May 6,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 20

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present to

the House of Assembly a status report on one of the most progressive

environmental initiatives ever undertaken in this Province.

On January 15, 1997, the Provincial Government launched the

Green Back Trash to Cash Program for beverage containers. This program is

fundamentally a deposit-refund system for beverage containers. Consumers pay a

deposit at the point of purchase and receive a refund when the empty container

is returned to a Green Depot. This initiative will reduce litter, add to our

recycling efforts and create jobs. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say today that

there are thirty-six Green Depots in full operation throughout the Province

employing more than 100 people.

In addition to the Green Depots, a number of mechanisms have

been established to provide residents of the Province with access to the

program. For example, in Labrador, in addition to the Green Depots in Goose Bay

and Wabush, there is a satellite depot in Churchill Falls. As well, we are

making special arrangements with schools in coastal Labrador.

Mobile collection systems are established in various regions

around the Province. There is a mobile collection system providing service to

communities on the Port au Port Peninsula, and there is another mobile

collection system providing service to communities along the Burin Peninsula.

The depot operator in Port aux Basques has started mobile collection for

communities from Rose Blanche to North Branch. As well, there is a mobile

service to communities along the Gander Bay Loop.

Mr. Speaker, another mechanism for servicing rural areas is

the sub-depot, also referred to as a satellite depot. Many of the Green Depot

operators have established satellite depots in surrounding communities and

provide regular pick-up service. Satellite depots are being established in

communities throughout this Province where a licensed Green Depot has not yet

been established. In all, we expect that before the summer we will have over 100

collection points around the Province.

Mr. Speaker, schools in this Province have always been active

in recycling and this new deposit-refund program provides an excellent

fund-raising opportunity for schools, youth groups and other organizations.

Depot operators have arranged pick-up service for the schools throughout the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, in the coming months we will begin our

evaluation of this program. At that time we will assess the need for more depots

or other changes to the program. This government and the beverage industry in

this Province are committed to providing the citizens of Newfoundland and

Labrador with an efficient, effective and affordable recycling program, and we

will continue to work towards that objective.

Even though this program is still in its infancy, I say to my

colleagues that we are making tremendous progress in delivering this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, as of last week, 16 million beverage containers have been returned

for recycling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: To date, Mr. Speaker, 160 tractor trailer

loads of empty beverage containers and other materials have been shipped to

various locations and processed for recycling. At this rate, we will surely meet

our first year goal of a fifty per cent reduction in the amount of beverage

containers going to landfills.

Mr. Speaker, the Trash To Cash Program has also been received

favourably by the people of this Province. About a month ago, I received a

letter from a seven year old boy in Goose Bay. This is what he wrote:

"Dear Honourable Minister: We love the recycling program that

has been set up in Goose Bay. We would like to do more recycling. So could you

put in a recycling newspaper spot, also? And could you put in a recycling milk

carton spot as well?

I'm seven years old and I love to recycle. So, please do

everything I ask. Oh, yeah, and one more thing. We recycle all our cans and

bottles, and we recycle all our food scraps in a compost heap in our garden."

Sincerely,

Daniel Hayden.

Mr. Speaker, I was in Goose Bay for the official opening of

the Green Depot with the member, the hon. Ernie McLean and young Mr. Hayden was

at the official opening and he was a proud young fellow, I have to tell you.

Mr. Speaker, there is truth and wisdom in these comments from

one so young. It is the youth of this Province who urged us most to implement

this program and it is the youth of this Province that will benefit most from

this program. I say, as well, that it could not have come at a better time. As

we continue to prepare ourselves for Cabot 500 celebrations, this program will

provide additional incentive to ensure that the Province is kept clean and

beautiful.

Mr. Speaker, the deposit-refund program implemented by

government focuses on beverage containers at this stage, but the Multi-Material

Stewardship Board will soon begin to develop programs for paper, milk cartons,

used tires, used batteries and other consumer packaging.

As the program matures and more people are provided with

access to Green Depots and drop-off points, the popularity of this program will

increase. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report on the steadily growing success of

this program, a program that has countless benefits for the Province from an

environmental, social and economic perspective.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, the money collected from this

program is used entirely to finance the deposit-refund system, which includes

payment to depot operators, transportation, processing and administration.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the beverage

industry in this Province have worked closely and co-operatively to bring the

people of this Province an efficient, effective and affordable recycling

program. The Trash To Cash Program is a successful recycling program for the

Province which will benefit our people for years to come.

Thank you.

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

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

I would first like to thank the minister for sending over a

copy of his statement before the House sat - I appreciate it.

The minster states that there are thirty-six Green Depots in

the Province and 100 people employed through this program, and I must say, that

that looks positive at first glance. The minister also talks about Green Depots

in Goose Bay and Wabush and a satellite depot in Grand Falls with special ranges

in schools in Coastal Labrador. I would say that is hardly enough for the

geographic area of Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially when people do not

have access to this program, they are paying for a service that they do not

have. Also, Mr. Speaker, the minister says satellite depots are being

established in communities throughout this Province. He does not say how many

and that comes right back again to the problem of access for many people in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister also says, schools in this Province have always

been active in recycling. I have had calls from schools, Mr. Speaker, when this

program came into being, advising me that the depots are refusing materials that

the schools collected before. They brought them to the depots and they refused

them. I brought that to the minister's attention and he said it would be

addressed. Hopefully, it will be addressed, Mr. Speaker. The minister says, in

the coming months there will be an evaluation of this program and they will

assess the need for more depots.

When this program was first announced he talked about 80 per

cent of the containers being returned. Now, they are talking about 50 per cent,

and with 50 per cent return there will be something like $5 million to $6

million put into the system by people for service they are not getting. So, that

has to be addressed.

The minister talks about this program being an efficient and

effective program, Mr. Speaker. Well, I have to ask the question: How is it an

efficient and effective program when large numbers of people in rural

Newfoundland and in Labrador do not have access to the program? He says in this

release that it is an affordable program. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, many people

have said to me, for the consumer, it is not an affordable recycling program.

Mr. Speaker, many people told me, they thought it was a rip-off, that they are

paying for service they are not getting.

He also says: At this rate we will surely meet our first year

goal of 50 per cent reduction in the amount of beverage containers going to the

landfills. But what is happening with this program is, some of the materials

that were being accepted before, as I earlier stated, are now being refused. So

you are robbing Peter to pay Paul; therefore, this program defeats the purpose.

Also, Mr. Speaker, he talks about the Multi-Material

Stewardship Board will soon again -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes or no, make up your mind.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to clue up?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I am about to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

The minister says, the Multi-Material Stewardship Board will

soon begin to develop programs for paper, milk cartons, used tires, batteries

and the like, Mr. Speaker.

Now again, Mr. Speaker, there will be more money out of the

consumer's pocket to pay for a program, and if it is the same type of program as

this, Mr. Speaker, they will be paying for a service that they don't receive.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the trash to cash program is a very

successful recycling program, the minister says. Well, Mr. Speaker, all I say to

that is the jury is still out. Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the last provincial budget, government committed $2.6

million in new money for salaried physicians in rural areas of the Province.

Today I am pleased to announce the details of this salary increase for rural

doctors. This new money will substantially raise the salary scales for rural

physicians and allow Newfoundland to be competitive with other jurisdictions in

Atlantic Canada.

Increases in salaries will be based on the same model as the

isolation bonus system, which has been in place for the past two years. Under

this model, rural communities are divided into three categories based on the

degree of isolation. Physicians practising in the most rural areas of the

Province will qualify for the largest salary increase. Mr. Speaker, those

doctors practising in the Group 1 category will receive an additional $31,200

per year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, this is in addition to the

$10,000 annual isolation bonus. For example, this will bring the income level of

an Assistant Medical Officer's average salary in Group 1 category from $77,121

annually to $118,321 when the geographic supplement is applied and the isolation

bonus is included. Rural physicians in the Group 2 category will receive an

additional $23,400 annually plus the $7,500 annual bonus, while physicians in

Group 3 will see an additional $15,600 annually, plus a $5,000 annual bonus as

well. Isolation bonuses are payable upon completion of two years service in a

rural area of the Province.

The $2.6 million in new money amounts to an increase in the

annual income for rural doctors of between 15 and 35 per cent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - depending upon the location and the

current salary step. When the isolation bonus is included, the increase in

annual income ranges from 20 per cent to 50 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, government is committed to

solving the rural doctor shortage by addressing both the financial and lifestyle

concerns. Government will continue to work with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Medical Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Care Association to

improve access to medical services throughout the Province. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I

should express gratitude that the Premier has come back and that he has had a

long chat, and obviously now all the people of the Province know that we have a

problem in health care and now we can see that we are getting some results.

A couple of things I want to note. First of all, it says

that: "Isolation bonuses are payable upon completion of two years' service in a

rural area of the Province." I make the assumption that anybody who is going to

get extra money under this particular program won't have to wait two years in

order to get that money. Although the sentence might be misinterpreted as it is

written there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I also say to the minister

that it has taken since March 20 when it was in the Budget to get this kind of

system in place. It is regrettable that we have had to wait until we have had

such a major crisis in rural Newfoundland, to have the minister intimidating

doctors as he did last week, family practitioners, telling them that they should

serve in emergency wards of hospitals for the privilege of practising in rural

Newfoundland. That kind of intimidation is counter-productive, I say to the

minister, and so he should stop that, get on with the business, start listening

to the people in rural Newfoundland, and maybe with this kind of incentive we

might be able to solve some of the problems. But this is not necessarily the

panacea for all the ills that are in rural Newfoundland today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed to Oral Questions I would

like to welcome Mayor Harry Cooper of Twillingate to the public galleries today.

As well, we have Mr. Clayton Locke, chairman of the Central West Health Board of

Central Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recently the former

Minister of Mines and Energy announced last fall in questioning that the

Province really does not have an energy plan. Some time in January the Minister

of Environment and Labour on a radio noon program was asked directly: Does the

Province have an energy plan for the future? His response was: No, as such we

don't have an energy plan. What we do have is an Environmental Assessment Act.

Any project comes in, `we throw that project at the act and then Cabinet might

want to make a decision'.

So I ask the Premier, who I understand is responsible for

energy: Why doesn't the Province have an energy plan? And if it doesn't, what

plans do they have for future development of energy in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Mines

and Energy never announced what the member opposite just alleged he announced.

As for questions to the Minister of Environment and Labour,

he is here and quite able and happy to answer them.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Premier this, as I asked the

Minister of Mines and Energy last fall: Does the Province have an energy plan?

Can you outline what that plan is, and where that energy plan will take the

consumers, shareholders, businesses alike, into the future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador is looking at all of the possibilities for energy development in

the Province, including the possibility of further development in Labrador,

perhaps in collaboration with Hydro Quebec. In fact, we have two working groups

on either side now looking at a variety of questions to see whether or not

collaboration is possible.

I think the member opposite knows very well that this has

been a major initiative for the government, and he knows very well that there

have been two working groups in place since after the Team Canada mission in

January, when the Premier of Quebec and myself agreed to examine all of these

questions.

In addition to that, hydro has already sought interest in

further hydro development or other electrical development here on the Island

portion of the Province; and, finally I can say to the member, we look with

interest for expressions of possible development in the area of natural gas.

For example, the White Rose oil well has a 1.5 trillion cubic

feet gas cap. We are asking the question - we are raising it when we meet with

members of the energy industry - whether or not there are some potential

commercial projects there. In fact, when I was in Vancouver a week ago Monday

and spoke to the Annual Mining Conference of Petroleum Producers, I raised that

very question.

I say to the member, there have been some expressions of

interest. It is very early in the day, but we are looking at energy production,

in short, to summarize, on a variety of fronts. These include natural gas and

oil, these include hydro development, and these include potentially other

thermal developments.

Now, if the member is suggesting that there should be one

rigid approach to energy development and no other, I say to him, `I disagree.'

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

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my next

question specifically dealing with hydro development, outside of natural gas,

outside of oil and gas but the development of lakes and streams in the Province

because I believe there is a plan to put in the hands of private interests,

there is a plan to put in the hands of non-utility generators the ownership of

our lakes and streams. Now would you agree Premier, that handing out development

projects to non-utility generators in this Province, all we are doing

essentially is handing out regulated monopolies to a private interest and

individuals that stand to make millions off our resources, the people of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member is making a very

broad statement. First of all, let me be very clear, there is no plan and if the

member thinks that there is a plan to hand over the lakes, rivers and streams to

private sector developers, I would like him to produce something to support that

allegation because I can tell you there is not a single member on this side of

the House, in this Caucus or in this Cabinet, who has ever heard of such a plan.

If you are going to make those kind of dramatic statements you have an

obligation to substantiate them even a little tiny bit.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my next comment is to say this, is the

member saying in any case, with respect to development, that we ought not have

the private sector, for example, developing the Hibernia oil field or the Terra

Nova oil field or the Whiterose oil field or the Voisey's Bay deposit or

Richmont Mines deposit or any other deposit or pulp and paper deposits? If the

member is saying that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve to know

that and the private sector deserves to know that. What is the member saying?

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that since the

Premier has asked me a question that he affords me the opportunity, through you,

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, my question was

directly related to the lakes, rivers and streams of the Province. There was no

suggestion otherwise that the private sector should not be involved in oil and

gas.

Now the Premier has asked me to substantiate, that I should

elaborate or substantiate why I make that claim. Right now there are

unprecedented numbers of projects before Cabinet. My understanding is the

Minister of Environment and Labour is looking at, through the environmental

assessment project that are coming through it - that are coming towards Cabinet

for a possible development of lakes and steams. The Upper Humber River is an

example, I say to the Premier.

MR. J. BYRNE: He is answering the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, from Newfoundland and

Labrador's Hydro Environmental Policy Department, on the Humber River, it

suggests that these sites were investigated originally and are looked at as

being relatively expensive and should not proceed because environmental problems

are foreseen because of water use conflicts in populated areas. So my question

is, why is government even considering such projects to put lakes, streams and

rivers into the hands of private developers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let the public record show

clearly that when challenged to produce even a smidgen of evidence, even a sniff

of evidence, even the whiff of evidence to substantiate the quite serious and

wild allegation made, that the member opposite could not produce any evidence

whatsoever of the notion that there is a plan to privatize the lakes, streams

and rivers of this Province, not a single word.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is quite normal and more

to the point, it is appropriate that whenever there is a proposal for

development of a hydro source that that proposal should go to the Department of

Environment and Labour to be properly assessed. It should not be assessed on the

floor of the House with me saying it is right or it is wrong or the member

opposite saying it is right or it is wrong, it should have a proper independent

environmental assessment. Mr. Speaker, whenever it is appropriate, that is

exactly what is happening in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, I want to

certainly be clear on this issue, is the Premier saying that there are no

projects from the private interest before Cabinet or before the Department of

Environment and Labour for assessment, that government is not considering the

development of private lakes and steams in this Province, is that what the

Premier is saying?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member is now attempting

to be clear he says but he still has not substantiated this quite serious and I

submit, very wild allegation that there is a master plan -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - to turn over, quote unquote, all the

lakes and rivers and streams to the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, there are no projects before the Cabinet today

for consideration. There are some submissions before the Department of

Environment and Labour, and if they can survive the environmental review process

at one point they may be taken up by Hydro, I don't know. But I can tell the

member this notion, this latest charge of a master plot or plan, is totally

unsubstantiated here today, and I would ask the member to withdraw this

allegation.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is a credible line of

questioning, I submit to the Premier. When the Department of Environment and

Labour released last week that there are some sixteen projects from the private

sector that are before the minister's department, that they are reconsidering

certain aspects of that project, it says two things. It says, one, that

government does not have a policy that our lakes and rivers are not up for

development by the private sector, and that it would prefer Hydro, as our Crown

utility, to pursue it. The second thing it says is that there is a project in

the Province already that has received the okay of government, in terms of Star

Lake, by private development. The Premier's assertion is not necessarily right

either.

The only question I'm asking and trying to determine from the

Premier is: Is there a policy of government that says that the privatization or

possible development of lakes and streams in this Province by private sector is

not a policy thrust that this government will pursue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member is now struggling

to make something out of his questions, having failed to produce anything to

substantiate the statement that we are out to privatize all the lakes and

streams and rivers. The member knows that there is a process through the

Department of Environment and Labour that must be gone through. He knows that if

a project can withstand that kind of assessment, and if it is accepted by Hydro

for development, he knows that development is possible, as is the case with Star

Lake. Getting up and establishing there is a Star Lake and that it is being

developed by the private sector, and then somehow suggesting that is a big

surprise or something new, quite frankly is a bit unusual.

There is no policy to privatize either Hydro - in fact, there

is clearly a policy not to privatize Hydro under this Administration in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and there is no plan to privatize our lakes and

rivers and streams. I would ask the member to accept that and quit making wild

charges to the contrary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are

for the Minister of Justice. Parents and grandparents in Badger have been served

an injunction which essentially prevents them from expressing their opposition

to the education restructuring decisions and process in their area. The Avalon

West School Board took similar action against the people of Brigus.

Does the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of this

Province feel it appropriate that parents and grandparents, frustrated over the

school reform process, and having no other recourse for making their voices

heard, are now faced with the choice of either keeping quiet or else subjecting

themselves to the prospect of arrest and imprisonment at the hands of law

enforcement officers under the minister's jurisdiction?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it was not my decision to make.

The judge gave an injunction and it was enforced. I will say this. I can see

nothing that would justify keeping a child out of school, and I'm glad that the

judge behaved the way he did. I know that the people in Badger and Englee and in

various parts of this Province are having difficulties with the reforms that are

taking place in education today. But there is no excuse under the sun to keep a

child out of school, and I'm glad that the law worked the way it did, and make

sure that children in this day and age, who get little enough time on tasks as

former teachers in this House will agree, nothing should be done to keep them

out of school and I support the action.

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the

Minister of Justice see an interventionist role for himself as Minister of

Justice at this point so the government can balance the need to preserve order

with the need to ensure people can effectively express their opposition to a

government action as is their right in any democracy? Does he see himself

intervening to avoid unnecessary conflicts involving parents and grandparents

throughout the Province who after all are only acting in the best interests of

their children in maintaining the positions they are maintaining?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what I'm

hearing. I can only hope that someone has written the question and the hon.

member is reading it. To suggest that the Minister of Justice would interfere in

the legal system of this Province? If we were to push that to it's logical

conclusion, we would remove every Tory or every non-Liberal from any appointment

which is made in the justice system - can you imagine what would happen -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - if an elected politician were to start

interfering in the justice system? The very basis of justice in our democracy is

that the whole judicial system operates at arms length from government. I cannot

believe what I am hearing my hon. friend suggest. The man who is a lawyer

himself, to suggest that an elected politician would interfere in judgements,

totally unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is making an effort, at this point, to twist the

point that is being made by the thrust of these questions.

I know full well that the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General in this Province cannot intervene with the judicial of this Province and

he knows darn well that that is not the thrust of this question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The thrust of this question is the

continued position taken by the Minister of Education, who is saying he will not

get involved in the educational reform process in this Province, leading to the

disruption that we have in the educational process in this Province and I say to

the minister that is what this is about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to

his questions.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - and with his expertise in education,

was the Minister of Education, I say Mr. Speaker, at the time that this whole

educational reform and chaos was introduced in this Province, will he see to it,

in the absence of the Minster of Education, to take a leading role in resolving

the concerns and the problems with respect to educational reform in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: I am glad the hon. member has changed the

tack that he was taking and acknowledges that there is no place for politicians

to tell the justice system how to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: And I commend him for the decency that he has

to clarify his position on that.

No, Mr. Speaker, I will not intervene at this stage. People

in this Province, as any other democracy, have a right to protest in the way

that they see fit. I disagree with them when they keep children out of school.

As for the way that the educational reform is proceeding, I am very proud to see

the way it is proceeding.

The hon. member knows that ever since confederation, it was

boards in this Province who decided how the school districts should be arranged

and that has not changed. The Minister of Education, on many times has said,

that during his consultation he heard it quite clearly, the people wanted local

input and they wanted to make local decisions. That is there, Mr. Speaker, I am

in total agreement and I have no doubt in my mind that when this all settles

down at the end of the day, we will have achieved the reforms that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians voted for when we voted in the referendum. The

reforms are proceeding quite well, the boards, by in large, are doing an

excellent job. There are some places where they have some problems, people are

protesting and they have a right to do that, but that can be worked out.

MR. J. BYRNE: So, the answer is no.

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

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

My questions are to the acting Minister of Human Resources

and Employment and they deal with dental care for social services recipients.

I am wondering if the acting minister, I see that we are

looking around to see who is the acting minister, will confirm that in the 1997

budget there is little or no money in the departmental budget to assist social

service recipients to obtain dental care, such as the cost of having cavities

filled and that kind of thing.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a mild level of consternation as to trying to

identify who the alternate minister was and in the context of that, I had

difficulty hearing the hon. members question, in as much as I know they are

pretty thin on the ground over there today, I am sure the hon. member would like

the opportunity to repeat that question, it will help him get through Question

Period and it will give me the benefit of hearing what he said, if I can hear it

again.

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

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

While the minster stalls for time, I will repeat the

question.

The question is particularly relative to the citizens of this

Province who are recipients of social service benefits and their need for good

dental care.

Would the minister confirm that there has been no money

provided in the 1997 budget to assist people who are recipients of social

services and who have need for dental care such as cavities filled, etc.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, on the contrary, actually, that is partly a health

question. We do carry $5.12 million in our budget this year as we did last year

for a dental program that takes care of the dental needs of children of this

Province and all other social services recipients who have need for services and

who qualify on that basis so the program is in place, it is the same as in the

past two years, it is functioning very well and it meets the needs of the social

services recipients this year as it has done very well in the past.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much.

I would advise the hon. ministers not to thump too hard on

their desks because the minister does not have a clue what he is talking about

in his response.

Mr. Speaker, will the acting minister confirm that

extractions are covered but dentures are not covered for the adult population?

Not always covered I should say; in other words, a person on social services has

a choice, he could suffer the pain or have his teeth extracted without little

hope of ever being able to obtain dentures as a replacement.

I say to the minister: Does the minister believe that this

policy of not covering the filling of cavities but only covering extractions and

maybe you will get dentures, there is a long waiting list, a lot of criteria to

be met, is this a sensible policy and, is it fair and responsible action towards

people who have to rely on social services?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the policy with respect to

what is covered under the dental program that covers both social services

recipients and children in this Province has not changed over the past - it has

not changed in my time of three years in health actually. We cover today what we

have covered historically. The program works very well; there are instances I

acknowledge when dentures are not universally covered, that is a separate issue;

I think the hon. member knows the policy with respect to that and if he is not

entirely clear, I certainly will undertake to ensure that my colleague the

minister who is responsible for social services will communicate to you, in

great clarity and in considerable detail, what the policy in fact is, for your

benefit.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: A couple of years ago we did have a policy

under the former minister but that policy has been changed, I say to the acting

minister.

Let me draw on an example. A constituent of mine has a dental

problem, in fact he has a lot of cavities. His family doctor prescribes pain

killers and medications to control the infection. The government pays the entire

costs including the doctor's fees. Furthermore, the drug the gentleman takes may

result in further medical complications.

Given, Mr. Minister, that the taxpayer pays far more in total

costs, health care dollars, than the total costs of the cavities that would be

filled therefore we are paying the money anyway. Would it not be better for

public policy to be proactive to fix the gentleman's cavities in a sensible

manner than to pay all the doctor's bills and the pain killers and the

medications that kind of thing; we are paying far more than we would pay if we

handled it in the right way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, when a doctor prescribes

medication for a person's condition as a result of a consultation, we pay what

is appropriate for medication. When a doctor prescribes dental services such as

in the order of extractions or fillings -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, not always (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: When a doctor prescribes let me tell the

hon. member, we act on that basis. The program has not changed in the past three

years and I am sure about the line of questioning the hon. member is getting on

with; I do, for the benefit of the hon. member, want to say to him that there

were some issues around medication versus the application of the dental program

that I have been recently discussing with the Newfoundland Dental Association. I

had a meeting with them oh, one evening about six o'clock a month or so ago, and

we were discussing you know, what the program does and does not cover, and as

far as I know, the Newfoundland Dental Association is quite comfortable with the

policy in as much as it is the policy of government and it has not changed.

If there are idiosyncrasies about the policy that applies to

a specific constituent of the hon. member, let him bring that forward to either

me or the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and we will deal with that

specific issue but simply put, the plan has been in place for years. The plan,

in terms of its parameter has not changed, the Budget-line item has not changed

and I would think that the hon. member should be very pleased to hear and know

and understand that, that is the case.

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

supplementary.

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

I am wondering if the minister would undertake to appraise

the front-line social workers of the Province, because as of two hours ago they

gave me information that says that they do not cover the filling of cavities.

They will cover extractions. My information was correct as of two hours ago.

I say to the minister: If his program is in place, he should

have it communicated to the social workers of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I

am wondering if you would undertake to do that.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will undertake to look into the situation that the hon.

member puts forward if he will give me the specific facts. I will undertake, in

great collaboration with my able colleague, the Minister of Employment and Human

Resources, to bring considerable clarity to the mind of the hon. member with

respect to how the program operates and, too, if and as is where necessary, take

from him what might be appropriate advice.

We are not above taking advice over on this side of the

House, and if there are constructive, suggestive type propositions put forward

by the hon. member to improve the dental plan, I would be the first to want to

hear his suggestions. I look forward to his communication.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Will the minister confirm that the information provided to my

office on capital budget expenditures for the provincial parks from 1992-1996,

and for the operating grants for provincial parks from 1993-1996, are

inaccurate?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

She obviously has not done her homework; I have done mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have been told by very

reliable sources that Jonathan's Pond Park, a provincial park in the minister's

own district, had a capital budget expenditure of $20,000 for 1995 to renovate

and extend the cabin in that park. The information that was provided to my

office states that there were no capital budget expenditures on Jonathan's Pond

Park from 1992-1996. Will the minister confirm that there was indeed an

expenditure of $20,000 in 1995 under the capital budget program?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to check

these facts for the hon. member and I can get back to him with the specifics. I

do not keep facts like that in my head, but I can certainly check them very

easily and within twenty-four hours I can confirm whether $20,000 was spent

capital-wise on Jonathan's Pond Park last year.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious that the information that she signs her

name to is not very accurate. Mr. Speaker, how can the people of this Province

have faith in the privatization of our provincial parks when the information

that is provided by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation in the

tendering packages on operating programs and capital budget programs is

misleading?

When will the minister comply with the request under the

Freedom of Information Act and provide the information so that the people of

this Province are fully aware of the investment in these parks and the expenses

and expenditures on these parks over the years?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province can

have faith in the information that was given in the packages as we were

privatizing the twenty-one parks. If there has been a mistake, as I have told

the hon. member, I will check and get back to him within the next twenty-four

hours about whether or not the accurate information was provided on the capital

works that might or might not have been expended at Jonathan's Pond Park.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

final supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was not only the capital budget program that was

inaccurate; it was the operating budget as well.

Mr. Speaker, the 1995 information that the minister provided

to me is seriously inaccurate. In 1996, as well, those figures are seriously

inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How could she possibly have

made a mistake, not only on capital budget but also on the operating budget, on

the information she provided?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly ensure that not

only do we check the $20,000 on the capital budget, but I can check the figures

on the operating budget. I will consult with the hon. member to see specifically

what he is referring to so that we can provide accurate information within

twenty-four hours.

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

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

My question today is for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, my buddy. On May 1, I asked questions in the House regarding

the infrastructure money and the approving of $1.43 million, for the Town of

Clarenville. The people in the area now are referring to it as `Powergate' or

`Brennex.' In light of the response and contradictions to the minister

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: `Brennex,' Bren Power, see? Figure it out,

boys. You did not know his name, did you? In light of the response and

contradictions to the minister's statements regarding the municipal support for

the facility, will the minister admit to blatant partisan politics and political

patronage?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can do to

expedite matters here - I have, I think it is thirty, here in the application,

and I do not mind tabling the application. There are thirty letters of support

from every town council in the area. I will also provide to this House the

statement and the presentation that was made to every council in the area. I

will also table in the House the support of the Progressive Conservative Party

for this proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. REID: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if I should

table it, but I will certainly make it available. I will make it available to

the hon. member so that he can sit down on this and leave this alone before he

gets himself in trouble, and his Party, and the decent people who are living in

the Clarenville area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Notices of Motion

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the Provincial Government, in its 1997 Budget,

announced that effective this September students with dependants will be

required to access the maximum available student loans, and social assistance

will only be available to supplement where living requirements exceed the living

allowance provided under student aid; and

WHEREAS this and other initiatives increase the end cost to

the student of pursuing a post-secondary education and serve as impediments that

deter student-parents from realizing their potential for employment,

productivity and personal fulfilment; and

WHEREAS government should be encouraging and assisting

student-parents, most of whom are women, to pursue post-secondary educational

opportunities;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the

Provincial Government to restore its post-secondary funding arrangements for

students with dependants to those that were in place immediately prior to the

1997 Budget; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the

Provincial Government to undertake greater efforts to make post-secondary

education more accessible to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I again stand to present a petition against the privatization

of provincial parks. We have presented many, many petitions. I presented many

myself, even yesterday, alone.

Mr. Speaker, the people of our Province are not in favour of

the privatization of provincial parks. All the members of the House, on this

side, are against the privatization of provincial parks and even one member on

that side of the House and possibly others, are against the privatization of

provincial parks; one, indeed, has spoken out.

Mr. Speaker, it is very certain to us, based on the number of

names we have gotten on petitions and the number of people who have called our

offices and written us, that the majority of the people in this Province do not

want their parks privatized. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, those seventy-seven

proposals on the parks - after there were 400 enquiries on the parks, the

minister has gotten back seventy-seven proposals on the twenty-one parks and

seven sites. Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say, if those tendering packages

provided the true operating costs of those parks, there would not even be

seventy-seven proposals. If the true operating costs were provided on those

parks, there would not be seventy-seven people willing to take over those parks.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand and represent the people who

have signed these petitions against the privatization of provincial parks and to

support the petition, because of all years to privatize the parks, this is

probably the worst. The decision was made in haste. All evidence points to that

but, Mr. Speaker, whether it be this year, next year or the following year, some

of the parks that are being privatized have to be - the motive behind that has

to be seriously questioned. Mr. Speaker, based on that, I gladly present this

petition and support the people who have signed it. Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to support the petition

as presented by my colleague, the Member for St. John's South, with respect to

the opposition to the sale of our provincial parks as part of our provincial

park system.

This petition is asking the government and members opposite,

Mr. Speaker, to reverse the decision to privatize the parks, as the petitioners

feel it was made in haste and without consultation with the people who own the

parks, namely, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There has been a lot of evidence presented over the past

number of weeks and certainly immediately on the forwarding of the decision with

respect to the sale of our provincial parks. A lot of information has been

presented to government members by way of public protest but, unfortunately,

members opposite have not seen fit to give consideration to reversal of this

decision, despite the pleas of hundreds and, indeed, thousands of

Newfoundlanders who take the position that it is their property. They have a

proprietary interest. It is something which they, themselves own, which we,

ourselves own, in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is now being taken away from

us.

In addition to that fundamental issue which has been the

basis of the ground swell of opposition, we see the issue of the loss of ability

to promote tourism to the degree that we could, in terms of being public, open

the people's parks, as opposed to parks owned by private individuals,

corporations, or consortiums, those business interests which simply, for

monetary value and profit, want to put forward their best efforts in promoting

the parks in this Province.

We have the loss of significant numbers of jobs in the public

service, Mr. Speaker, those individuals who committed their time and effort over

the years to the promotion of parks and the upkeep and the maintenance of parks

within our park system.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of this petition, and

again we join the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have voiced

their concern over the past number of months, and who, as can be seen by these

petitions, are continuing to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 3, Concurrence Motion of

the Government Services Committee.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As we begin the Concurrence Debate today, I would like to

offer my thanks to the members of the Estimates Committee. I held the privilege

of chairing that particular Committee, and I tell you, it certainly was a

pleasure, and it was certainly enlightening. I would like to thank my

vice-chair, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Members for Placentia & St.

Mary's, Trinity North, Port au Port. I would like to thank the Members for

Kilbride and Conception Bay South. I enjoyed serving in this House in this

capacity, and it certainly was an experience for me.

The Government Services Committee considered the Estimates of

the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, the

Department of Government Services and Lands, the Department of Finance, and the

Public Service Commission. We certainly had some of the most important

departments of government, if not the most important departments. Of course,

during those Estimates certain questions were raised. I must say that all the

ministers handled themselves quite eloquently, and were very detailed in their

presentation, their answers.

Mr. Speaker, it would be remiss of me if I did not mention

some of the things that arose out of the Estimates.

For instance, during the review of the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation, questions were raised concerning the proposed pilot

project on road maintenance and repairs, which is not unusual. Some concerns

were recognized, especially by me. I have a number of people in my constituency

who have concerns, and understandably so. I must also say that the minister did

advise us that before the department would undertake any project, all financial

and logical analysis would have to be completed and presented to Treasury Board

for approval before any final decision on the matter could be made.

I must say that this issue came about in an innocent enough

fashion, when the minister of the department wanted to inform the employees of

Works, Services and Transportation through an information circular that went out

to them outlining the results of Program Review, and the Budget's impact on the

department. The department felt the employees should know these options of

contracting the service was under active consideration and they deserve to be

kept informed of the developments in this matter. NAPE representatives were

advised of the key issues and the internal analysis being undertaken by the

department.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the minister felt it was appropriate

and it certainly was in the spirit of open communication and consultation

fostered by this government, to make workers aware of the analysis being

performed because, Mr. Speaker, I am certain the government wants to be open and

frank in all it's discussions and it certainly makes for a good working

relationship, if all employees of government are aware of the initiatives of

government, so that they too can have an input into all that this process may

unfold.

As I said, the departments that were reviewed by Government

Services Committee, it went quite well, some members of the committee certainly

went through the estimates line by line by line and understandably so.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who did that?

MR. WISEMAN: Now, the member from Cape St. Francis is

asking who did that and he knows full well that I would have to say that the

member from Cape St. Francis certainly did a detailed analysis of all the

departments being reviewed by the Government Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, I

should commend him for the job that he did and I know that through the course of

this debate, that the member from Cape St. Francis will have more questions that

he would want to put to the departments that he received.

I must also say that most members of the committee were quite

pleased with all the answers given and they were quite pleased with the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the infrastructure and

capital works carried out by that department this year.

MR. J. BYRNE: We were not pleased with all the answers.

MR. WISEMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the member from Cape St.

Francis says that they were not pleased and I said earlier, when I had said that

he was very detailed in his analysis because it was very factual, that he was

very detailed, but when he says, that the committee was not pleased, I said that

most members of the committee, most members of the committee were pleased with

the infrastructure and capital works program being carried out by the Department

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. He himself may not have been pleased and he

has indicated in this House on several occasions with the allotment that he

received for his area, but when the hon. member from Cape St. Francis sits back

and does the analysis of the needs of this Province and he thinks about whether

he should put in twin ice services to skate on or whether we should put in water

and sewer in towns in this Province, I am sure that he will come to the

conclusion that water and sewer is much more important to the lives of people in

this Province, then twin ice services to skate on.

Now, Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, I am quite pleased

with the allocations of monies for my district, quite pleased, quite satisfied.

I have been quite satisfied for years, Mr. Speaker, even though I had not been

here as an MHA. I was somewhere up there in the galleries looking down as an

executive assistant, enough times to know what took place in this hon. House,

but I must saw that I am quite pleased and offer my congratulations and thanks

to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for the strong commitment

that he has made to my district over the years and he has made a difference in

my district. There has been a tremendous amount of need up there and, Mr.

Speaker, I can say that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has

certainly made a difference in eliminating those needs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, he may not have satisfied everybody in this

House of Assembly but when the Liberal government took over in 1989, they said

that we were going to do things based on need and I believe that that is the

course that should be followed. We should try, all of us, on both sides of the

House, to be reasonable and rational and realistic about what we can accomplish.

I know that my colleague for Conception Bay South is extremely pleased with the

monies that we have had over the years up there in that area, and I do not mind

saying, Mr. Speaker, tens of millions of dollars have been invested in

Conception Bay South, the Town of Paradise but nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we

still have a problem and there is not enough money in one year's Budget to take

care of the needs that exist in my district and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I have

raised the issue of private/public partnering because I believe that in order

for us to correct the problems that exist up there, the government should take

the initiative to try and find the way with private/public partnering to correct

that need, because if we don't, Mr. Speaker, if we don't do that, ten years from

now we will still have a need.

Conception Bay South and Paradise are probably two of the

fastest growing communities in this Province and, Mr. Speaker, without the

infrastructure, then it does not help our cause to be continuing to construct

houses and dwellings in an area where, at the end of the day, the taxpayers will

have to pay for that infrastructure. But if we do it now, Mr. Speaker, if we go

in there now and put in the infrastructure, then anybody constructing in the

future will just go in and hook on to the infrastructure and as part of the cost

I suppose more simply said, in doing business.

Mr. Speaker, as I had said earlier, the Estimates Committee

of Government Services Committee did go well. Members were detailed in their

questions, ministers were detailed in their answers and we were fully satisfied

that they could provide the details requested and if they did not have it at

their fingertips, Mr. Speaker, they undertook to supply to the committee the

details of all the questions asked and that is the way it should be, that any

member of this House can go into a committee, ask the questions that they want

to ask and receive the answers they deserve. Because, Mr. Speaker, this is the

people's House, it belongs to the people of this Province and these are the

people whom we represent and, Mr. Speaker, we know that they want honesty and

integrity. They want to ask us a question and know that the answers provided are

accurate.

Mr. Speaker, when the government changed in 1989 and came in

here, they had quite a problem on their hands to try and sort out the problems

that built up over the years, and it was no easy task to inherit a monstrosity;

a monstrosity in a sense, what do we do with it and any time that you want to

make a change, then you know full-well that you are going to impact on the lives

of people and nobody on this side of the House - and I am certain there is

nobody opposite - who would want to do anything that would cause any hurt or

pain to any Newfoundlander; but we don't have the revenues in this Province to

meet the demands of the people, so adjustments have to be made.

We have said time and time again that our priorities should

be health, education and human resource development. Since I have been here, a

little over a year, and I have worked with my colleagues and talked with

ministers, I have been assured - and this House can be assured - that all of us

on this side are certainly committed to doing what is in the best interest of

the people we serve.

I have said that any decision we make is going to have an

impact on somebody somewhere. Does that mean, then, that we don't make a

decision, that we don't make a change?

Mr. Speaker, day in and day out I see members opposite bring

in petitions on privatization; don't privatize our parks. When you think about

the needs that we have in health and education, human resources and development,

and you hear people who want to subsidize camping to the tune of $1.8 million,

then something is wrong with the logical rationalization of how we should

operate in this Province.

I can understand their point of view. I understand from where

the Opposition is coming. They are coming from Opposition, and I suppose their

role in this Legislature is to oppose, but I believe that if the government is

doing something that is right and worthwhile, then I believe they are a lot

better off supporting the government's initiative; because to say that we should

subsidize camping at a loss of $1.8 million, while we have great difficulty in

trying to get people into health care, then there is something missing.

I believe that the people opposite have as much compassion

for people as we do on this side of the House; let there be no mistake about it.

MR. H. HODDER: More.

MR. WISEMAN: The Member for Waterford Valley says,

`more', but no way; there is no way. The difference is that the people opposite

don't have to make a decision. They don't have to sit at the table and decide

where they are going to get the monies to meet the needs of the people. So all

of us should review where we are going and what we should do.

I am not going to say to the Opposition, `Well, don't oppose

it', because they are not going to listen to me anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: They are not going to listen to what I say.

I have been here now and I have listened to them ask questions. They don't even

listen to the answers from the ministers, let alone listen to me.

I believe that this government, under the leadership of

Premier Tobin, will lead this Province to a better tomorrow. We didn't promise

an immediate `better tomorrow', and I don't believe for one minute that there

was one person in this Province who believed that we could produce an instant

`better tomorrow', because, Mr. Speaker, it takes time -

MR. H. HODDER: Any eight-year-old will tell you, tomorrow

is the time (inaudible).

MR. WISEMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Waterford

Valley is looking for attention again. He wants to try to disrupt what I am

saying, because he knows in his own mind that what I am saying is realistic and

better for the people of this Province if we do privatize parks. He has to know

that, Mr. Speaker, because he, himself sat around the table in another capacity

and has had to make decisions. I suppose you have to give him credit because he

has made quite a contribution to Mount Pearl; and I remember his being with the

St. John's Metropolitan Area Board. Of course, I lived in a community that was

under his jurisdiction. I never always got satisfaction out of him, but he

tried.

MR. H. HODDER: You were a thorn in our side.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, he is saying I was a thorn in

his side. It is true, I was a thorn in his side, because we wanted people to be

treated fairly up in Topsail Pond and Three Island Pond. And, of course,

oftentimes the member agreed and oftentimes he did not, but that is the way it

is. He was in a position to say no, Mr. Speaker, and he stuck to his guns. He

does not want the government to make a decision and stick to its guns, but I do,

Mr. Speaker. I support the initiatives of this government and I believe we are

on the right track.

MR. J. BYRNE: How long can you go on, another couple of

hours?

MR. WISEMAN: I believe we are on the right track and that

if we state a course, we will make it, Mr. Speaker. As I said a few days ago,

when we came in here in 1989 we were paying $550 million in interest in the

monies that the Province already owed. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what we

could do today with $550 million and we did not have to pay any interest?

MR. H. HODDER: Why do you not see John C. Doyle and get

it back?

MR. WISEMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks

about John C. Doyle, but I have never heard him raise in this House the deal

that was made on the Roads for Rail agreement, a fifteen-year agreement that

caused the Province to lose $400 million. Every fifteen years, Mr. Speaker,

because of the deal made by the crowd that was in there then, we lose $400

million.

Mr. Speaker, the railway was generating $80 million a year to

this Province. The former government went and signed a fifteen-year agreement

for $800 million over fifteen years. That means, Mr. Speaker, we are losing $400

million every fifteen years. They have never mentioned it, Mr. Speaker. But, Mr.

Speaker, we cannot correct all the mistakes that were made in the past and there

were some that were made by all governments.

If we had not come in in 1989, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine

what the debt would be today? If we had not gotten a handle on the debt when we

came in, what would we be paying - $800 million or $900 million a year in

interest? We could not borrow our way to freedom.

MR. H. HODDER: Your Premier said he cannot cut his way to

prosperity.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, nor can we cut our way to

prosperity, but we have to manage with what we have. We have to try to manage

with what we have. We have to find the best possible solutions to the problems

we have. And I do not expect we will get much help from the Opposition. All I

hear from the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is `we should not do this, we should not

do that, we should put money into this, money into that.' So, Mr. Speaker, where

is the money coming from? People only have so much to pay. You can only tax the

people so much.

Just the other day, I was talking to an individual who said,

we do not have middle-class people anymore. There are the rich and the poor.

Because the middle-class is paying that much out now, that at the end of the day

or the month they do not have any money left. They said they can no longer pay

the burden of supplying the necessary taxation to government to fund all the

programs we have. It is only natural that this government would have to make

adjustments.

That is why they did a program review to look at the

efficiency and the effectiveness of all departments of government. It had to be

done. But I can imagine the difficulty of those people, after getting the

results of Program Review, knowing full well that they had to make a decision. I

know that not one of them on this side of the House would do what they had to

do, if they had a choice not to do it. Not to do it is to stay with the status

quo.

The people of this Province told us that they are not

satisfied with the status quo, that we have to look at change, we have to be

more effective, we have to be more efficient. I believe that we will be. There

is going to be some pain getting there, and it is sad. I do not want to see

anybody being laid off, and I do not think anybody on this side of the House

would want to see anybody laid off. But we must adjust, we must regroup, we must

reform, we must change. There are no choices. Because if this government does

not change, then the people will make a change.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) drunken sailors - spending

like drunken sailors.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have heard many times in this

House that the Tories spent like drunken sailors, but nobody believed they did.

I tell you, when we came in, in 1989 and looked at the books, we believed that

they did and we knew that they did, because of the monies that they had

borrowed, the monies they had squandered and spent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who got the money from Hydro?

MR. WISEMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, he wants to know who got

the money from the Hydro deal. People have been asking who got the money from

Sprung, and who got the crushing contract, and all this old...

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) John C. Doyle, now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) tell you about Frank Moores,

too.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, we can raise all kinds of

issues about failures of the past, but the failures of the past are history. We

cannot change history. What we can do is make changes for the future so that we

can provide for our people, so that we can have monies to help them over rough

times. Government is not the answer to all the problems in this Province. There

is no single government anywhere in this world that can solve the problems in

this Province, but we are trying and, I must say, we are doing a good job. We

are doing a good job with dealing with the problems that we have. Now, we are

not perfect, but we are trying.

I mentioned earlier about the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs who came to Cabinet, I think, in 1993. He recognized the need

of the Town of Conception Bay South and the Town of Paradise, and he has made a

commitment since then to help the people of that area. When I stand here today

and say that he put tens of millions of dollars up there, I am not exaggerating;

because that is what it takes, a government that recognizes a need, a need that

has to be addressed.

I recall when I was involved in the area in 1986-1987, when

councils in the area just spent money wherever they felt like it, looked after

their buddies and put water and sewer in Tory councils - there is one sitting

over there now on the other side of the House. They spent money like drunken

sailors, no plan, no direction of where they were going. They spent it because

some fellow came in and said, `I have a problem with water and sewer.' `Yes, no

problem, buddy; we will look after that for you.'

Mr. Speaker, when we came in, in 1989, and realized what was

going on, we said: Enough is enough. Before water and sewer goes in anywhere,

approval would have to come from the Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it caused quite an uprising in

my town, the area in which I live, but it was the right thing to do. Then what

we did was have the Department of Health go in and do a study on the area, and

look at the exact areas where that need was. It was a professional job, so that

they could come back and report to the government exactly where those problems

were.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs has stuck to that plan because that is the way in the '90s

that things should be done. We have all the technology that we need to find the

answers to our problems. We just need the will to do it, and I believe we do

have the will to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Would the hon. member take his seat for a moment?

The Chair is seeking direction from the House Leaders on both

sides. Is there an understanding that the debate time would be fifteen minutes

per member?

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the procedure

has been, over the past number of years - and I think the Standing Orders

actually speak to it; I have not checked today. I think if you look at the

second-last page in your Standing Orders, you will see for Estimates Committees

- and we use those same numbers here, that the opening speakers would have

fifteen minutes each and then we would go back and forth ten and ten. Anyway, if

it is not in the Standing Orders, that is the agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The agreement is that members will speak for fifteen minutes

and then -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. TULK: The agreement always has been, I think, that

the opening speaker - the chairman of the committee, when he introduces the

motion, should speak for fifteen minutes. The person replying will speak for

fifteen minutes, and after that we will go to ten minutes back and forth, or

between speakers, or whatever you wish.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well. I remind the hon. member, then,

his time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail, by leave.

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

I guess there is not a lot of enthusiasm on the other side of

the House to speak, but let me finish before -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, what I had said was, there is

probably not a lot of interest on the other side of the House to speak, but also

they might be fair enough in their minds to realize that I am a new member and

they want to give me an opportunity to get up and speak in the House. I would

like to think that is why they want to do it and I am certainly pleased that

that is what they want to do.

Now, as I was saying about the water and sewer services in

the towns that I represent, we had put in place a health study to go in there

and look at all of the towns and determine, once and for all, where those great

needs were. And we did it, Mr. Speaker. We went in, all the information was

compiled and the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs ensured that

that is what was done. Before that, I saw a main line run up the Conception Bay

highway costing some $3 million, and not a house - not one house hooked up to

that line.

I was not surprised yesterday when I picked up the local

paper to see that the member opposite for Conception Bay South was not pleased

with the water and sewer funding, not pleased because through somebody's fault

the main line - this year we have to install another main line along the bypass

road, so that they can get sufficient water pressure up the other end of the

town. The water pressure is low, it is a major problem, but yet, when the member

opposite was on council, he saw fit to run a water line up the town without

hooking a house to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. WISEMAN: I do not want to name him, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes do.

MR. WISEMAN: The hon. the member from Conception Bay

South. He is in the news now: It is a measly amount - a measly of money put into

Conception Bay South this year for water and sewer. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to

tell you that there never was as much money put into any town in this Province

than has been put into Paradise -Conception Bay South.

I recall, before this government changed in 1989, that the

Town of Paradise had received from the Tory government $50,000 for water and

sewer. Fifty thousand dollars - that is what they had received under the Tory

government, and they talk about patronage. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, there was no

great lot of patronage given to the Town of Paradise. But I can tell you, when

the government changed and we came in here in 1993, the Town of Paradise had

received up to $9 million for water and sewer and roads.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, you be good or I will withdraw leave.

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

withdrawing leave?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, let him go ahead.

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

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

I would like the opportunity to tell the House what had gone

on, without malice. It had to do with poor judgement, poor judgement on the part

of the people who had the authority to act in good faith, to represent the

people that they served. And I can honestly say today, that when I look at the

amount of money we received in the Town of Paradise and the Town of Conception

Bay South, I have to be satisfied, Mr. Speaker. I have to be satisfied because I

know there are other areas of this Province that have a need. And I believe that

all of us in this House should have the decency to look at this Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in totality, not just look at it in terms of our own

little niche, our own little district.

As I said, I am pleased about the efforts that have been made

by this government to try to meet the demands in the Town of Conception Bay

South and Paradise, but we must move on to private-public partnering. That is

what we should do, Mr. Speaker. With private-public partnering, we can service

the Town of Conception Bay South and Paradise in two to three years. It is done,

it is over, we do not have to come back here year after year and look for monies

to put in badly needed infrastructure. We are talking about putting in a sewer

treatment plant that will meet the needs of people for the next twenty or thirty

years. We need to expand the sewer treatment plant in Topsail, we need to put a

new treatment plant in the Kelligrews area and, Mr. Speaker, we need to connect

the Town of Paradise to the Town of Conception Bay South.

We have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the

people whom we serve, and I firmly believe, with private-public partnering, that

we can accomplish what no government can do, and that is, Mr. Speaker, to meet

all the needs of all the people in this Province. There is no way - so we have

to look at alternate ways of meeting our needs and it is not easy, but, as I

said earlier, in 1989, with interest charges of $550 million, which works out to

be about $12,000 a minute, the people before us did not have a lot of vision. I

recall talking to some of those people and all they said was: Don't worry about

it, it is only paper debt. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine - it is only a paper

debt!

Well, in 1997, Mr. Speaker, it is no paper debt, it is a

reality, and all those figures that add up to a deficit and all those monies

borrowed must be paid back. They have to be paid back. And who has the

responsibility of paying them back? The people of this Province, they have the

responsibility of paying back those monies. No foreign nation is going to come

in here with a shipload of money and say: We are going to take care of your

debt.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of opportunities in this

Province. I do not have to mention the Voisey's Bay mineral discovery, but I

find it ironic that sometimes in the media, they talk about this $4 billion that

Inco paid for the rights to mine the minerals in Labrador, and they are saying:

But we did not get one cent out of it. No, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a

different law.

We are talking about somebody selling their rights to a mine

to another company who has the money and the will and the way to develop it. But

I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that this government will have a fair deal. We

will have a fair deal for the people of this Province because that is why we

came here. We came here as Liberals to put this Province on the right track to

prosperity and, Mr. Speaker, we realize, the sad part about is that in doing

that, we cause some pain. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, anytime that you make

a change and anytime that you make a decision, it is going to affect the lives

of people. And it is sad, Mr. Speaker, that we have to do it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Withdraw leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: But, Mr. Speaker, we are confident -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it my understanding that the hon. the Member for Cape St.

Francis is withdrawing leave?

MR. J. BYRNE: That is right.

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

MR. WISEMAN: May I move the Concurrence Debate before I

sit down, Mr. Speaker?

MR. J. BYRNE: We have been trying to do that for the last

ten minutes.

MR. WISEMAN: Okay.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to say a few words in the

Concurrence Debate with respect to the four different departments.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Topsail and Chairman of the

Government Services Estimates Committee was up speaking for about forty-two

minutes when he was only supposed to speak for fifteen. We saw fit to let him go

on and speak as long as he wanted, but he abused it, of course, which is normal

on that side of the House, to abuse any leave that we might give. They do not

request it very often, mind you, because they are never on their feet speaking;

only a minister or two every now and then, and when we get them upset enough to

get up and speak. One of the worst for that, of course, is the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) John.

MR. J. BYRNE: He is the only one who gets on his feet,

when he gets upset enough to speak on any of these speeches that we make on this

side of the House, I say to the Government House Leader. He is the only one.

None of the back benchers will get up to speak. I do not think they are allowed

to speak over there on that side of the House.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I agree. He should never let you fellows get

him upset.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to thank the members who sat

in on the Government Services Estimates Committee. I have to say again that the

members of the Opposition were the people who were asking the questions, other

than a few questions, of course, that were set up by the government members, for

the minister, to give them a chance to say something positive. Now, I am going

to pay the Member for Topsail a compliment. Seeing that he gave me a compliment,

I am going to say that he is the Chairman of the Committee and he did a

reasonable job. I cannot say he did a good job. He did a reasonable job, and I

thank him for that. At most of the meetings he was agreeable to the Opposition

on the questions we wanted to ask, and in giving us leeway to ask the questions,

and working out the system by which we would like to ask the questions.

I would also like to thank the ministers. Most of the

ministers were quite co-operative with their answers. They had their staff also.

I would like to thank the staff they had in place, sitting in the seats in the

House of Assembly. That is where we had our meetings. I would like to thank the

staff for the answers. They had the - well, they had answers, I will give you

that, and they had the information at the tips of their fingers. Now, some

ministers, of course, are more informed, I would say, than others, and they

could answer the questions without having to go to their executive and to their

staff all the time.

One the minister who I thought was best able to do that, and

I give credit where the credit is due, of course, is the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. Madam Minister, for a person first-time-elected and

only in the department just over a year, I have to say, that minister knows her

stuff, she does her research before she comments, and I have to give her full

marks on being well-informed of what is going on in her department.

Of course, we all know that the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board also is well-informed, and he will certainly give you the

answers. He will try to jump around, skate around the issues every now and then

when he does not want to give you the answer, and he is good at that, but

generally speaking he will give you the answers.

Other ministers - the Minister of Government Services and

Lands, again, is a new minister. He has his staff in place, who help out with

the answers - no problem there. I usually come to these meetings quite prepared,

really. I go through the Estimates of each department. As the Member for Topsail

noted, I probably asked more questions than almost anybody else on the

Committee, of the various departments. I come quite prepared.

I asked the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs a

number of questions. Again, give credit where credit is due, the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs is pretty well informed on what goes on in his

department. He and I do not see eye-to-eye on occasion, and that may be

something to do with personalities, I do not know, but I give credit to his

staff in the department. Again, they come quite prepared to answer any

questions, and they do answer the questions that are put forward to them. As I

said, the minister and I, for some reason or other, seem to get each other going

on occasion. That is something he has to learn to live with, and certainly I

have learned to live with since I came into this House of Assembly and since he

became minister.

When they were pushing amalgamation a few years ago, I did

not agree with that. We have been at loggerheads on a number of issues over the

past few years. One of the biggest, I suppose, or the most contentious, was the

St. John's regional fire-fighting department that was set up by the minister -

well, actually, it was not set up by the minister, it was the previous minister,

but he certainly supported it - and the issue with respect to the regional

fire-fighting in the town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove. But now the

Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove has written the minister and asked

him for permission to get a loan to set up their own volunteer fire department.

I would imagine that is the route they are going to take because, of course, the

rates that are being charged to the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove

are outrageous, to say the least, and it seems like there is nothing they can do

to stop it. The minister is certainly not going to step in and help out.

The Member for Topsail who spoke, the Chairman of the Board,

spoke for something like forty-two minutes on this topic today and said that

most members were pleased with the answers. I suppose that is a correct

statement to make, that most members were pleased with the answers - not all

members. I was pleased with some of the answers, but I was not pleased with

other answers. I am not going to get into which I was pleased with and which I

was not pleased with, but let me tell you there were some.

I have to address one issue. I wasn't going to, but the

Member for Topsail brought it up. He talked about the twin ice surface that was

applied for by the five towns in the district in the Northeast Avalon. When the

minister was answering questions the other day he referred to one town, the Town

of Torbay, which is not the case. The facility would have gone in the Town of

Torbay, but it was an application by five towns, through the infrastructure

program, for twin arenas in the Town of Torbay, which would be a true regional

facility. The thing is that you have to compare this with this facility in

Clarenville, which is nothing more than pure political patronage.

The minister, the other day, stood on his feet in this House

of Assembly and made a statement that he had a letter from the Town of

Clarenville supporting this facility. We know since then that the Town of

Clarenville, and the council and the mayor, have been in the media making

statements that they have opposed the facility in the Town of Clarenville, that

the $1.43 million was not applied for - they didn't consider it to be applied

for - through the infrastructure program,

whereas the facility in the Northeast

Avalon was applied for by five towns.

The minister produced a letter here in the House of Assembly

on November 7, 1996, signed by the town clerk, to Mr. Bren Power. Now in the

House today I made comments with respect to people in the area of Clarenville

referring it to `Brenex', and the members on that side of the House could not

pick up on it; they didn't understand where that was coming from, and

`Powergate'.

For the record, I am going to read this letter. This is what

the minister tried to use to cover up or to hide the fact of this pure political

patronage. Here is the letter that he used in the House of Assembly on May 1:

Dear Mr. Power: Your presentation to council at their meeting

on November 4, 1996, for a proposed sports complex for the Clarenville area was

very interesting. A facility of this nature is something that is certainly

needed and would be an asset to not only our town but the entire region. Council

fully supports your project and your efforts in obtaining funding for the

complex. Letters of support for your project will be sent to the appropriate

agencies. In addition, lobbying with government departments to facilitate your

application will be undertaken. We would like to commend you for your interest

in providing athletic and recreational opportunities to our residents and would

like to wish you well with the project. Sincerely... The town clerk signed it.

Obviously there was no mention of the infrastructure program

in this letter. This letter was signed on November 7, 1996. The infrastructure

program was not approved at that point in time; therefore, the council - when

this went to government for approval, of course, the council did not even

understand that this was going to be made through the infrastructure program,

and they publicly stated it. So we have to question why it was approved. Now, of

course, we know that. The minister says how it is up to the Town of Clarenville

to say yes or no to that money, and there is a possibility of two other projects

in various towns to which it is up to the councils to say yes or no. Therefore,

there is no comparison between the two facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to speak on that today but the

Member for Topsail brought it up and I just wanted to get it clear.

Also, the Member for Topsail talked about this side of the

House presenting petitions on parks, and he disagrees with the fact that we

should be presenting petitions on parks in the House of Assembly. I say to the

Member for Topsail that the people in the Province have a right to be heard on

any issue on which they would like to be heard, and the privatization of parks

is a very serious concern with many people in this Province.

The Member for Topsail also said that he couldn't agree with

the government subsidizing $1.8 million for the -

MR. A. REID: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on

a point of order.

MR. A. REID: I think the hon. member is misleading this

House in making statements pertaining to that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to hear what -

MR. A. REID: Well, I certainly can't use the word

l-i-a-r, so I am going to say that he is misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker, I offered to provide information -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I offered to provide

information that would nullify what the hon. gentleman is saying in this House.

I offered it earlier today but he has not taken the opportunity to come and ask

me. I say to you quite honestly, I have a document in my hand, a presentation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask all hon. members on both sides of the House if

they would give me the opportunity to hear the point of order that the hon.

minister is presenting?

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is that I

don't think the hon. gentleman should be up making statements in the House

knowing full well that information is available to him, contrary to the

statements that he is making to this House. I have the information here in my

hand. He made a statement referring to the sportsplex in Clarenville, he said

the town council did not support it. I have proof here in my hand that it does.

I say to the hon. member - come over and do what I asked him to do - come over

and I will provide the information to you but to allow him to stand and continue

to carry on this charade that he is carrying on is not right and it is not doing

this House any justice.

Mr. Speaker, the letter to the council, `with council's

commitment to facilitate our application for funds under the Canada-Newfoundland

Infrastructure Program.' That is a letter addressed to the town council of

Clarenville and in reply to that letter the town council of Clarenville wrote a

letter -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: - so I think he is misleading the House, Mr.

Speaker.

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

speaking to the point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for a starter the member cannot use the words,

`misleading the House' in this House of Assembly. I had to withdraw that the

other day because I used it. Well I will tell you right here and now, Mr.

Speaker, that that is the man who is misleading this House and deliberately

misleading this House because two minutes ago I asked him for that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask the hon. member to take his seat.

It has been ruled, in this hon. House, on a number of

occasions that it is not unparliamentary to state that a member is misleading

the House but it is absolutely and certainly unparliamentary to state that a

member is intentionally misleading this House. So I will ask the hon. member to

my right to withdraw.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, okay I withdraw. That member -

MR. SPEAKER: And I will ask that the member withdraw

unconditionally.

MR. J. BYRNE: I unconditionally withdraw.

The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is

misleading this House. Five minutes ago in this House I asked that minister to

give me a copy of that application. He just stood in this House, stood on his

feet and said that I could have went over and got it but I did not ask for it.

Now if that is not misleading the House, what is? That man is trying to be smart

all along with respect to this issue. He knows whose political patronage is on

this issue. He knows the political partisan politics that went on with that

issue in this House of Assembly. He knows it but he will not admit it and

everybody on that side of the House knows it because I had members from that

side of the House come to me and say it.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member still speaking to the

point of order or is he back to the debate?

MR. J. BYRNE: I want him to withdraw the remarks, Mr.

Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. The hon.

gentleman is beside himself, he is getting excited and he is getting carried

away because the facts, as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has

given him, are irrefutable. He has given him the facts here today. He has

offered to table everything in the House and now, Mr. Speaker, he jumps up on a

point of order saying that it is unparliamentary to use the word, `misled.' Your

Honour knows full well that it is in the rule book unparliamentary and

parliamentary to use the word `misled.'

If you look in Beauchesne, pages 144-146, on page 146 you

will see that it has been ruled unparliamentary to use misled or mislead. On

page 148 you will see that it has been ruled parliamentary to use the phrase. It

depends, Mr. Speaker, quite simply on the context in which the word is used. The

hon. gentleman in this case - and I don't think anybody heard the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs say deliberately misled or knowingly misled or

anything of that nature. The truth of the matter is, all he said was, `misled.'

Mr. Speaker, I would say to you -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Government House Leader that I have already

ruled on that point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the point of

order raised by the hon. gentleman.

MR. SPEAKER: And I have ruled on that one as well.

MR. TULK: So you should not have allowed me to stand up.

MR. SPEAKER: Probably not.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Now back to that topic, Mr. Speaker. I am going to have to

stand in my place a number of times today, obviously, to get this straightened

out. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs knows that

the facility -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

Is the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

standing to engage in a debate?

MR. A. REID: Yes, I am.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister has ten minutes.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point of

order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have a meeting at 4:00 p.m.

that I have to attend, I would appreciate if the minister would wait until I get

back possibly 4:20 - 4:30, so I can hear his comments because he is going to say

when I leave that I ran out and that is not the case, I have a meeting I have to

attend to.

MR. SPEAKER: That is certainly not a point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: I know that.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: This is not a significant enough issue for

me to worry about whether or not my hon. critic is in the House or not, to be

honest about it. It is an issue, that at the present time, is being dealt with

by the Town council in Clarenville and they will decide at the end of the day

whether that project will go ahead or not and it will be the Town Council in

Clarenville that will decide whether it was for patriotic reasons or patronage

reasons or what ever you want to call it. It does not matter to me one way or

the other.

MR. FITZGERALD: Little Catalina will get the money.

MR. A. REID: And you never know, Little Catalina might

get the money.

The only thing about it is, let me say to the hon. member and

I say to all the House, that if the money is not spent in Clarenville that $1.3

million, we have to wait until after the federal election is over to decide then

where we are going to spend it. So, don't go getting anxious.

Mr. Speaker, I was caught in sort of a vise on Friday, a grip

on Friday, in trying to appease and I suppose promote the idea that I have been

promoting as the minister for the last four and a half years. Now, I would like

to see municipalities have autonomy in what goes on in their communities and I

have been preaching that around this Province with the sanction of the Premier,

the sanction of Cabinet, the sanction of the Liberal Party, that we believe that

municipalities should be the makers of their own destiny or whatever you want to

say.

So, on Friday, I guess most of us heard there was a number of

comments being made by the federation of municipalities and by some mayors

around the Province and then in the local newspapers there was criticism of me

and the government and patronage and all the other things that when along with

it. My hon. critic over there did not help the matter any by abusing me, I

suppose, on Thursday in the House on the issue. So, in consultation with my

cabinet colleagues, we decided that look, if there is any town in the Province

that did not want capital works or infrastructure money put anywhere, whether it

be the private sector or their own, then speak now or forever hold your peace.

This morning, Mr. Chairman, he just left here a few moments

ago, he was with me for this morning, the mayor of Gander came in, made a

special trip in to see me and categorically, brought a letter saying that the

federation of municipalities was not speaking for his town. The opposition

critic was not speaking for his town. Sam Synyard or Randy Simms was not

speaking for his town. He is the mayor of the town and he is the one who is

designated to speak for his town and categorically he said, I want that $1.5

million and I do not care what anyone else says in the Province, Mr. Reid, I

want it and I hope you live up to your commitment. No, problem. I send the man

off, quite happy and I said, that is all I wanted to hear, put it in writing and

I will reinstate the program in Gander.

Well, you can imagine what happened to me on the weekend, I

happened to go home on Friday when all of this broke loose and of course Mel

Peach, the illustrious mayor of Carbonear, a good friend of mine, my political

foe, the man I defeated in 1989, who still professes walking up and down Water

Street in Carbonear with a big PC banner on his back continuously day in and day

out, day in and day out, if there is any patronage in any of this, Mr. Speaker,

was the fact that I gave the Mayor of Carbonear, who is a PC, $2.4 million for a

civic centre!

Now don't sit in this House and say that what I've done or

what this government has done with capital works or infrastructure has anything

to do with patronage, because that is malarkey and (inaudible).

I did say that the hon. Mayor Mr. Peach came to me and he

said basically the same thing as the hon. Mr. Elliot from Gander said. Wanted a

civic centre. No problem. My, what a relief on me. You remember last week I got

up and apologized to this House for taking $2.4 million for a civic centre in

Carbonear, but under my breath, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure you never heard me, I

said: But you aren't getting it back.

So Carbonear is back on track, Gander is back on track, and

I'm hoping - and I'm not going to say very much about Clarenville, because as of

last night at 8:00 the town council in Clarenville plus members of the

Federation of Municipalities were served with a writ. Because they have been

served with a writ I am not going to sit in this House and debate whether or not

that was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do in Clarenville. That is

a situation now that has to be dealt with between the parties, the person who

served the writ and those who he served it on. At this point in time I am not

going to debate that question, whether it is right or wrong or indifferent, and

to me it doesn't matter.

Because call a spade a spade. Whether or not Clarenville -

(inaudible) hon. member was here - gets a $1.3 million sportsplex - oh, he is

here - what difference does it make to me? What difference does it make to me if

Clarenville gets a sportsplex? What difference does it make to me if Mount Pearl

gets $900,000 in paving? God bless them. Wrap their arms around them. Let the

MHAs and the people who are living in the area get up and clap their hands and

say; Great! But basically, what does it mean to me, to a member who is living on

the West Coast, other than the fact that it is adding to the infrastructure of

the whole of the Province. Not particularly in Clarenville or in Carbonear or in

Gander or in Marystown. It is adding to the total picture of the whole Province,

and if it can make somebody within the whole Province a little happier and maybe

create a few jobs, then I guess as a minister I have to take that

responsibility.

I have here in front of me the proposal that was presented

for the sportsplex. There are over thirty - I believe, I'm not sure, don't quote

me - but I believe there are over thirty recommendations from groups and

organizations all around the Clarenville area. I also have the two

presentations, the one that was made to the town of Clarenville, and the one

that was made to all the other town councils in the area, Glovertown and the

other groups, that supported this proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: I just gave your friend the copy. I have

that. Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Federation of Municipalities or anyone

would question us on any of this. Because anybody who knows anything about the

infrastructure program - and I'm going to tell you this, and this is a fact.

Here is a standard application for infrastructure funding. This application was

created by ACOA, the federal people in Ottawa. This is a federal application.

Just listen to this, here is what it says: Name of applicant,

mailing address, postal code, contact person. Number one. Project information.

Name of project, location of project, and, surprisingly enough, Mr. Speaker, it

says here: What is council's priority? The first question that is asked on the

infrastructure program application is: What is the council's priority? Whether

it be private industry, whether it be council's application, it doesn't matter.

What is council's priority? Written on this application was: Please see support

letter.

Mr. Speaker, there is the support letter, and there, Mr.

Speaker, is the presentation he made to get the support letter. Now I don't know

what else I can provide to the hon. member across or to any of my good friends

on that side and I will say that I made a mistake earlier today, Mr. Speaker,

and I have to withdraw it for the record, for Hansard.

In answering a question earlier today, I said: That the PC

Party of Newfoundland and Labrador supports it, the application; it was a

sitting member of the House of Assembly, an MHA who supported the application,

okay? I am not going to name that person. I do not have any problems and no

intentions of naming that person, and I really don't think it makes a lot of

difference but, I will say, Mr. Speaker, that if I were that member, whoever he

might be, and something like that came in front of me whether that was Tory,

Liberal or NDP or Communist, I would have supported it and I have no problems in

saying that; and it would not have mattered to me and I think that is the way he

looked at it as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words about our Estimates, I

sat in the House the other night, we had the Estimates done for Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing, that was finished in twenty minutes, a record time for

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and it took us approximately an

hour-and-twenty minutes to do the Municipal and Provincial Affairs and as far as

I was concerned at the time, Mr. Speaker, I answered all questions and those

questions I could not answer, the answers will be provided to the members of the

committee but I don't think there were any problems. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we

did not start until seven o'clock and twenty minutes after eight, we were going

out for coffee next door.

So, Mr. Speaker, we did have a good Estimates Committee

meeting and I will say that the Chairman of the Committee and the Opposition

members who sat, two of them, the Member for Conception Bay South and the Member

for Cape St. Francis, they are versed in what is going on, they are people who

were involved in municipal affairs for years themselves, asked some good

questions and I think I gave some good answers, but the bottom line, Mr.

Speaker, what hurts me more than anything else in the world and these fellows

know, every hon. member knows in this House, there is no fairer person when it

comes to trying to divvy up the few dollars we have and I have done that as

often as I can.

Mr. Speaker, I was appointed as minister four years ago and

let me say something to you, Mr. Speaker, prior to that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Almost four years.

MR. A. REID: No, longer than that. It is over four years

isn't it? Four years and, Mr. Speaker, in those four years, not once did the

Opposition ever stand in this House and say: the Liberal districts had more

proportionately than the PC districts because my hon. friends across -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. A. REID: I will finish it up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. A. REID: Okay. I will finish it up. - because the

hon. members know that for twenty, twenty-five years in this House, every year

when the capital works came out, it was the same story. The Liberals complained

about the Tories taking all the money, the Tories complained about the Liberals

taking all the money but since I have been here, I think I have been fairly

free, fairly honest. Bonavista is a prime example when you look at all the money

we put in Bonavista last year, not because the hon. member was a Progressive

Conservative but we knew what was going on in Bonavista this year, we needed to

put money in Bonavista.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) those dark days.

MR. A. REID: What dark days? You spent more time in my

office, you walked into my office the other day and walked right into my main

office and put your arms around me and told me the wonderful fellow I was and

now, all of a sudden you are saying that, and the member can't deny that because

the Member for Conception Bay South was with you, and the two of them - but I

would not let him put his arms around me because I was afraid he would squat me

to death, but that was beside the point so don't use that on me. I have been a

fair minister.

Mr. Speaker, this whole question of the sportsplex in

Clarenville rests now with the Town of Clarenville. When and if the Town of

Clarenville writes me a letter saying that this can proceed, then I will, but I

have no intention of going against the Town of Clarenville on this particular

application. If the Town of Clarenville does not want this, then the Town of

Clarenville is not going to have it.

Thank you very much, Sir.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker -

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could, just for a minute, I

would like leave of the House to move a motion that, rather than wait ten more

minutes, that we not - I know it is customary to go back and forth across the

House, but I would like leave, if I could, to introduce a motion that we not

adjourn at five o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The House is familiar with the motion. All

in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yea.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed?

Motion, carried.

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

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

I would like to stand just to make a few comments to what the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs just said, but before I do, I would

like to preface what the Member for Bonavista said when he talked about the dark

days when he wasn't allowed in the minister's office, and that is absolutely

true. But it seems, from what the member has told me anyway, that since the last

election there has been a significant change in attitude from the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. That has changed. Isn't that right? He said:

What a change in an attitude, and what a change in one individual since the last

provincial election.

I want to say that by way of record, and I am sure the Member

for Bonavista South will articulate that as well.

The minister talks about the situation with Clarenville with

respect to the sports arena, and he has tabled documentation, presentations that

were made to his district, supporting letters that came from the town, etc., but

the minister himself must have been surprised and somewhat shocked when he saw

the news program the other night when the mayor of the town and people within

the town said themselves: That was not our priority.

What he was saying, and what he has said here this afternoon,

is absolutely true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is - no reason

whatsoever - and I am certainly not going to say that it is not, but he must

have been as surprised and shocked as anybody else when the people of

Clarenville, when he saw the mayor on saying: This is not our priority. We have

roads that need to be paved. We have infrastructure that needs to be put in the

ground. We have a tremendous need for a health care facility for seniors in the

area.

On the one hand you cannot stand up and criticize a member

for asking a question when publicly he has seen, and is critic for that

minister, what the leadership within the municipality said publicly and what the

minister had said the day before were contrary to each other. There is nothing

irresponsible about asking that question. As a matter of fact it was fairly

responsible, I would submit to the minister. I hope that the clarifications that

the minister himself has put forward today, and the documentation that he has

tabled before the House, certainly clears up the issue, but time will tell. Time

will certainly tell.

Mr. Speaker, on infrastructure, it is an important issue and

there is no way that any government, I suppose, could ever in one budgetary year

garner all the money required to solve everyone's infrastructure problems, but

it is very, very difficult for people to see sportsplexes announced, and other

recreational things announced. I understand the frustration, and it should be

noted, and I am sure all hon. members do, especially those who are representing

districts where the needs are significant and where the needs are great, where

sewage is running in the streets, running in ditches, where there are not safe

water systems, where some water reservoirs in the area certainly are not up to

scratch because of what is running into them. We have seen that over the last

three or four years. So when people see an infrastructure program that is

announced, and we see it going into areas other than basic infrastructure,

obviously there are concerns.

What is wrong, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of

the House, with articulating those concerns here in the House of Assembly to the

appropriate ministers who are responsible? If it further highlights the issue,

if it further brings attention to it so that the explanations provided are

clearer than what they previously were, then so be it; the process has been

served.

We go through it in the Public Accounts Committee. The

Auditor General, in many ways, shapes and forms, outlines her concerns - the

present one - of either Crown corporations or government departments, and

provides recommendations. Sometimes they are scathing, but we have found

ourselves, I say to my hon. vice-chair, that in the exchange of questioning, the

asking of pertinent questions and frank questions, that the answers we receive

sometimes are not in line with what the Auditor General has put forward, and the

same analogy can be applied to the House of Assembly here. When members ask

question - today as an example, some thought that some questions were not very

serious.

But if you had 400 or 500 people who are being affected, well

they are serious. There is nothing wrong with asking the questions. If

government is so competent and so confident in its belief that the decisions it

has made are the most appropriate and are on the priority areas as it sees fit,

as it thinks they are, and believes they are, well then it further highlights

that issue or any other issue. It brings more attention to the fact that a

decision has been made, and made for either the appropriate reasons or not the

appropriate reasons. Where decisions have not been made for the appropriate

reasons, then people have to answer for that. But where they are made for the

appropriate reasons, fair enough. That is the way this process works, or at

least is supposed to work.

I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

that when the Member for Cape St. Francis as municipal and provincial affairs

critic stands in the House and asks a question related to a particular sports

complex, in a particular district, this district being in the Clarenville -

Trinity North area, based upon public comments made by municipal leaders that it

is not something they wanted, then he did the job he should be doing. If he

didn't do it he wouldn't be responsible.

I can't say that for the Minister of Education. I'm going to

leave him for another ten minutes, about 4:45 p.m., if he is here at all. This

is a minister by the way, Mr. Speaker, who takes great enjoyment of

administering probably one of the biggest budgets in government, second biggest

next to Health, on its way to become the third or fourth biggest if he continues

the way he is going.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, may be, if he is allowed to continue

the way he is going. Takes great enjoyment -

MR. H. HODDER: Out of inflicting misery on the children

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I wouldn't say that, wouldn't go that

far. I'm biased but I'm not that biased, I say to my colleague for Waterford

Valley. I'm very partisan, but not to the extent that I will make derogatory

comments about individuals. In terms of his professional approach, it seems to

me as a member in this Legislature, and as a person in the Province, that he is

taking great enjoyment out of absolving himself of the responsibilities that he

was elected and appointed to do.

Viable schools in the Province, setting up councils around

the Province to, on the one hand, what would seem practising the politics of

inclusion. What would seem to be and what has been directed to be practising the

politics of inclusion, by involving stakeholders. But he hasn't let the boards

be elected yet. He hasn't made any public announcement on when that is going to

take place. But what happens when the Minister of Education stands up and says:

I didn't close your school, and the Premier stands up in Grand Falls and says:

It wasn't me who closed your school, it was the school council that closed your

school.

AN HON. MEMBER: Board.

MR. E. BYRNE: School board that closed your school,

sorry. Thank you for the correction, I say to the minister. It was the school

board that closed your school. They go to the school board, people in different

areas around the Province in rural Newfoundland, and they take on the school

board. They say: The Minister of Education and government told us that you

closed our school. The school board says: We didn't close your school,

government took funding away, they closed your school. I mean, it is like some

of the football games I've witnessed. It is the quickest hand off of

responsibility that I've ever seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: More teachers going,