March 24,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 7

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

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

I would like to inform members of this House that a Labour

of Newfoundland and Labrador was signed about an hour ago in Ottawa by Prime

Minister Chrtien and Premier Tobin. This agreement will provide $308 million

over the next three years for active employment benefits and measures and

partnership initiatives with community-based organizations.

The new federal-provincial partnership is the first

co-management agreement in the country and will help unemployed workers in this

Province find jobs or acquire the skills necessary for employment. This

initiative complements the philosophy of our new Department of Human Resources

and Employment which was established in last week's Budget. We cannot go wrong

in helping people maximize their full potential, Mr. Speaker.

This agreement will mean national employment programs will be

redesigned and tailored to meet the needs, circumstances and priorities of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As a full partner with the Federal Government,

we will have an equal role to play in the design of, and the decision-making and

management of federal employment programs resulting from Employment Insurance

reform. This way, we can identify our priorities so that they will also

complement our provincial programs.

We are embarking, Mr. Speaker, on a new philosophy that

loudly sends the message that Newfoundland is open for business. This is no

longer about training for the sake of training but about training to find

meaningful work. This is about telling big business and all employers, we must

manage these programs in a way which will support regional economic development

in all of the economic zones in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are making the choices necessary to manage

change. Our greatest resource is our people. People need jobs but they also need

the skills required by employers in today's economy. We must provide support to

people in a more active way to make sure they have the skills they need to meet

the challenges of today's labour market. Government will act as a bridge between

the people of our Province and the business and the workforce sectors.

Through the establishment of our new Department of Human

Resources and Employment and through the partnership we have joined today with

the signing of this Labour Market Development Agreement, it will be easier for

unemployed workers to access labour market services tailored to meet their

specific needs and objectives with an action plan to return to employment.

Newfoundland and Labrador is a small Province. This puts us in an even better

position to be adaptable and swift in turning our workforce around to meet the

identified needs of employers.

Mr. Speaker, we are saying to Industry and Business that if

you make the investment in Newfoundland and Labrador, we will train the

workforce to do the job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If we do not have the existing trained

workforce, then we will train people to meet your needs. This, Mr. Speaker, is

about matching skills with identified needs.

This agreement will mean reduced overlap and duplication of

employment services delivered by the Federal and Provincial Governments. The

result will be a more effective and efficient delivery and operation of labour

market programs and services for people throughout the Province.

Newfoundland and Labrador are working together in a way which will better serve

the people of this Province. With a bright future ahead in this Province, we

have to adapt and prepare for the future by offering people the opportunities

they need to prepare themselves.

Our co-operative approach will allow people to develop the

skills that they want to direct their own lives and their own futures. It will

help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians find jobs and become active participants

in the economy of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, the minister is announcing a $308-million program, a

program of December 1, 1995 when the Premier was our federal minister - and I

have the documents here and the back-up papers and I will tell the minister

exactly what is in each of the three years. Before I start, I will tell the

minister, year one of that program $85,837,000; year two, $106,319,000; third

year, $115,799,000. No wonder the Premier has gone to Ottawa when he dumped the

program on us that saw EI benefits reduced from $1 billion to $500 million and

they are going to re-invest $308 million over three years, $100 million a year?

This very program, I say to the minister, was announced a year-and-a-half ago,

and out of the transitional job-training program, was $300 million and this

Province has dragged its feet on the skills, loans and grants and students have

not been able to continue in school because this government did not move to do

something about it.

Now, the Premier, to do damage control - the minister who

delivered this program - is trying to put a public relations spin on something

that was announced a year-and-a-half ago and on which I gave the minister the

very figures that are going to be used in this program.

This very booklet said here on December 1 1995: The EI

program will respect provincial responsibility for labour market training and

education and will reduce overlap and duplication within provinces. And she has

the audacity to say it is the first province in Canada in a co-management

agreement. There are provinces that are managing it themselves. Quebec runs its

labour market program it has been looking for, and the minister - an

announcement that was made a year-and-a-half ago, it is like the economic

renewal agreement in this year's Budget, last year's and 1995 was announced

again. How much more mileage is the Premier trying to get out of something in

which he inflicted a loss of $500 million to this Province?

We were told we were going to get $120 million a year out of

that $800 million that is going to be reinvested. Now we are only getting a

little over $100 million a year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: - a province that has lost half-a-billion

dollars. It is shameful. It is a year-and-a-half late - we knew it a

year-and-a-half ago - and they get up and try to pretend it is something new.

There is not one new step, Mr. Speaker, in this. It is the same basic program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suspect the minister must have been in Corner Brook last

week because this looks like a part of `Snow Job 1997'. We have before us what

appears to be a small fraction of the money that was lost to this Province when

unemployment insurance was changed. The money taken out of income support is now

going into training. Is this, I ask, the price that this government paid and

that Newfoundlanders are paying for failing to take on the feds when they gutted

the UI program, and the `silent seven' from this Province voted for it?

There are an awful lot of questions about this program. When

they start co-ordinating this with this minister's idea of social policy, will

we be seeing it like TAGS, income support on social assistance being only

available to those who take on a training program offered by this government's

department? This is the kind of question that this raises here. The monies

involved is a fraction of what is being lost, and is a part of this government's

attempt to convince the people of this Province that less is, in fact, more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board. The minister has suggested to the people of this Province that

we have a three year budget. The minister stated we have a three year budget and

a three year plan. Now I read the documentation tabled by the minister and found

one double-sided page in this entire budget. I ask the minister, is that your

three year budget plan?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, what is contained in the Budget

document are several things, one is there are gross expenditures for government

with the revenues and we have net spending figures. We are indicating a reducing

deficit position over the next two years leading to a balance in the third year.

As well, we have a table in the Budget document that sets forth the anticipated

expenditures on a departmental basis over the next three years as well. My eye

sight is not as good as the hon. member's, assisted by glasses, but I assume

that that is the table he is referring to. I can't see the figures from this

side of the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It shows in Appendix I, two pages, one double-sided sheet. I

ask the minister, now where are the justifications for the numbers that are

included on those two pages?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, numbers don't have

justifications. What we have done in the Budget -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, numbers are numbers. The numbers

are set forth on a departmental basis the same as in the estimates of every

budget that the government presents. I challenge the member to look at any

budget that sets forth the numbers for each department and find a written

justification for those. The numbers speak in and of themselves, Mr. Speaker.

The truth is in the numbers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, what an admission, I say, what an admission. There is no

justification for his numbers and that is exactly what we advocate.

Now, minister, in your Budget documentation on page 23 of the

economy, you showed a diagram relating to anticipated economic growth or

economic decline. Now the Scotia Bank - that's on page 23 - the TD Bank, the

Bank of Montreal, the Conference Board of Canada and the Royal Bank along with

noted economists are predicting growth. I ask the minister, the government and

its banker, the CIBC are alone predicting decline. I ask the minister, why are

you cooking the books?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We can do a more detailed forecast, Mr. Speaker, than any of

the banks. The Bank of Commerce by-and-large, being the Province's banker has

fairly in-depth knowledge of our provincial economy. What the hon. member will

find is that the projection of the national banks, the Conference Board of

Canada and the others, is more tied to national trends than provincial

realities. That is why one sees a difference between the different estimates, or

among the different estimates of the chartered banks in the country.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Those people last year predicted different growth, and they

were right. This government was wrong in its predicted growth last year, I say.

Maybe we should start listening to other people.

In the minister's little diagram here on page 23 it says the

economy will contract because of ongoing government restraint. Is the minister

willing to admit to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that the economic problems

forecast causing such grief, department cutbacks and lay-offs, are a fabrication

of this government?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course not! What the member will find from year to year is

that our forecasts as to the economy are much more accurate than any other

predictors in the country. What happens is that from year to year there are

changes because different things happen.

As the hon. member knows, the Hibernia construction over the

past several years has been the main contributor to the Province's economy. This

year, because of faults with the work completed in Korea, there was an

additional eight months' work that charged back into the economy about $50

million a month, if my memory serves me correctly. Actually, that may be an

overstatement; it may be closer to twenty-four.

We had about 4,000 or 5,000 people working at an average of

$70,000 per job, so the difference from year to year - given the fact that we

monitor it much more closely than many other economic groups in the country -

can be accounted for very easily, and actually we have done that in the past

year.

This year we hope we are wrong, but I would be surprised if

we were so. We could certainly go on operating the Province as the hon. member's

colleagues did for many years, and add $200 million a year to the deficit,

continually increase taxes, but we have decided that the way to manage this

Province is to do it prudently, to follow our own advice, our own analyses and

our own heads. The hon. member may have a different approach.

One can certainly not charge ahead spending money when every

economic indicator is that your economy will be in decline and you will have

less money to spend. We prefer to take the prudent course. We would rather, at

the end of the year, have improved on our budget position rather than having to

always revise it, as has been the practice over the memorable past.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For a government that has missed their projections seven of

the last eight years, I would start to be worried, and try to start to believe

who really is telling us the truth.

Isn't it true that the real Premier of the Province, Premier

Malcolm, wants an economic crisis here in the Province? Mr. artificial

privatization, wants an excuse to sell this Province off for a buck.

Now in order to accomplish this, Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians must feel poor, so lay people off, cut departments, scream

recession, everybody is afraid, nobody wants to spend and then what? I ask the

minister: Isn't this all a part of Premier Malcolm's planning and the real

Premier to make Atlantica the one union?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: The hon. member's problem obviously is that he

can't stand success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: This government, Mr. Speaker, has met and

exceeded budgetary targets in each of the last few years. The year before last I

became minister in August, and at that time, in the fall, we faced revenue

shortfalls of $70 million. In six months we turned that around and showed closer

to a $10-million surplus. Not only did we meet the shortfall we exceeded the

original budget by almost $10 million. This year again, Mr. Speaker, there was a

$44.08 million deficit forecast, we exceeded that by almost $15 million while at

the same time making very substantial and strategic investments in education and

health care which I am sure the hon. member would appreciate although he may say

otherwise from time to time.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, last year we exceeded our

budgetary targets by $130 million and chose a substantial amount of that money

to re-invest in the economy, to assist our municipalities through a variety of

measures, paying down debt and to assist our school boards. If the hon. member

thinks that is a wrong way to proceed, I would like his alternative put to the

people of the Province at some point in the near future.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, what the minister said, is not true at all. In

fact, he borrowed $15 million out of the $30 million contingency reserve fund.

We would have borrowed $15 million without it and we ended up borrowing almost

thirty so we dug into the contingency reserve fund $15 million, in which this

minister and the Premier said, they would bring those expenditures to the House

to have them approved but that was not done.

Now the minister is concerned that every two years - the

Liberals say we would be rich in two years time. Now it started back in 1949 I

believe, and it continued again in 1989 every two years. Now I suggest to the

minister, if he were being truthful and wanted all of us to be rich -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, where all of us want to

be rich, where we can all buy a park of two, I ask the minister now: what is he

doing to ensure that we get royalties from Voisey's Bay? It is not there.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's approach

at least is consistent even if his issues change from time to time. Last year,

during the provincial election we heard much ado by his party about the fact

that deals had been cut, and there would be no smelter and refinery in the

Province, that there would be no transshipment centre. Mr. Speaker, all that has

come to fruition and has transpired.

The people of the Province can be assured that this

government will insist upon and receive from Voisey's Bay, from the offshore

exploration, from the whole resource sector, a full, fair and substantial return

from all of these assets of the Province. We believe that there is room in this

Province for a business growth, and there is also room for growth in provincial

government revenues to redistribute the wealth, and that will be done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You have heard our

concerns on cooking the books. Now I want to ask the question to the Minister of

Health. I held out hope for the integrity of government, but the Minister of

Health shattered that, my feelings of good faith, on Thursday after the Budget

Speech. After reading the Budget, and as the minister was leaving outside this

House here, side by side with the real premier, `Premier Malcolm,' he said: A

crafty piece of work, my son, your fingerprints are all over it. I ask the

minister: What did he mean by that statement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would say to the

hon. member he shouldn't believe anything he hears and only about half he sees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government

talks about the largest and most advanced smelter and refinery in the world. It

talks about a state-of-the-art transshipment facility. My question today is for

the Minister of Education. Why does this minister continue to boast about a low

pupil-teacher ratio when many classrooms, particularly in the more urban parts

of our Province, have some thirty to thirty-five students in those classrooms?

With the resources which we have in this Province there is no excuse for any

single classroom in this day and age to have that many students in those

classrooms. When is this minister going to provide the best and most advanced

system of education for our children, who are truly the owners and beneficiaries

of Voisey's Bay?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad to see the

hon. member is truly interested in the education system because it is extremely

important to all of us.

It still remains a fact, regardless of what the hon. member

asks by way of a question here in the Legislature or what anybody else would

purport to say, the reality of the circumstance right now in Newfoundland and

Labrador is that we provide a professionally trained educator for every 14.8

students in the Province. There is just one jurisdiction that provides on a

better ratio than that, which is in Quebec. The national average is one trained

professional educator for every 15.4 students in the Province.

With respect to Alberta, that we hope to emulate at some

point in the not too distant future with respect to monies to spend on our

programs like health care and education, it provides a professionally trained

educator for every 17.9 students in the Province. In fact, if we were in Alberta

and it had the same student population as we have in Newfoundland and Labrador,

106,000 students, it would have 1,243 less teachers teaching them than we do in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

So there is quite an effort being made here. There are

reasons for it, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to conclude his answer, please.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are reasons why we

have a low pupil-teacher ratio, and there is a good reason why it is still the

second-lowest in the country, and we will commit to trying to maintain those

kinds of levels in the future, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Despite the spin

and despite the minister's

interpretation of those statistics, the fact remains

in many classrooms in the urban parts of this Province today there are thirty to

thirty-five students in those classrooms. So I say to the minister, how is it

possible that these stats - that he in fact maintains - is the situation in this

Province today? How do these stats reveal what in fact is the situation today?

It just doesn't work. Mr. Speaker, education should not be based on economic

means and on the means of a family's wealth. To carry on with this atrocity, Mr.

Speaker, the government now wants to stamp the foreheads of our children. It

would like to separate the poor children and have them tutored by those, the

minister says, are in their own economic level. Why in this rich Province, Mr.

Speaker, are the children only having tutoring provided for by the taxpayers if

the children are poor? Why, Mr. Speaker, are the only ones tutoring under this

program the poor students? Where is the minister's sensitivity and how can he

permit such a program to be implemented in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I might, sort of this time around, copy a page from

the tactics of the Opposition because I do believe I will get copies of that

question and send it to the households of Newfoundland and Labrador because they

won't believe they heard it for starters. They will not believe that they just

heard that presented as a serious question. We understand, Mr. Speaker -

MR. E. BYRNE: Stand up and say it (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: We understand and the people of the Province

understand - we understand, Mr. Speaker, and we do know that the people of the

Province understand, from the public consultation that we undertook, that

parents know that there is no direct relationship between a pupil/teacher ratio

and class size. They knew that at the meetings. They understood perfectly well

while the statistics on pupil/teacher ratio were presented. Nobody is purporting

that it means the class size, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite knows the

difference and it is not the matter of most of the classes are like that. Yes,

there are some classes with thirty and thirty-five students in them and yes, Mr.

Speaker, there are some classes with five and six and eight in them as well. Mr.

Speaker, you can have the argument both ways.

With respect to the question on tutoring - which is the one I

think I will get a copy of and send to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador -

tutoring, Mr. Speaker, has never been a paid for activity and a paid for service

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Individuals who have needed

tutoring have either paid for it themselves, Mr. Speaker, in this Province or

the teachers themselves have volunteered to provide tutoring service after

hours. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker - and I can't believe that the member of

the Opposition, the critic, is suggesting there is something wrong with it. He

is suggesting that because we are going to fund, for the first time, some money

to provide for tutoring for students of low income families who may need the

help and whose parents can't possibly afford to pay for it, like I might for my

daughter or son and child because we are going to offer a hand for the first

time ever in the Province for some children who need the service but can't

afford it, he is suggesting, Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with that. I

would like for the people of the Province to pass judgement on that question,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. minister, he is completely out of touch

with reality. Mr. Speaker, he is clearly unaware of the vulnerability and the

sensitivities of young children in our schools today who, in order to be

tutored, have to undergo and have their families undergo a means test. That is a

humiliating experience for the children of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I ask the minister, this Province is

planning to build new schools, who will staff them? He is laying off some 468

teachers. We have buildings that require improvements. We have overcrowded

classrooms. Does this minister, I ask in terms of the department that he is

supposed to be running, does he know what he is doing? When will the schools and

the children in this Province get their entitlement from our resources?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the comment as well with respect to being out of

touch because it is clear that the hon. Opposition critic does not understand

how we deal with people from low income families and people on social assistance

in the school system where we deal with several programs already in a very

non-stigmatizing manner, so that they get textbooks with no charge and nobody in

the school knows it. We manage to do that, and the members opposite maybe do not

know that, but we have every capability in the system and the system is very

sensitive to low income families and social assistance clients, and the children

of them, because they know what can happen if the stigma gets attached.

In the education system, to the credit of the professionally

trained educators who are there, to the credit of the social workers, to the

credit of the parents, and to the credit of the children themselves, they manage

to deal with these issues in a completely non-stigmatizing manner, and the

member opposite would suggest that now we are going to add another program that

will be of value to these people who need it most in the Province, and that all

of a sudden we are not going to be able to do it except by stigmatizing and

branding the children as saying: You are from social assistance families, and

that you need this and you are going to have to be marched out in front of your

peers.

Mr. Speaker, it does not happen today; it will not happen

with this program, and I am more convinced than ever that I will have to get the

questions and send them out to the people, the public, to see (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Environment and Labour.

In the 1997 Budget, Appendix II, page 3, there is a new fee

for certificate of approval for water and wastewater systems. The charge for

service increased from zero dollars to between $200 and $1,000. Is this new fee

for the people building new homes with a well and septic system and/or a new

charge for existing home-owners who want their well-water tested?

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

Labour?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the

question.

Yes, it was a practice in the past that there was no charge

for a lot of work done by the officials. We have decided that there will be a

charge for it. I will undertake to get the details of what it will cover, and

bring it back to the member. I will get the details, because I do not have all

the details with me; but I will get the details.

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

supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My next question

obviously will not be answered by the minister because he put the new fees in

place and he doesn't know anything about them.

How much revenue is anticipated from this new fee? And how

much total revenue is expected from the eight new fees in your department?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to get the

details of exactly what the fees will cover. They will cover some of the work

that we have done in the past for permits and applications. It talks about going

to $200 to $1,000. We are talking about municipalities here, we are talking

about major businesses and so on, so I will undertake to get the details and

bring them back.

We also have the Budget Estimates coming up, and I guarantee

you that I will have all that detail for you very shortly.

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

supplementary.

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

Mr. Minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: Kevin, were you at are the Cabinet table

when those fees were (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Cape St.

Francis.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He was. I know he...

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think he was.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: The environmental management and controls

area of the Budget was decreased by $523,300. With new revenues to your

department, yet a decrease in its budget and the increased demand for EPRs and

environmental assessments for Voisey's Bay, the smelter, thirty or forty rivers

are going to be dammed, how will your department do justice environmentally to

these projects at a critical time in Newfoundland and Labrador's development?

Will there be a free-for-all for government's buddies, especially with respect

to the rivers?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: First off, Mr. Speaker, on environmental

assessment, our existing staff will be maintained and basically we will be able

to deal with, we believe, the environmental assessments for projects as they

come forward.

Right now we have twenty-three projects for power brought

forward to the Environmental Assessment Division. That is a lot of work, and we

will evaluate if we need more staff in the future; but because of the economic

development that is starting to occur in the Province because of the efforts of

this government and so on, yes, our department is going to be under pressure;

there is no doubt about that. We know we will face pressures for environmental

assessment and so on. We believe, and we are pretty sure, that we can deal with

these issues as we go, but we will be evaluating, as we go, the workload on the

department and we will take it under consideration, but we are going to deal

with the issues as they arise.

We are dealing now with the environmental assessments on a

timely basis. Companies are getting their responses as they should. We are

getting the public involved in environment assessments, so we are carrying on

work as we should, and we are dealing with the companies as we should, and the

Budget we have brought forward will ensure that we deal with it in the future.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment, AKA the Department of Social Services. In the Budget statement,

government has noted that young adults between the ages of eighteen and

twenty-one who are living with relatives will have the incomes of these

relatives assessed if they are to receive assistance from the Department of

Social Services. In effect, you have raised the definition of minors or

childhood by as many as three years. I ask the minister: How will she assess the

income levels of these other relatives, what type of means test will be used,

and whose income will be included in determining eligibility?

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

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

Yes, in this last Budget we did implement a rule whereby

eighteen- to twenty-one-year-olds who are living with their parents whose

incomes are above the social assistance rates that would include the $89, plus

the cost of the drug card into their incomes, if their incomes are actually

higher than what would be allocated on social assistance, then they will no

longer be eligible.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note, that any

single eighteen- to twenty-one-year-old child of even anyone sitting in this

House could go to the Department of Social Services and collect social

assistance. We believe, more importantly than even the amount of money, that

this measure is very important to prevent a cycle of dependency to assist people

to move on to other sorts of training like our SWASP programs, other initiatives

that we are working on, and we see it as a very positive step to address these

issues before they become chronic problems, which we believe can be prevented

through prevention programs.

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

supplementary.

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

I ask the minister: What happens to the parents of these

young people who do not agree to share the confidential information about their

income levels and the various sources? Has the minister referred this initiative

of her department to the Department of Justice for an opinion as to whether or

not people's rights under the Constitution have been compromised, or may be

compromised?

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

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

Our view is that when people come in to apply for social

assistance they sign a contract to disclose certain pieces of information. If we

know for a fact that their parents are lawyers or doctors, teachers or nurses,

or whatever, who are making more than social assistance rates, then those rates

would be considered as an offset to what this particular applicant would

receive.

Mr. Speaker, with as little money as we have, even though we

spend $250 million a year on income assistance, we believe that we need to spend

the money in the most efficient way. We need to prevent a cycle of dependency

and we believe it is a positive step in moving forward to addressing some of the

problems we face today.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: In other words, you have not referred it

for an opinion as to the constitutionality of the proposal. Repeated studies

have indicated need for the department to include young people between the ages

of sixteen and eighteen under the protection of the Child Welfare Act. On the

one hand, I see the department saying to parents and other relatives, you must

accept responsibility for eighteen- to twenty-one-year-olds. I ask the minister:

When will she be introducing legislation which will say that her department

accepts responsibility and will provide assistance to sixteen- and

eighteen-year-olds who are falling through the cracks in the system? And will

that be included in the spring's legislation?

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

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

As I have referred to previously, we are currently reviewing

our child welfare legislation. We are hoping to have that ready for the Fall

sitting of the House, and we will be putting forward a number of major changes

and recommendations to address a number of issues that have been outlined in the

Social Policy Advisory Committee, the Select Committee on Children's Interests,

the Provincial Strategy on Violence, any number of consultations. We will be

looking to address a number of those issues when that legislation comes forward.

It is being developed now with the assistance of our front-line staff at all

levels. At the appropriate time it will be brought forward to this House where

it will be adequately debated.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: It is good water, I say, Mr. Speaker. As I

look through the glass I can see clearly that this water is pure and clean. Pure

clean water is a resource that is becoming very valuable in the world today. As

we can see clearly through this glass, I say we can see clearly through the

government, a government which is delaying the establishment of a water royalty

regime.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: A government that is negligent in setting

regulations for water export. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, the minister responsible for the implementation of taxes in our

Province, when is he going to establish a royalty regime on the water exports

from our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are working on the regime

for water export. The Departments of Finance, Industry, Trade and Technology,

and Environment and Labour are working together to bring forward the regime for

taxation for water export opportunity. This government is the one that is

recognizing it as an opportunity. We are taking the time to go about looking at

the opportunity and trying to put a policy in place that will reflect what is

publicly accepted as an opportunity and then to go forward.

We have an application in that has not moved very far because

the proponent has not moved very far. We are dealing with the policy and

whenever any proponent is ready for water export, we will have it ready. It is

not a problem of delay or anything else.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We have been dealing with it and have

been looking at -

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I table the Report of the

tribunal on Salaries and Benefits of Provincial Court Judges.

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the

Annual Report 1996 of the Labour Relations Board of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

Notices of Motion

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to move the following resolution:

WHEREAS

section 28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991,

requires the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to appoint a tribunal to recommend

the salaries and benefits of the Judges and the Chief Judge of the Provincial

Court of Newfoundland; and

WHEREAS the tribunal submitted its report to the Minister of

Justice on February 21, 1997; and

WHEREAS the report has been laid before the House of Assembly

today, as required by the Act; and

WHEREAS the Act requires the House to approve or vary the

report within thirty days of its being laid before the House; and

WHEREAS government has decided to ask the House to vary the

recommendation of the report;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House vary the report on

the salaries and benefits of Provincial Court Judges as follows:

No.1: By deleting Recommendation No.1 and substituting the

following: The salaries of Provincial Court Judges be maintained at their

current level pending further consideration by the Minister of Justice and the

Chief Judge and the Judges of the Provincial Court; and

No. 2: By deleting Recommendation No. 2 and substituting the

following: The differential between the salary of the Chief Judge and the other

Judges of the Provincial Court be $5,000 so that the salary of the Chief Judge

will be at all times $5,000 higher than the salaries of the other Judges of the

Court.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has

been Given.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I wonder if, by leave of the House, we might -

it is our turn on Wednesday and I want to give members as much notice of motion

as I can on our private member's resolution, so I wonder if we might revert to

Notices of Motion so that the Member for Labrador West can move a private

member's resolution?

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it agreed that we revert to Notices of Motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo and La Poile.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

living near the Quebec/Labrador boundary have sought equal employment

opportunities for many years; and

WHEREAS there are restrictions which in the Province of

Quebec apply to the hiring of construction tradespeople from other provinces;

and

WHEREAS Quebec and Ontario have recently come to an agreement

on labour mobility between their residents;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador initiate discussions with Quebec to achieve a similar labour

mobility agreement.

Petitions

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in my place to present yet another

petition with respect to the privatization of parks in our Province and I will

read the petition for the information of the Minister of Education, because he

normally questions the wording. Yes, I say to the Minister of Human Resources

and Employment, what is your problem? Do you have a question?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No question? Okay, here it is:

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. GRIMES: How many did you have (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Enough - one is enough for us, not like you

guys, I say to the Minister of Education.

To the hon. 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:

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, as has been proven, without any consultation with the people

who own the parks, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are signatures on this paper from St.

John's, Torbay, Pouch Cove, Portugal Cove, Whiteway and other areas, Seal Cove -

from all over, Mr. Speaker.

There have been a number of these petitions presented in

locations all over the Province to this point in time, and we expect many more

to be submitted to us to be presented in the House of Assembly to speak on

behalf of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course,

the members on that side of the House who were elected to speak on behalf of the

people of the Province are refusing to do so. They are following, like a horse

with blinkers on, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, who is

following advice from some civil servant within the Administration to bring in

some revenues for the Province this year to help balance the Budget.

This situation with respect to parks is a similar situation

as what happened last year when the Minister of Government Services and Lands

brought in new regulations and forced the people of the Province who had cabins,

the people who had residential leases and commercial leases, to make application

by the end of October last year, to get a money grab. The same thing is

happening now but it is harder to get a handle on this with respect to how much

money they are going to take in.

But with respect to Crown lands last year when I stood up in

the House of Assembly and said it was going to be a potential for $21 million,

not the $6 million that was put forward by the Minister of Government Services

and Lands, $21 million was taken in. That is what helped make the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board's Budget this year look so rosy. But, in actual fact,

we even question the Budget itself and the figures in the Budget. We are

questioning if it is the true picture, if a deficit was really there.

The minister stood in his place today and referred to the

fact that there was a proposed deficit of over $40 million and they were down to

$29 million. That begs the question that is being asked by at least 1,100 people

in the civil service who are going out the door in the next three years: Why do

we have to lay off another 1,100 people within the civil service, directly? They

are talking about another 1,000 teachers, over and above the 450-odd they are

planning on laying off this year who are going out the door, and some other

1,000 individuals who are going to be retiring. So, in actual fact, we are

looking at approximately 3,000 people.

Why is it necessary, when the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board himself says that the figures in the Budget are not quite

accurate, that we are better off than he had anticipated or the projected

deficit for last year?

With respect to the parks themselves, there are some concerns

out there, and this was brought up at a meeting I attended in Torbay at the end

of February sometime, a few weeks ago, in the middle of a snowstorm. Between

fifty and sixty people who attended the meeting. What their concern was, of

course, is that these parks are going to quite possibly be sold off to the

buddies of people in government, government members. The minister has made

statements that there will be a first offer made to the workers in the parks.

I sincerely hope, if the minister does not back off - which

she should, by the way, because 97 per cent of the people we have talked to are

certainly saying that the parks should not be privatized, that there should be a

public park system. We really do not know if there will be a public park system

a year or two down the road. It all started out two years ago. They were going

to privatize X number of parks to enhance the public park system. Now, this

year, a year or two later, we have twenty-one more parks being privatized.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker. I just wish

to say that I support the people signing this petition. I am prepared to go on

continually, day after day, presenting petitions in this House on this issue as

long as the people are prepared to present them to me to be presented in this

House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am proud to stand and support my colleague's petition

against the privatization of provincial parks. In the Budget document titled

The Economy it says: "The Province... experienced significant growth in...

areas, including increased traffic on charter airlines, visits to the

world-renowned Cape St. Mary's Seabird Sanctuary...", campgrounds and so on,

which are part of the provincial park system.

We are told that the provincial parks are being privatized

because of a lack of visitorship in the parks. Yet, the Provincial Government's

own budget documents say that they have experienced significant growth in the

visitorship to campgrounds that are a part of our provincial park system. Mr.

Speaker, this is rather confusing because the minister herself has stated that

they have to privatize these parks because of the lack of visitorship.

I have stood in my place in the House, Mr. Speaker, many

times speaking to petitions against the privatization of provincial parks,

citing my reasons, which include the fact that in the Provincial Government, the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation's own program review, they state

that the standards of provincial parks are much higher than that of the average

private sector equivalent - that our parks are affordable. Mr. Speaker, our

parks are affordable because of the tourism-generated dollars as a direct or

indirect result of our provincial park system and, most importantly of all, this

year would be a bad year to experiment with the privatization of provincial

parks, being the Cabot 500 year.

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, when the Provincial Government cut

twenty-eight parks from our provincial park system, they promised to put $1

million a year over a five-year period into enhancing our existing provincial

parks. Mr. Speaker, that has not happened. In 1995, they put $1 million in. In

1996, they put $500,000 in, and in 1997 they are cutting out another twenty-one

parks. Let alone the fact they are not investing any extra money into our parks,

they are cutting out an additional twenty-one parks. Mr. Speaker, this is

absurd. Truly and clearly, Mr. Speaker, this decision is a bad decision on

behalf of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and on behalf of the

government.

Mr. Speaker, our provincial parks are the pride of our

tourism sector. Our tourism sector is supposed to be one of the most important

industries to our Province for the future growth of the economy of our Province,

and yet, in the 1997 Budget they are telling us that over the next three years,

the Budget for the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is going to be

cut from $28 million down to $16 million. Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned,

that shows very little faith in our tourism sector. It shows very, very little

initiative on behalf of government to market our tourism to the rest of the

world. If tourism is supposed to be one of the most important industries to our

provincial economy in the future, Mr. Speaker, you would think that, not only

would they not decrease the provincial budget, they would increase it.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way we can rely on the groundfish

sector of our economy nearly as much as we did in the past. We have to branch

out and look for new ways to enhance our economy, to get our people back to work

and to create jobs and employment in our Province. And cutting the tourism

budget in half over the next three years is not only a bad move, Mr. Speaker,

quite frankly, it is insulting to the tourism industry in our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is stupid.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, stupid. It is a bad move, Mr. Speaker.

We have seen our tourism sector, the tourism industry in our Province, decimated

over the past number of weeks by cutting loose from our provincial park system

twenty-one parks and seven scenic sites and by projecting that over the next

three years they are going to cut the tourism budget almost in half. Mr.

Speaker, I am happy and proud to speak in support of the people who have

presented the petitions to the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 resident in the areas of St. John's, the Goulds, Mount Pearl,

Torbay, who are petitioning the House of Assembly to direct the government to

establish a universal comprehensive school lunch program for every school in

Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and to give our children a

better chance.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of a number of petitions that I have

been asked to present in the House of Assembly by people who are concerned that

our school system is not adequately able to help large numbers of children, in

that those children are not able to learn because they are going to school

hungry. Whether it be a breakfast program or a lunch program, it is fairly

evident in this Province that there needs to be some assistance provided through

this type of program to allow children to learn.

The flagship, if you will, of this program was started in

Bishop Field school in my district some years ago, and it was developed as a

recognition of the serious problem that existed here in the city of St. John's,

and exists elsewhere in the Province of Newfoundland as well, of children who

are unable for one reason or another to come to school with a full belly. In

addition to alleviating the pain of hunger, and the embarrassment that goes with

that, the school lunch program also provides some nutrition which helps the

child's health and obviously also increases that child's chance to be able to

learn in school and participate fully in the school programs that are being

offered.

Mr. Speaker, that program also developed another feature that

I guess the Minister of Education was referring to in his response to questions

from the Member for St. John's East today. They have also developed a

stigma-free way of delivering that program so that no one knows who is providing

money to pay for school lunches, and who is obtaining the benefit of the

program, because each and every student is required to bring in an envelope from

home with either a cheque in it or a piece of paper, and no one knows who brings

in what. And the doctor's child sits down in school next to the child of someone

on social assistance, or someone whose family has lost a job, or a child of a

single parent, and they sit down together and enjoy a meal together. In fact, it

has become an accepted part of daily school life at Bishop Field school to have

this program and to have this going on.

In other places they have had breakfast clubs, and all

children come and enjoy breakfast or enjoy lunch at their school. This is a

stigma-free way of delivering this program, and I have no real problem if

everybody does not always pay, even those who can. We do not have to start

dividing people up in this Province by category. What we have to do is ensure

that those who need this kind of assistance can get it. The only way to do that,

in my view and in the view of the petitioners here, is to have a universal,

comprehensive program so that every school can take advantage of this program,

not just those who may have the infrastructure of a Kinsmen Club or a Lions

Club, or someone who is prepared to take on that project as their pet cause for

the year or for the duration.

Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to rely on charity, or on

a charity-based model, for something as important and as basic as hungry

children needing to have food to be able to learn properly in school. This is a

project, a program, which I am supporting with all the fervour and interest and

passion that I can arouse for this. It is a desperately needed program. It is a

shame to see - and teachers all over this Province will tell you that it is a

reality of life for school children today, that many school children do not have

proper meals, do not have lunch to bring to school. In fact, a couple of years

ago it was discovered that one school board -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will refer to that

a little later.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in support of the

petition by my colleague to my right, with respect to the importance and, in

fact, perhaps necessity of a school lunch program in each and every school

within our Province.

The wording of the petition, Mr. Speaker, makes it clear that

poverty and its effects are problems for many in our Province. It stipulates as

well that the situation is getting worse, and when we hear the statistics, and

look at the statistics found in the report entitled: Special Matters , a

report prepared by Dr. Patricia Canning, it was found that some 38,000 almost

40,000 children in this Province could well fit within the definition of a child

in poverty in our schools. This is an alarming statistic, Mr. Speaker, and a

statistic of which we ought to be ashamed. It is sufficient reason why the

suggestion that is being made and, of course, the prayer of the petition, ought

to be taken seriously by each and every member of this Legislature.

The petition states as well that child poverty and child

hunger are a sad reality which hurts children today and their chances for the

future in education and in life, and hungry children cannot learn. It is a known

fact, Mr. Speaker, that the ability of a child to learn and to concentrate is

directly impacted by what that child eats on a regular basis, on a daily basis,

so it is in the best interest of this Legislature and it is indeed in the best

interest of society generally, to insure that our young children are properly

nourished and have a good, reliable diet on a daily basis. This can only be done

or at least partially be done, Mr. Speaker, by making sure that the kind of

program which is being advocated by this petition, is introduced into our school

system.

The third point I wish to make, and I believe it is a very

important point, Mr. Speaker, is that, this program ensures that it is

stigma-free. In other words, children are not labelled, children are not

identified as children in need or in want, and that enhances this program. It is

a very significant factor in support of this program. Children are not being

singled out by their peers as being children who require and must rely on a

program such as this being offered in their schools. So, I strongly support the

wording of this petition, Mr. Speaker; I feel it is a program that has

significant merit, and a program and a policy which ought to be taken into

account very seriously and given the attention and the concentration that it

needs in its formulation, to ensure that the young people of our Province are

adequately protected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I wish today to rise and present a petition: `To the hon.

House of Assembly in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, humbly showeth' it says, and this

petition is commonly known now as the petition that asks the government to

institute a universal, comprehensive school lunch program for every school in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this petition, again is presented on behalf of a

great number of residents and I wanted to let hon. members know how widespread

the support is for this petition. The petition I have here today has people from

Burnt Islands, from Bonavista, Hickman's Harbour, Bryants Cove, from

Chamberlains, Corner Brook, St. Brendan's, from the Goulds, Kelligrews. Mr.

Speaker, there is such widespread support for this petition that people from all

parts of the Province are signing the petition.

I have names of people who signed here from places like Port

au Choix, from Cartwright, Labrador, from Springdale, from Bishop's Falls, from

Red Harbour on the Burin Peninsula, from Musgrave Harbour, from Mary's Harbour

in Labrador and from Corner Brook to Lawn.

Mr. Speaker, people across this Province want to see

something done about the school lunch program; they want to see something done

about hungry children. Therefore, the people who are signing this petition,

which is now being circulated Province-wide, are saying to the government: We

want more than lip service done when they are talking about child hunger and

child poverty.

Mr. Speaker, hungry children are found in every community in

this Province. There are no communities where we can say that this is not a

problem. We want the government to listen to the people of this Province, listen

to the children. As my colleagues have said on many occasions since this House

opened, we have to start to not only pay lip service to it, we have to do

something very concrete. I was pleased some time ago to be present at one of the

ceremonies down at St. Joseph's School when one of the groups of the corporate

citizens in this community came forward and offered support.

The business community knows that they have to invest in

children. Part of the investment includes investing in school lunch programs. I

am pleased to say that I am totally in support of this not being just a

government initiative but a community-based initiative. While we say to the

government: You must show the leadership, we are not saying to the government

that it cannot be funded jointly by other community groups and other community

agencies.

We have seen all the statistics. We know about the 40,000

children who are hungry. We have heard it over and over again. Therefore, we are

saying to the government, it is time for the government to start to listen to

the pleas of the parents, and to the pleas of the children, in particular. We

know what a dramatic and negative effect child hunger has on school performance

by these children. We know that the stats that have been out there for a long

time show a one-to-one correspondence between the fact of a child being hungry

and that child's ability to reach his or her full potential.

While I was pleased to hear the Minister of Social Services

say that she is committed to having the Department of Human Resources and

Employment, I meant to say that today I was pleased that the minister finally

recognized it, because today when the minister gave her Ministerial Statement,

on the front of the page it still says Department of Social Services. Maybe she

will catch up after a while.

I also want to say to the House that I am pleased the

minister is committed to helping people reach their potential. Well, let us

start early. Let us start with children. Yes, we agree that we should be doing

something about the young employable people, but let us start right early. Let

us make sure that Kindergarten children have a good lunch, have something to eat

before they come to school. Because in spite of the fact that we have a great

deal of evidence about hungry children at lunch time, the research will show -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. H. HODDER: - that the school breakfast program is

even more important.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to support the petition presented by the

Opposition House Leader. It is a similar petition to one that I, myself,

presented earlier. I am pleased that the member has presented it. These

petitions are starting to come from all over. I understand, Mr. Speaker, there

is someone collecting hundreds of names in your own district and it is intended

to bring them in for presentation sometime in the next number of days for

presentation to the House.

People are realizing it is something that should be done,

should be dealt with by government, and should be dealt with now. People cannot

wait for the uncertainty of donors, of corporate entities stepping forward. Let

us face it, when Petro-Canada comes up with $200,000 for the school lunch

program it is not exactly cutting into its bottom line by doing so. It is done

as a corporate gesture, as part of a public relations campaign of a mega

corporation that is doing business in this Province and making and intending to

make many millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars off the Terra

Nova Project over the next number of years. What we really need, Mr. Speaker, is

a government-established program that is going to ensure that every school in

this Province has a school lunch program so that all can benefit from it.

Now, I have a bit of a concern about the attitude of this

government, so, in a way, this is kind of a challenge to the government. It is a

challenge to the government to recognize the need for a universal program. What

we have happening at this stage, Mr. Speaker, in government is a distinction of

people. There are certain people who are deserving of government help and there

are certain people who are not. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Minister of

Social Services, now called Human Resources and Employment, issued a press

release in which she said she has new initiatives to ensure that funding only

goes to eligible income support clients. She said they will initiate several new

measures to ensure that income support will only be provided to people who are

deserving of and entitled to benefits. Now we are talking about the deserving

poor, Mr. Speaker. This is a great early Victorian concept. Charles Dickens used

to have great fun with it back in the early 19th Century, there is the deserving

poor and there is the undeserving poor.

We are hearing about it again today, Mr. Speaker, when

eighteen- nineteen- and twenty-year-olds are being kicked off the social

assistance roll because somehow they are not deserving because their parents

made some money. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the same department that tells an

individual who is on social assistance, a single parent who is on social

assistance, that when their child turns eighteen, she is no longer a family. She

is now a single person. She is not even a family anymore. The child is eighteen

years old and the mother, who still has that child living in the same house,

gets cut off social assistance because she is no longer a family. She is treated

as a single person by this same department.

So, Mr. Speaker, while we have to have compassion, we have to

have understanding and compassion for people who are in dire need of social

programs in order for them to be able to participate fully in society. We have

to recognize that there is a political issue at stake here.

We have had in this Province - and I started this statement

at the end of my comments in the petition I presented earlier - we have had in

this Province an example, several years ago, of a school which sent a school bus

around lunch time bringing children from the school to their homes and back

again at a cost of some $10,000 on an annual basis. The reason and the rationale

given by that principal for having the school bus was because the parents did

not want their children in school at lunchtime because they had no lunch. So the

school board paid the cost of bringing in a school bus, to bring children home,

to no lunch, pick them back up again and bring them back in.

It would be cheaper, Mr. Speaker, it would be more humane, it

would be more compassionate, more sensible to have a school lunch program to

ensure that all the children of this Province have at least one good healthy,

nutritious meal during the school day so that they can have a full belly, Mr.

Speaker, and that they can learn properly. That is the important point of this,

Mr. Speaker, that it ought to be universal. It ought to be ensured that the

schoolchild has the advantage of this program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few comments with respect to the

petition. I understand, Mr. Speaker, the intentions of the petition and the need

basically for school lunch programs to be more broadly based than they currently

are. The government actually debated this issue rather extensively in the last

year or so on a couple of occasions, one, when we decided through the Department

of Education and the Department of Social Services - which will now become, of

course, the Department of Human Resources and Employment - to make a

contribution of $125,000 to the existing provincial school lunch programs. Also,

Mr. Speaker, later we had a major corporate sponsor, Petro-Canada, come on board

with $200,000 to contribute to a similar program.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker,

obviously shows he does not know what is going on. The provincial contribution

was made months before the corporate sponsor came onside. Mr. Speaker, I guess

that the research again is showing its top quality in terms of comments being

made.

Mr. Speaker, the conscious decision was made for us not to

put in place a universal comprehensive School Lunch Program for the Province run

by the government for a couple of very good reasons. Currently, there is no need

to reinvent the wheel. The current programs are extremely good programs being

run by a board with community support, corporate sponsor support, great

volunteers, and a very loyal and dedicated staff.

The programs are in place and they are spreading, slowly but

surely, to areas of the Province where there is need, and they are spreading

with great success because they have tremendous local support, and largely

because they are not being seen as government programs. Mr. Speaker, they are

being delivered in a manner, as I mentioned earlier in a comment today in

Question Period that is non-stigmatizing. They have had great success with the

programs in making them work and making them work very well through the benefit

of students who need to participate.

The failures, and there have been a few in the past - and I

know the members opposite who are serious about the petition are listening

intently, because there have been some failures and the failures have been

attributed to the fact that there has been no local ownership. In some cases

they thought it was more a government hand-out program and they treated it as a

government program. They did not get involved in it, they did not volunteer, and

they did not participate. It was given to them by the government and they did

not, at the end of the day, make it work.

There were no partners locally, there was no ownership, and

it was seen to be run by the government in a couple of areas, and it failed,

unfortunately. There had been School Lunch Programs in three or four locations

in the Province that had been started up differently than the ones that

succeeded and they have had to be folded up after a short period of time because

the people locally did not buy into them. They were stigmatizing, they did not

operate properly, and they just did not work.

So, we do expect, Mr. Speaker, that there is to be growth and

expansion with respect to the School Lunch Programs in the Province. We have

contributed to the existing group who do this extremely well. They get extremely

positive local buy in, both by the volunteers, the parents, the students

themselves, and the corporate sector. We expect continued local support to show

itself and manifest itself throughout other regions of the Province where need

is identified.

Mr. Speaker, we are fully prepared to participate in even

more of a financial manner than we are today, when they can demonstrate to us

that they have local areas identified whereby the program should naturally

expand. We are willing to participate along with the corporate sponsors, but the

history and the lessons of the proposal in this petition, as outlined here, have

been the ones that have led to failure in the past. The ones that are being done

today with the combination of local volunteer support, local community based

support, good staff, corporate sponsorship, a well planned program delivered in

a non stigmatizing way, has been a receipt for success and we will continue to

build on that with the partners, Mr. Speaker, and we will not try to jump in as

government, and reinvent the wheel and put a government program in place of one

that is working extremely well because of the efforts of others who have planned

it even better than we could probably even imagine it and dream up ourselves.

I hope those few comments are useful, Mr. Speaker, because

the government certainly is on record as supporting the intent of expanded

School Lunch Program opportunities. We hope we have learned from the mistakes of

the past, that having a government program put in place of people, instead of

just supporting the one that is there now working very well, is the wrong way to

go.

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

MR. OSBORNE: I rise today to present a petition to

protect the privatization of our provincial parks. The prayer of the petition is

as follows; we the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to petition the

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

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

reverse its decision to privatize the parks because we feel the decision was

made in haste without consultation from the people who own the parks, the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, many of the people on this side of the House

have stood and spoken out against the privatization of the provincial parks,

people from our caucus, and the NDP member. It is quite obvious that the people

on this side of the House are opposed to the privatization of our provincial

parks. There are very few people, I would suspect, in this Province who are in

favour of the privatization of provincial parks, and most of those people are

sitting on the opposite side of the House here.

Mr. Speaker, The Program Review not only suggests that

we do not privatize provincial parks this year, but it goes on to say that our

provincial parks are better run, better equipped, and better managed, for the

most part, with the exception, of course - I am sure that there are private

parks out there that have very good standards, but for the most part most of the

private parks in our Province do not have the standards that our provincial

parks have.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of reasons for that. The main

reason is the fact that the private park operators simply do not have the

financial ability to operate those parks at the same standard at which the

provincial parks are operated. Furthermore, The Program Review goes on to

say that the private park operators may not have the desire to operate the parks

at the same standard at which the provincial parks are operated. Furthermore,

The Program Review goes on to say that many of the private park operators in

our Province today are experiencing some difficulties financially. They are

unable to put in place the health and safety measures that are commonplace in

our provincial parks.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly unfortunate that this provincial

government is unable to see that our provincial parks are operated at a standard

that is not only expected but is a fundamental right of the people of our

Province. As taxpayers, the people of our Province have a fundamental right to

utilize and enjoy and use our provincial parks. Parks are not meant to be a

surplus generator of revenue. The municipalities, and St. John's is one example,

spend $3.5 million a year - St. John's spends $3.5 million a year - operating

the municipal parks. If the municipal government were to take the same attitude

that the provincial government has taken towards the parks then we would fear

losing Bowring Park, or Bannerman, or Victoria Park. Provincial parks are there

because the taxpayers put them there. They are owned by the taxpayers; they are

owned by the people of our Province, and the owners of these parks were not

consulted prior to government's decision to privatize these parks.

Mr. Speaker, the owners of these parks were not given the

opportunity to voice their concerns and their opinions on the privatization of

these parks. The owners of these parks, through my understanding in travelling

across the Province and holding meetings to consult with the people - something

that the provincial government has refused to do in this particular case - the

owners of these parks, the people of our Province, are insulted. They are

afraid, as a matter of fact, of what is going to happen with these provincial

parks knowing the record of the government in the past.

In 1995, twenty-eight parks were cut from the provincial park

system and only ten of those have survived to date. Mr. Speaker, that record

does not show well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to rise to support the petition put forward by my

colleague, the Member for St. John's South, and to acknowledge that the members

on this side of the House have been out doing consultations. I can tell the

members that we have consulted with the people of this Province in a number of

places. We have had meetings in St. John's, and we have had them, I do believe,

down in Torbay. We have had them in the Harbour Grace, Bay Roberts area. We had

them in Corner Brook over the weekend, and in Grand Falls.

Mr. Speaker, I say to hon. members of the government opposite

that when they got elected they prided themselves on consultation. They said: We

are going to go out and consult with the people. And they say to themselves we

did a great job. I look at the election documents I see nothing about

privatisation of parks. I hear a lot about: We are going to listen to the people

we are only going to act after we consulted the people. Then when I look at the

privatisation plan for the provincial parks I don't see any of that, so I ask

myself: What has happened here?

In the last couple of weeks we have held a number of meetings

in various parts of the Province and the attendance has been quite good. We are

out there listening to what the people are saying. These petitions that we are

presenting here are basically saying to the government: Why don't you take some

time and consult with us in various parts of the Province before you act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the

Government House Leader that when the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

went around this Province with his dog-and-pony show there before it brought

down the Budget, that it prided itself on consultation, but on the issue of the

parks there has been no consultation, none whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the Government House Leader he

should be up today, he should be protesting, he should be saying: We apologize

to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We tried to privatise the parks

without consultation. If the Government House Leader was really interested in

listening to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador he would say: We are only

going to look at the privatisation issues in the provincial parks after we have

had a proper consultation.

The truth is that this government only consults when it

predetermines what the answer is. It says: What answer do we want, do we like

the answer? If we like the answer we will do some consultation. We know what the

Minister of Justice tried to do with the RNC and the RCMP. He didn't say: Let's

consult. He threw out kind of a flag out there and said: Let's see what happens.

So when this issue came up, clearly the issue of privatisation of the parks is

not meeting with very favourable response from the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Clearly the government should be listening to what people are saying.

Clearly the minister responsible should be saying today: Thank you to the

Opposition, thank you to the people over here who have organized those public

meetings, and should be saying: I'm so glad that the Opposition had the courage

to organize a public meeting.

On the basis of the public meetings we have had, we are going

to be bringing forward more and more petitions. We believe that the voice of the

people should be heard in this House and we are going to try to facilitate that.

With these comments, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I

assure the Government House Leader that if he wants to get up and have a little

chat about the lack of consultation in the formulation of this policy and to

tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador how sincere and how apologetic he

is, we will give him leave to speak beyond the normal five minutes that has been

assigned for petitions. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Motion No. 1, Mr. Speaker, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Budget debate that was started on

Thursday, the adjourned debate, Motion No. 1.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On this Budget I'm

not sure where the best place to start is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't think I will. Maybe I will comment

on this brochure passed around by the minister of human resources and

employment, the one that has a brighter tomorrow. It has Canada in red and it

has Newfoundland and Labrador in blue. That is their better tomorrow, I say!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They are finally starting to see the

colour. I must compliment the minister. She got something right. She isn't

colour blind, I can say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You better have a talk to Jean and Brian.

Even in the Budget book, I might add, there is even blue on the horizon in the

Budget book. They have confidence in our future, I must say to the minister. But

it has a lot of red ink inside.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is what I like, Loyola. Loyola? This

is what I like, The Record to Date .

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, their record to date. That is

another story. I'm not sure if I will get to that before the next two weeks to

speak on this Budget are out, but I'm sure I will in due course, I say to the

minister.

First of all, when you look at the Budget, less than a year

ago they projected the economy of our Province would be in serious decline. Not

what economists said it would be, but they cooked the books to have over 4.4 per

cent negative growth last year, when people around said we would have 2 per cent

negative growth. Then all of a sudden they find tens of millions in newfound

wealth in personal income tax and corporate tax so they can do a few of the

things they need to do.

The same story again. The Toronto Dominion Bank, the Bank of

Montreal, the Royal Bank, the major banks, are telling us that we are going to

have some positive growth, and here this government, the (inaudible) and their

banker, telling us that the growth is going to be negative this year. Negative

again, so they can have those tens of millions of dollars again so they will be

able to cook up some other deals.

Back to last year. I asked, after the Budget last year, the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board I think - I had hoped would be around on

the Budget - the Minister of Finance -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Good. I asked the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board - and in fact I asked the Premier, and the Premier didn't answer

first. I asked him a second time. He indicated that before we borrow beyond the

$14.9 million we would come back to the House and inform the House if they

needed to do extra borrowing out of the contingency fund. They used that $30

million slush fund to put $15 million of borrowing from that fund without coming

back to the House of Assembly; which the Premier on record, and the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board, had indicated they would do.

As you read through this and listened to the Budget Speech,

all forty or forty-five minutes, you would think we are living in a province

that is richer than Alberta. You would think we are living in the richest

province in the world. We could be, potentially.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I think the Minister of Health summed it up

best when he walked outside and said: It is a crafty piece of work my son, you

got your fingerprints all over it. He said it to Malcolm. That sums up the

carefully scripted words in this Budget. The gloss of this Budget doesn't show

the true impacts of this Budget.

I'm going to just go through the Budget, make comments on

many of the particular specific areas here. I ask the minister if he wants to

bring in a tape so we can let everybody in the House hear those great words he

spoke last Thursday after the Budget. His response today said it all. He

couldn't respond. He wouldn't get up to deny it because he knows we have the

proof. He just had to sit there and take it, I would say to the minister. Maybe

we will have permission to have a tape recording tomorrow. That might be

practical here in the House.

The minister talks about going around the Province on Budget

consultation. While they are travelling around the Province, before we get to

the Budget, they announce we are going to privatise our parks. Where in the

pre-Budget consultation document did anyone see reference to parks and people's

public opinion on whether they want their parks privatized? Where was the

consultation? There was no consultation. They said: People told us not to raise

taxes. Last year they told them. They went out and raised $40 million in

licences and fees, an exorbitant increase I might add. Then they try to put

pressure and threats on the Newfoundland Teachers' Association in the Budget,

actual threats: You had better do something about your unfunded liability or we

will spend the money somewhere else, or we will ignore you.

Those types of threats have been used before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the Minister of Health. I am sure he

read the `Cheers and Jeers' today in the newspaper. He has been there very

prominently displayed, I say to the minister.

When you talk about a three-year plan, can you imagine a

three-year budget on two single little pages, one page, both sides, double-sided

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is our three-year budget plan. That is

it, the first time you ever got a three-year plan on two pages with nothing in

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Education, maybe

if they did - I do not agree with that either, I say to the minister. Minister,

I do not agree with that. But I can tell you it will not happen with us over

here, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. At the way the minister is slashing

the health care, I had better calm down because I would not want to be in the

minister's hands. I would fear for my life then, I can assure the Minister of

Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You probably would. I would not doubt that.

You would engage a slot down in the morgue probably, I say to the minister.

The government talks about letting - the Premier said that

1,100 people... What we want to do, he said, is remove that uncertainty out

there. We want to let people know three years in advance what their future is

going to be. We want to tell a person who is working in the public service today

that your job will not be there next year or the year after.

Where do we see in this plan who the 1,100 people are going

to be, how they can plan for their future? It is not here. Then, to come out

before the Budget and announce a $10 million plan to get people to take early

retirement when not a single person has availed of that plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Is she going under a

particular buy-back provision? That is what is in this new plan. Buying back

your reduction is the only difference in this plan and the workforce reduction.

You can already retire under other plans that are currently in place, announced

last October and extended to September, and the word now is that it is going to

be extended. I have been informed by officials that it is not going to terminate

in September; it is going to be allowed to continue. The only difference is that

you buy the reduction. And who, at the age of fifty, is going to buy a 30 per

cent reduction at a cost of about seventy or eighty.

I spoke to one individual under this new plan for early

retirement. Is the minister familiar with it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, this new $10 million package.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The only difference in that, I say to the

minister, and the workforce reduction one, is that this plan allows you to buy

your reduction. Under the old plan if you were fifty-three and had thirty years

you could go out and retire, get your 60 per cent pension. Under this plan if

you are fifty-three you can buy your reduction for age fifty-four and

fifty-five, and for anybody who is in the middle of the pack in terms of income

in the public service, it would cost $50,000 to $60,000. I know an individual

who it would cost $78,000 to buy two years. People are just not doing it. It is

not an incentive for people to take early retirement, so what is going to

happen?

The Premier then tries to shift focus and tell the people

that we are going to blame the people that have been around for thirty years -

blame them for keeping young people out of a job. That is what he is indicating.

That's the slant. The Minister of Education, probably he was the one that

probably came up with the plan. He is so good at sending those types of plans

and smoke screens out there and deceptions there. Maybe he is the expert. Maybe

he is the expert in doing that, in whitewashing people. Maybe he is the guy who

devised that plan.

MR. J. BYRNE: Look at the mess in Education.

MR. SULLIVAN: You saw what he did with Cabot 500 when he

was in Tourism. Now they have him in Education and it is nothing but problem

after problem after problem. I hope, for the benefit of the people of this

Province, that there are no new departments created for that minister to get his

hands on. I just hope there is none because if we have to tolerate another

department that that minister gets his hands on, we are in deep trouble. Thank

God, he hasn't gotten Health yet. The current minister we have is doing good

enough a job as it is, good enough a job at slashing without getting the

Minister of Education, who told us in government documents and told us in Ottawa

and told the people of the Province, we need this amendment to Term 17 because

we want to reinvest dollars back in the education of the Province. What do they

do? They get their chance to reinvest it and they sucked another $30 million or

$40 million out of education. The last two years they sucked $50 million out of

there. They sucked $50 million in the last two years and again this year but

almost $100 million out of education in the last three years.

Then we talk about this labour force adjustment fund. Now

what a farce, a voluntary departure program and try to come in with a program to

pretend we are putting some new money into doing retirement.

We talk about harmonization and the effects on this Budget. I

found out actually, the Minister of Finance - I found out finally what the

Minister of Finance has done. The Minister of Finance has taken the HST and

instituted a new insurance tax that is going to bring in $35 million. So when

people here today - the announcement about insurance could be going down - how

many people realize, on April 1, insurance premiums are going up to 15 per cent?

They are going up to 15 per cent, insurance; car insurance, house insurance,

property insurance -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly, but I am saying they are going

down and HST is putting it up to 15 - not HST, there would have been no

insurance tax. I say to the Member for Fogo & Twillingate that because insurance

was not subject to GST, it was only subject to 12 per cent RST when

harmonization came in we used the GST base which meant there would be no RST tax

any more. That is redundant. So rather than let that lie the Province brought in

a new tax called an insurance tax in which you are going to pay 15 per cent

premiums on your insurance. So here the insurance companies will lower their

rate and the government increases their taxes to get the money in that they are

saving on one hand and you are losing on the other. That is $35 million and the

Minister of Finance can confirm that. I say to the Member for Fogo &

Twillingate, $35 million.

What they also did, because if I sold a vehicle to you in a

private deal, after April 1, there will be no tax on that because there is no

RST. So what did this government do? They brought in a new tax on the private

sale of vehicles that is going to bring in another $50 million. So that is

another $50 million that is being brought in because the new taxes that have

been implemented - because of the HST.

MR. TULK: Loyola, do you want me to (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, actually we have four - not here today

due to illness - out trying to bring some business back to the Province in

Italy. We have a member gone to Italy to bring people back. We have a member

accompanying the minister down in Bonavista for a big announcement on Cabot

500th, trying to straighten out the minister and get the minister on track.

I would like the Minister of Finance to listen to me and

answer a few questions here and have a few comments in due course. We are

talking about under HST, we are told what families at all income levels would

save. We asked the Minister of Finance on many occasions over the last while, to

admit that low-income families, seniors on fixed incomes and young families

would be hit hard by harmonization. The minister never admitted it until Budget

Day. He never admitted that low-income people are going to be affected, any

amounts - yes, and I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, he announced

that people who have less than $15,000 will get three dollars a month, forty

dollars a year. If you look at two pensioners together, they will not qualify;

two pensioners' incomes on old age pension supplement will not qualify for this

three-dollars-a-month supplement they are going to give back.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You can send them out.

MR. TULK: There would be nobody left (inaudible) -

MR. SULLIVAN: I just say to the Government House Leader,

if he keeps fourteen in here that is all I say to you, they do not have fourteen

in here -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) what?

MR. SULLIVAN: We won't have a quorum.

MR. TULK: You can call a quorum, will you?

MR. SULLIVAN: If we only have less than -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) to that? We are up (inaudible) look

over there.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask protection from this `bull in

the china shop', Mr. Speaker.

Can you imagine? The minister stood up and he said: because

the poor are going to be so affected, the seniors and the fixed-income people,

we will give them three dollars a month.

Mr. Speaker, on one hand the government is announcing new

hospitals and on the other hand they are closing them down. They built three

hospitals - talk about hospitals: They built three hospitals here in this

Province under the Trans City deal at a cost of almost $30 million capital cost

and another $70 million to pay them off, almost $100 million; they have one that

is not even partially operational in Burgeo, they are cutting back. They closed

the one up in Port Saunders; they just had to shut that down last week and the

one in St. Lawrence the ruins are not operational, so we spent $100 million,

including financing on three Trans City hospitals and we do not even have them

operational today, only certain portions of them.

I mean, they are in the middle of a decision out there. They

don't know - out in Gander -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I was, I think, the second or third

Newfoundland-born Canadian.

MR. TULK: About April 1st?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. In fact -

No, close, I was not born April Fool's Day but very, very

close. That is all I would say.

MR. TULK: April 2nd or what?

MR. SULLIVAN: Close, my wife's cousin was the first. She

was the first Newfoundlander born.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and I missed it by two days actually.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you, April 2nd (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, around there. No, April yes. If it

were the 29, I say to the minister, I would have been born a Newfoundlander, not

a Newfoundland Canadian. Does the minister know when we joined Confederation?

Does the minister know it couldn't be two days before? Oh my, oh my.

No wonder the agriculture and the forestry we see in this

Province is in a mess, I say to the Speaker, no wonder it is in a mess. He wants

permission now to read my horoscope.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Since I have the floor, I say to the

minister it is so good, just pass it over and I will read it. I will read it

into the record, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman, I would like to warn him of

impending disaster because his horoscope says: Before making any decisions about

a certain work matter, you need to think further. Your communicative skills are

off kilter so keep ideas to yourself. Avoid controversial issues in the evening.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was never a

believer in stars. I was never a believer in horoscopes. I am a believer in

creating the future, not trying to follow the steps laid out by somebody else I

say to the Speaker, and he is certainly a horror in his House I can tell you.

His policies and views are lacking the scope that we need to put this Province

on a road to recovery, I say, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he is a `horrorscope,' that is what he

is. A horror (inaudible). I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board,

we spent $100 million on three Trans City hospitals. We closed the one in Port

Saunders, opened it again, partially used; one in Burgeo, partially used. One in

St. Lawrence, they never even opened up all the long-term care beds. We put one

out in Gander. They can't make up their mind, politically, will we do a little

bit to keep them happy for another year or will we not? What do we do? We will

decide we will cover them this year, but we need $30 million more to do the

rest. What are we going to do with that? When? Where is your long-term plan? How

much are you going to put in next year? I don't see your plan over the next

three years in your three-year plan. It isn't here, because it is a farce, this

particular Budget. It doesn't have the specifics that are needed to set out an

economic plan for our Province.

Then we look through - and here is a very interesting one -

the Minister of Health probably should certainly pay heed to this one. There are

eighty-four unfilled rural physician positions out there now, and $2.6 million

in the Budget. If you fill the ones that are vacant out there with the money

they put into the Budget, you would be able to pay each doctor $30,000. In other

words -

AN HON. MEMBER: That's extra.

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SULLIVAN: No. The Government House Leader, it isn't

extra. In fact, Dr. Peter Roberts, who did a report on salaried physicians, the

chair of the salaried physicians committee, the Minister of Health can tell you

this, indicated that there was not sufficient money in the current Budget that

ends this fiscal year to allow even to meet the ongoing commitments, not talk

about pay anything for the eighty-four that are unfilled. That is in reports.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't understand (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he doesn't understand it, I will

agree. I say to the minister, if the Minister of Health is so informed how is

$2.6 million going to fill eighty-four positions? Eighty-four positions at

$30,000 each uses up the money. The salary scale right now starts at around

sixty -

MR. MATTHEWS: Point of order.

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

The hon. the Minister of Health is standing for something.

MR. MATTHEWS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon.

member who is entering the Budget debate is already very quickly off track,

substantially misinformed, and has his facts altogether wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: The facts of the matter are these, Mr.

Speaker. There is enough money in the Budget now to fund all of the eighty

positions or sixty that are vacant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: We are using that money now on locums and

things of that nature.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: So get your facts straight and we will hear

you.

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

I'm sorry, the Minister of Health is just using an

opportunity to engage in the debate.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) wrong, Loyola.

MR. SULLIVAN: When I look ahead at their Budget for this

year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) straighten you (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I can tell the Minister of Health, I

don't need to be straightened out on it. Because I've read the correspondence

from the chair of the salaried physicians' negotiations, I've read Dr. Roberts'

report, I followed the information on it, I say to the Minister, and that is

incorrect. If the minister has a plan, the minister should be able to tell us

today, because it is in the Budget, the salary scale that starts at $67,000,

what each step of that scale, all I believe eleven or fifteen steps on that

scale, can he tell us the new figures on every step on that scale, first of all?

Then I will know where the $2.6 million goes. Then the eighty-four doctors are

left out there, unfilled positions around there, there is no money.

The minister has not budgeted an increase in health. The

budget has pretty well been frozen from last year. Last year we saw the pain

that people went through in this Province. When you freeze a budget it is

equivalent to a several percent decline, especially in medical services. The

increasing costs of medical institutions, increased costs of drugs and medical

equipment are escalating with inflation. Freezing a budget is taking dollars out

of the budget for people who need immediate service in emergency departments.

We are seeing people piled up on stretchers in emergency

departments, I say to the minister. There are documented cases I have of people

who are up to two days on a stretcher waiting for surgery for a hip, waiting to

get into a room. Very sick people are not getting through the system. Longer

waiting lists for cardiac surgery, more stretchers in emergency because the

budget in health is frozen when people want that as their priority. There is not

enough money in the Budget. It is not allowed in this Budget here. It is not

increased there, not even to pay those eighty-four unfilled positions because

this government is not serious about filling the positions when the very people

involved on it, the doctors - in fact they quit the committee, one doctor,

because this government has dragged its heels for two years and indicated that

Medicare, MCP, didn't even have enough money to pay the ones that are there not

(inaudible) eighty-four new ones and to put $2.6 million in - and it was stated

that it was going to be put in - to increase the salary levels for doctors.

A starting doctor in this Province now gets $67,000 under

salary. If they are going to increase that scale for all the doctors that are in

the Province, you can only increase it by just a few thousand dollars, roughly

$3,000 I think would be the figure. I don't have all the numbers of doctors in

front of me but roughly $3,000. That would only drive up the scale by $3,000 not

counting the other eighty-four positions out there unfilled. If you paid them

the lowest amount of $70,000 times the eighty-four unfilled, we would need

almost $6 million more dollars to address the problem. In fact, we need in

excess of $10 million to address the shortage of doctors here in our Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will get to education. I know the

minister is there very eagerly waiting - to see that this government, who sold

Term 17, they went out and promoted Term 17 and said, we need this legislation

to reduce duplication in our system, to do the things we need to do to reduce

school boards so we can put dollars back and reinvest in education. What did he

do? What did he and the Premier do? They took the money and whipped the $30-some

million, $40 million out of education and siphoned it out. Last year $25 million

siphoned out, twenty-five more the year before. Can you imagine? They took $100

million out of our children's future in a matter of three years, $100 million.

Then we talk about today, the farce today for the Minister of

Human Resources and Employment to stand up in the House today and include in

this document figures that I put on the record in the House already before she

circulated the brochure, telling about the $308 million today is a program that

was announced on December 1, 1995, when Premier Tobin was then Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans. A program where they took $500 million in the last three

years, took out of employment, out of the income in this Province and now they

are going to put back $100 million a year when they took out $500 million a

year. A program that we were told was going to give us $120 million and the same

Premier who sold us out on this program is up in Ottawa now trying to announce a

program that is a year-and-a-half old, trying to draw the mileage when he

inflicted the pain when he was our minister. I mean it is nonsense, utter

nonsense to have to put up with this crap in the House of Assembly today. Crap

that is what it is, to put up with that today in the House of Assembly on a

program that the Premier gave us on December 1, 1995.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If it is not parliamentary, I withdraw it.

I will find another word. That is all that's to it. I'm sure I will come up with

a word that is parliamentary. I'm sure I will find one. Yes, we will find one I

am sure. We have a lot of colleagues around here who have expertise in the

am sure I can come up with a substitute.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I won't call it that. No, that would be

elevating it to too high a level, I say to the minister. I wouldn't want to do

that. That would be doing an injustice to it, that is what I say to the

minister, and I wouldn't want to do that. I would want to give it the full lack

of respect that it deserves, that report.

Now I am going to use the Minister of Agrifoods instead, that

is who I'll use. We don't have to put up with the Minister of Agrifoods. Mr.

Speaker, we are told to reinvest in our future, to reinvest in our kids. Pass

Term 17 because we need it here. I went to Ottawa when they passed out the nice

little brochure up there. I had to keep them in line on occasion there, but

generally they told the truth, generally speaking. A few times they stepped out

of line and I had to remind the Premier: no, Premier, that is not what the

church leader said. That is not what he said. The Minister of Education was

there. You can ask him because he was there. He knows.

MR. TULK: There is nothing that he does not know.

MR. SULLIVAN: He thinks he knows everything.

MR. TULK: Did you hear him on Open Line the other

morning? Bill Rowe said to him: do you want to just answer questions about

education? He said, oh, no, I can answer anything.

MR. SULLIVAN: He said the last thing I want to do is try

to answer a question on education. He usually answers a question on education by

talking about something else. Whatever you call it, a new Department of Human

Resources and Employment. You can put any name you want on a department, any

particular name. It does not make a big difference what you call it. The

programs and services that are delivered by that department is what is

important. You can call it by any name whatsoever and it does not change the

fact.

When we look here at numerous areas, when you look at

education and the tutoring, as my colleague from St. John's East mentioned, do

you not think there is something wrong when you have to be a poor child in

school to be able to be a tutor, and a poor child to get tutoring, so a poor

child would have to tutor a poor child, but to do that they have to do a

financial assessment of the parents, maybe bring a parent's income tax form to

determine if that kid can be a tutor for this particular kid, or that kid can

receive tutoring. That is a stigmatization in the school system that we do not

need.

Even with the books issue you try to do it as discreetly as

possible. I spent over twenty years in the classroom and have a little knowledge

about dealing with those things. It is a concern when you have to stigmatize

because people know. People say that person is a peer counsellor, a tutor there,

that one is getting paid and this one is not. This one cannot be tutored and

paid, that one can't. How do you deal with it on a practical basis?

MR. TULK: If you spent thirty years in school, how many

years in kindergarten?

MR. SULLIVAN: I skipped the first eight years.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't talk; you got kicked out of

kindergarten for not shaving.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is difficult in a school situation. Just

look at the practicality of it. How do you determine which kid gets paid for

tutoring because they are poor, and which kid gets to be tutored because they

are poor? It is a tough situation. It is difficult as it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you saying do not tutor them?

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you are.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not. Now, I would like the legal

opinion on that, I say to the member, but overall maybe he is offering the legal

opinion. I did not coin the phrase, but it is difficult in the school situation

to try to determine because kids in schools know these things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against that?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am against school? No, I am very much in

favour of them, I say to the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against tutoring?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am all in favour of it. In fact, my

daughters' do it free and I hope will continue to do it free, peer counselling

or tutoring, in the school system. In many of the schools in my district people

do that, as I am sure they do in other parts of the Province. In fact, I very

much encourage it.

MR. TULK: You opposed it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I never opposed it.

MR. TULK: Yes, you did.

MR. SULLIVAN: I opposed stigmatization, putting a stigma

on kids. You have to deal with the problem. Mr. Speaker, if we look here at the

Student Summer Employment Program. When you read it out in the Budget it looks

so good. Today we are announcing a $2.5 million provision for student summer

employment, Cabot 500. What did it turn out to be? I think I heard a

spokesperson for the Canadian Federation of Students of Newfoundland and

Labrador indicate that it represents $2.25 an hour. I heard that statement,

$2.25 an hour. It is a voucher thing. It is not what they were led to believe.

It was not their input when they were consulted. It is not what they were told:

Do not give us that type of program. They did not give us those details on

Budget Day. They are the things that filter out as time goes on.

It said that 3,000 students were going to qualify, and

increasing assessing student loan programs is another particular area that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I thought there were thirty-six people

applauded. I thought the Telegram ad said there were only thirty-six people

applauded the Budget, wasn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all.

People who are in the cycle of dependency on social

assistance need to get out of that, and need assistance to do so, and this

avenue is not an avenue to be able to achieve that.

Under municipalities, while the minister indicated that $9

million is going to be available to communities to help re-finance debt with the

Municipal Finance Corporation, a cutback of 60 per cent in MOGs is going to be

devastating on rural Newfoundland. Rural Newfoundland will be devastated because

of the cutbacks. Can you imagine communities around this Province that have

experienced an out-migration of people unprecedented in our history being told

that they are going to have a 60 per cent reduction in the revenues from this

government? Really what it is amounting to is driving those small communities

into bankruptcy, or driving them into a forced regionalization process.

What we need is a plan that is going to be able to

revitalize, to help sustain rural Newfoundland. We have not seen anything from

this government to help sustain rural Newfoundland. We have seen devastation; we

have seen cutbacks in municipal operating grants; we have seen it in road

structure. The roads in this Province are falling down around our ears.

This government, in the long term, if you look at capital

expenditures... They are going to look at balancing their budget. If you look at

capital account under net expenditures, or gross expenditures, they are looking

at taking $48 million out of capital construction in this Province over the next

three or four years. In a Province that has been decimated by a lack of capital

structure and investment, that is how they are going to do it, and they are

going to do it under a Budget that is false. It is a scam. It is a cooked Budget

just like last year's, and we saw the effects of it this year when all of the

major banks out there are telling us - except the government's bank, and

government - that we are going to be experiencing much less growth than you are

saying. That is cooking the books to suit the situation to be able to free up

some of your revenues down the road. There must be an election coming up in the

year 2000. By trying to cook the books and give people the impression there are

going to be rougher times, and to lay off people in the public service and not

give them reality today that is the master plan. It is a scheme. It is very easy

to see through it, I say to the minister.

Rural communities out there today, and even in larger

communities - it does not have to be just rural; larger towns are experiencing a

lot of problems - we are going to have a 50 per cent increase in the household

contribution to capital works, water and sewer. We are going to see the debt

servicing costs going up by 50 per cent over three years.

We are going to see a withdrawing of a contribution... When

this Province should be fighting Ottawa on tearing up the social safety net in

the country, we are losing $70 million on health and post-secondary education

this year alone under the Canada Health and Social Transfer. That is a

devastating amount on top of $87 million last year.

We received $427 million last year under established program

financing and CAP, which rolled into Canada Health and Social Transfer; $87

million last year, another $70 million out of that this year. No wonder the

Premier runs up to Ottawa, up there now, to try to put a positive spin on this

announcement that was announced when he was minister on December 1 1995. I mean,

that is utter nonsense, the worst form of hypocrisy.

Then, trying to sell it as a big news story? Three hundred

and eight million in Newfoundland and Labrador, when over three years we are

losing $1.5 billion. What a farce this particular announcement is. Then the gall

to stand up and try to tell us and the people of the Province it is a new

program, $308 million. Utter nonsense. I'm sure the people of the Province will

see through it because it is false and it is only a scam.

We are talking about the Economic Renewal Agreement. Under

Economic Renewal, they announced Economic Renewal in this Budget, they announced

it in last year's Budget, and this Economic Renewal Agreement involves only $20

million out of the public purse of this Province over five years, $4 million a

year. This was announced in June 1995 at Hotel Newfoundland at a news conference

I attended. Four million dollars a year for five years out of this Province?

They announced it in 1995, they announced it in the election campaign, they

announced it in last year's Budget, they announced it in this year's Budget, and

we will be seeing it in the next two budgets. How much mileage can you get out

of $4 million a year? What a (inaudible) farce.

Then, to try to convince people that here we are, all this

new money? Where is the better tomorrow that people were promised? They haven't

seen it. It is always two years away. It was two years away in 1949 - one year

away then. It was two years away in 1989: Oh, tough for two years, then we will

see things better. We were told last year - coming into the Province we only had

a $40 million deficit. It grew to $270 million by the time the election campaign

started - trying to hoodwink the people of the Province. That shouldn't be

allowed, and I'm sure people will see through that in due course.

Newfoundland Farm Products, another issue. I don't see a

problem with the privatisation of Newfoundland Farm Products. No, the government

shouldn't be into selling chicken. Just because it is chicken it shouldn't be in

the process