned in this House and at a number

of public meetings that there are $150 million generated by nature and eco

tourists that come from outside our Province. In addition to that, there is

another $300 million in tourist-generated money from resident tourists as a

direct or indirect result of our provincial parks. While the minister states

that these parks will remain open, and that this money will continue to be

generated as a result of these parks, based on the past performance of the

government, twenty-eight parks were put up for privatization in 1995 and ten of

them are still operating. Mr. Chairman, of the twenty-one that are being put up

for privatization today, can we expect seven or eight to remain open in two or

three years time?

There are a number of communities in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador that are struggling to survive, Mr. Chairman, hanging on by a thread.

And the convenience stores, the service stations, the mini-marts, and the

taverns in these communities where the provincial parks are operating depend

upon the operation of these provincial parks to remain in business. Without

migration in our Province and a downward trend in the economy of Newfoundland

and Labrador, these communities depend on the provincial parks to survive. Many

of the businesses in these communities survive only because the provincial parks

are there and attract visitors on an annual basis. Without those visitors these

businesses would probably close.

We have to look at the overall picture here, not just the

fact that there are ninety-two people going to lose their jobs when the

provincial parks are privatized. We have to look at the overall picture. How are

the communities going to be affected? How many businesses are going to shut down

because the provincial park is no longer operating in that community? The

minister states that these parks are going to continue to operate as private

parks. Whoop-de- do! I say whoop-de-do, Mr. Chairman.

In the minister's own report, she states that the standards

of provincial parks tend to be higher than that of the private sector

equivalent. They state that many of the private park operators are experiencing

financial difficulties, and they either do not have the funding or the desire to

keep the standards of the private parks at the same levels that are commonplace

and expected in our provincial park system.

The fact of the matter is, the provincial parks provide a

higher quality facility, for the most part, than private park operators. Now,

there are exceptions to that rule, and some of the private parks no doubt

operate at a very high standard.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just another

fifteen minutes or so to clue up.

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter here is that the

provincial government has stated, in their own program review, that the private

parks do not operate at the same standard at which provincial parks operate.

Now, all of a sudden, miraculously, the minister, in her

wisdom or lack thereof, has decided that the private operators are the way to

go, that private operators - all of a sudden, even though on September 27, 1996,

her department said that the private operators do not have the financial ability

or the desire to operate the parks at the same standard that is commonplace in

the provincial park system, that is all of a sudden changed. Now she is singing

a different tune because she has a different agenda.

That is the bottom line. That is the stark reality here. Her

department is singing a different tune because the minister has given the

directive that she has a different agenda and she now wants these parks

privatized. What that agenda is, we do not know. It certainly cannot be to save

$1.8 million, because there is $450 million a year generated as a direct or

indirect result of the provincial park system. So her argument that by

privatizing these parks it is going to save $1.8 million is baloney. It is

hogwash.

I am probably safe in saying that I, for one, do not believe

it. I, for one, think that it is a lie. I am probably safe in saying that is

parliamentary acceptable, because that is what I believe. It is unacceptable. It

is absurd that the minister can pull out her calculator and say that while the

parks are generating $450 million, if we privatize them and they operate at a

lower standard we are going to save $1.8 million. What about the revenue that is

generated through these parks to our Province? Are we going to continue to

receive the same revenue? Is the same level of revenue, $450 million a year,

going to be generated to our Province when these parks are operated at a lower

standard? Because that is essentially what the minister is telling us.

I am not sure if she feels that we, as members of the

Opposition, are naive. I am not sure if she feels that the general public is

naive. Perhaps she feels that the park workers themselves are naive, because I

can assure you that if the parks are not operated at the same standard at which

provincial parks are operated - and I, for one, frequent the provincial parks. I

enjoy visiting the provincial parks, and I do so on a number of occasions each

and every year. I can guarantee you that if those parks are not operated at the

same standard, that I probably will not be visiting those particular parks, and

there are many, many people who would feel the same way. Now, that is a logical

conclusion.

The convenience stores, mini-marts, service stations, taverns

and so on in small communities with very small populations, that are affected

seriously by out-migration and the downward trend in the economy, you will see

these businesses fold and go out of business. And not only are you putting at

risk the $450 million that we are taking in, in revenue generated because of the

park system, you are risking employment losses through businesses in these

communities; you are risking tax-generated revenue from these businesses; you

are risking further out-migration because of the staggering unemployment rate in

the Province. Mr. Chairman, the minister should be ashamed. Cabinet should be

ashamed to have her in Cabinet and the Liberal caucus should be ashamed to have

her in caucus. Mr. Chairman, the point of the matter here is that this is an

absurd, ridiculous, outrageous decision that is enraging the people of our

Province.

MR. H. HODDER: What did the people of Grand Falls have to

say?

MR. OSBORNE: The people of Grand Falls were tormented,

frustrated and insulted by the fact that the people in this House - that the

minister's department has chosen to close or privatize these provincial parks.

MR. H. HODDER: Did the member come out to your meeting

last night?

MR. OSBORNE: No. There was neither member, and that is

another issue here. Where are the backbenchers? Where are the Liberal members

who have parks closing in their districts? Why are they not speaking out? Why

are the Liberal members who have parks in these particular areas that are

closing, not speaking out? Are they prepared to consult with the residents of

their districts, with their constituents? Because we have not seen it yet.

Mr. Chairman, we have not seen it yet. We have seen

absolutely no consultation at all from the other side of the House on the

provincial parks issue, and I should submit a bill to the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation and ask for reimbursement for doing her job because I am

the only one who is consulting with the people of the Province. Mr. Chairman,

the program review here states that: revenue that is generated to the Province

that is a direct or indirect result of the provincial parks program, make the

program affordable.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Bay Roberts in the morning.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and we have a meeting in

Bay Roberts tomorrow night. We have another meeting on the 23rd in Corner Brook.

I have been asked to hold a meeting in Placentia and I have been asked to hold a

meeting in the minister's own district.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to give the minister herself

the opportunity, so that I do not completely embarrass her the way she has

embarrassed and insulted the people of our Province - I am going to give her the

opportunity to hold a meeting in her own district, and if she does not, I will.

Mr. Chairman, if she does not hold a meeting in her own district to consult with

the people of her district - the very least she can do is to consult with the

people of her district and if she does not do that, I will.

Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no question about it.

Throughout this program review, there is very strong evidence to show that these

provincial parks should remain open as provincial parks, that the standards of

privately operated parks, for the most part - not in every case, but for the

most part - do not meet the standards of provincial parks. Mr. Chairman, of the

twenty-eight parks that were removed from the system in 1995, there are ten

still in operation today, and the stark reality of it is that only six of those

parks are operated by individual entrepreneurs.

The minister has asked: Where is your entrepreneurial spirit?

Is there something wrong with being an entrepreneur now? When there are only six

entrepreneurs ready, willing and able to take over twenty-eight parks and there

are only ten of those still in operation, one has to seriously question why that

decision was made. Now, we can understand, perhaps, the fact that the decision

was made in the first place on twenty-eight parks, but the minister has

obviously not learned from the mistakes that her government has made in the

past. It was only two short years ago that they made that mistake, and there are

only ten parks still operating, and now they are putting another twenty-one

parks on the line.

Mr. Chairman, unless there is an agenda here that the people

of our Province cannot clearly see, this decision does not make sense. Of the

twenty-one parks that are going up for privatisation I have to ask, I have to

wonder, how many of those are going to go the way that so many other of our

natural resources have gone in the recent past, to strong Liberal friends of the

party. How many of those parks are going that way?

The minister stated on an open line program to a caller who

asked the question: What happens if somebody takes over a park and decides they

want to start cutting down trees - do you know what the minister's response was?

Not only is the government out to lunch, I think the minister is out to lunch.

The minister said: Under the lease they sign they can't cut down trees, but they

can reapply to do so. Are we all dummies? I don't think so. Are the people of

the Province dummies? I don't think so. The minister is out to lunch! That is

the reality here. If there is any dummy here, I won't say who it is, but we can

all guess.

The Program Review states that the provincial park system has

become an integral part of the outdoor, recreational and tourism sector of the

provincial economy. Many provincial parks are considered by rural

Newfoundlanders to be part of their community, providing a venue for social

gatherings and nature enjoyment. Over the past years Newfoundlanders have come

to expect a level of facility development and programs which are comparable to

anywhere in the nation and that hasn't happened.

In 1995 the government came out with its Budget and said that

because of the twenty-eight parks that were being cut from the system it was

going to reinvest into the existing parks $1 million a year over a five-year

period. This is two years ago, keep in mind; a million dollars a year over the

next five years. It did so in 1996. I'm not going to say it lied, but it didn't

do it in - I'm sorry. It did so in 1995. I'm not going to say it lied, but it

didn't keep its promise in 1996. It only put $500,000 in. It is now 1997, two

years later, and I'm not going to say it lied in 1995, but it has scrapped the

program completely now. It is no longer putting $1 million a year in, not even

$500,000. It has wiped it out.

Along with wiping out that program, $1 million a year, which

was supposed to bring up the level of development of our provincial parks, which

would in turn increase the visitorship of these parks by having washroom

facilities and shower facilities, which are only in a select few of the parks

today, if it had invested this $1 million a year into our parks the visitorship

of these parks would be up. Because there would be washroom facilities, there

would be shower facilities. Tourists coming to our Province would further

consider visiting the other provincial parks that presently do not have these

facilities.

Not only has the minister insulted the people of our Province

by wiping clear the promise that they made in 1995, by eliminating that program

to invest into our Province, to invest into our provincial parks, to enhance our

provincial parks, she has further decimated the provincial parks and insulted

the people of our Province by taking twenty-one more of our provincial parks out

of the system.

Now she will stand in her place and proudly boast that we

have three core parks and ten camping facilities. Again, whoop-de-do! There is

less than one-quarter of the provincial parks going to be in our system as

compared to what was there three or four years ago. This Province is going

backwards in protecting our ecological areas, in protecting our provincial

parks, and in enhancing our tourism.

Mr. Chairman, tourism is outlined as one of the major

industries in the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. One would think, based on

the 1995 Budget, that this government would keep its promise, that this

government would invest a million dollars a year into our provincial parks,

considering our pristine environment, considering our ecological areas,

considering the fact that many of the tourists who come to Newfoundland and

Labrador come here specifically to see our natural areas, one would think they

would have kept that promise and reinvested and redirected money back into our

provincial parks to enhance our tourism industry; but no, we cannot count on

that. We cannot count on the Minister of Tourism at all. The only thing we can

count on her to do is to tell us how proud we should be that she is cutting our

system away.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is shameful.

MR. OSBORNE: It is shameful. It is unbelie