March 25,

1997 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLIII No. 8

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that

maybe I can address before we move to Ministerial Statements, by leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TULK: Yesterday there was some discussion on the

floor of the House as to whether we would open the House at 9:00 a.m. on

Thursday as opposed to 2:00 p.m., so that we could enable people who have to

travel some distance to be home for Good Friday if, indeed, the place should

close on Thursday at or before 12:00 p.m.

I think there is a general concurrence in the House that we

would do that. In other words, Thursday would become Friday for this week and

this week only so that some people could get home early, and maybe on Thursday

afternoon some people might want to go down and buy a few flippers for Friday

dinner.

The other thing is that I just want to tell the Leader of the

Opposition that the Premier is caught in some traffic and will be here for the

last part of Question Period, so if you want to do something else with the order

of your questions...

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Ground traffic today.

One other point is that there is a motion on the Order Paper

from the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile for Private Members' Day tomorrow. We

have called that and given notice of it. With leave of the House he has to

attend a function, something in his district that he cannot avoid. It has

something to do, I believe, with the law courts. I don't know whether he is

being prosecuted or persecuted, or is a witness. I would just ask the indulgence

of the House to have the Member for Topsail introduce the resolution and close

debate on it.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the

Government House Leader we, on this side, have no objections to declaring, as

Smallwood would say, that this House has the right to do anything; so for this

week only Thursday will be Friday and we will meet at 9:00 a.m. We agree with

that to facilitate the members who wish to travel to their districts and get

them home with their families by Friday.

Also, we agree that the Member for Topsail can introduce the

motion put forward by his colleague, the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile, in the

Private Members' Day tomorrow.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just add one correction to the statement of the Opposition

House Leader. The House can do anything with unanimous consent. I, for one,

having had discussions with the Opposition House Leader about this point, have

no difficulty with allowing Thursday to operate on Friday's hours. And I have no

problem with the private member's resolution being introduced by someone other

than the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile, although I must say I am disappointed in

not being able to hear the Member for LaPoile in his stentorian tones speak on

this very important issue.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, it is my pleasure today, with House

consent, to congratulate the Sunny Cottage Corporation of Harbour Breton in

receiving the 1996 Manning Award for excellence in public preservation of

historic places. The award is presented to the community significance category

and will be awarded at Government House this afternoon. In addition to the award

the corporation will receive a $500 gift in order to further develop the

project. I wish to note that under Chairperson Douglas Wills, Mrs. Lackey, Mayor

Eric Skinner, Bernice Eric and Catherine Blake who is here today and to thank

them for their work and contribution to the Sunny Cottage Corporation. Such

projects are integral to preserve Newfoundland and Labrador history and culture.

Indeed the people of the district that I represent have received an additional

award, the town of Belleoram receiving it for the John Cluett House Museum.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they in the gallery?

MR. LANGDON: Yes, they are in the gallery, in the front

row.

Also there is considerable volunteer activity and dedication

which makes these historic projects possible. Without volunteers Sunny Cottages

and John Cluett House Museum, as well as other historic sites around the

Province may not exist. Therefore, while the volunteers often remain unnamed, I

wish to extend a thank you for their efforts and let them know their work does

not go unnoticed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We, on this side of the House, wish to join my colleague in

extending congratulations to Sunny Cottage Corporation and join with him in

recognizing the tremendous role that volunteers play in all of our communities.

Today it is more than ever appropriate that we take a moment to say to the

volunteers throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that they are indeed the heart

of the community. With the members in the gallery today, we pay particular

recognition to the people who have been associated with Sunny Cottage

Corporation and we on this side, give them all encouragement to continue the

fine work that they have begun.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with pleasure in the remarks of the

Member for Cape la Hune in Fortune Bay in supporting the work of the Sunny

Cottage Corporation and recognizing as well those who preserve the John Cluett

House. These types of projects are excellent examples of what local communities

can do, not only in preserving the architectural and cultural heritage of our

Province but also in providing a reason for people who are travelling and

visitors to come and see these places; and people go out of their way to a

community which has such a restored building to have a look around the building,

to see what there is to offer in the community and to enjoy Newfoundland's rural

and cultural heritage. So I think the congratulations of the House are

well-deserved by this group and deserves the recognition that they are getting.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we get into the routine business

perhaps I should go back to the two points that the hon. the Government House

Leader raised. One was with the issue of Thursday becoming Friday and the other

was the hon. Member for Topsail will introduce the motion tomorrow on the

government side Private Members resolution. It is agreed then that we have

unanimous consent on that, just for the record?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, okay.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two years ago, government announced an incentive package for

the recruitment and retention of rural doctors. Part of that incentive package

included bonuses for salaried general practitioners who committed to a minimum

of two years service in a designated rural area of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, effective April 1, 1997, government will fulfil

its commitment and pay out $700,000 in bonuses to fifty-five eligible doctors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: There are a further eight physicians who

will be eligible to receive the bonus in this fiscal year and another thirteen

will be eligible in fiscal year 1998-99.

I would also like to inform hon. members that government will

extend the bonus system to include specialists also working in designated rural

areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. Over the next two years, government will

provide bonuses to twenty-two specialists working in rural areas of the

Province. In total, more than $1 million in bonuses will be paid to our rural

doctors by the end of fiscal year 1998-99.

Mr. Speaker, recruitment and retention of physicians to rural

parts of the Province is one of government's highest priorities. On Thursday,

government announced a $2.6 million increase for salaried physicians in rural

Newfoundland. This salaried increase, in conjunction with the bonus system will

allow us to be more competitive with other jurisdictions in Canada.

Government is committed to preserving and protecting access

to medical services in rural Newfoundland by using the resources allocated for

payment of physicians in a more efficient manner, and by addressing all of the

other issues and concerns of rural doctors.

Government, together with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Medical Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Care Association,

will now work toward a comprehensive plan for the recruitment and the retention

of rural physicians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How desperate is the minister for news. Over two years ago,

the announcement was made. March 14 in The Evening Telegram there was a

story listing all these specifics the minister referred to. What it amounts to,

in certain communities, $5,000 a year - and all the communities are listed here.

That will be after taxable income of $2,000 a year to a physician in this

Province who is making on the average - a salaried physician - close to $80,000,

while in other provinces it is $130,000.

Now, do you think $2,000 or $3,000 a year is going to keep

doctors in rural Newfoundland? I mean, the minister has to get with it. Two

point six million dollars, he is telling us, a whole new pile of funds, $2.6

million, to put into increasing salaries. If you divided that by the eighty-four

unfilled positions, we could pay each doctor to come in here $30,000 a year to

staff the unfilled positions. Then the minister wants to put some of that to

increase the base salary. We might attract doctors here at $15,000 a year by the

logic and the figures that are used there.

You need over $10 million to address the problem in any

reasonable manner for the shortage of doctors.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a two year old announcement, it has

been in the media several times in the last two years, and he is trying to stand

up today and get a little bit of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - media attention out of something. It is

like the announcement yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the

Minister of Health's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Slightly over twenty-five years ago the Province started a

medical school, the idea of which was that we would solve the recruitment of

doctors' problem and provide a chance for the people of this Province to go to

medical school. Hundreds of millions of dollars and twenty-five years later, the

government is still trying to solve the problem of rural doctors.

Now, this $2.5 million band-aid does not appear to solve the

problem. The people of this Province want real solutions that are going to last.

I ask the minister to look into this matter, come back to this House, and report

as to how the medical school can be used to ensure that we are going to have

doctors in rural Newfoundland.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, on behalf of the Minister of Justice, to advise

my colleagues in the House of Assembly and the public of the Province that the

government, in recognition of the considerable contribution provided by the many

volunteers and volunteer organizations within the Province, will be providing,

free of charge, Conduct Certificates from both Police Forces and Provincial

Court to individuals requiring these certificates as volunteers to non-profit

and volunteer organizations. These organizations include, for example, Big

Brothers - Big Sisters, Community Service Organizations, and the many volunteer

sports groups throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I trust this is the first of many budgetary

retractions that this government will be forced to make as it learns the perils

of consulting with people after making decisions. We hope to hear other

announcements in the coming days, announcements whereby this government will

listen to people, but unfortunately it is too little, too late. A few areas on

which we hope to hear from this government are other fees as they apply to

individuals, the effects upon municipalities, and parks - these are just few,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Department of Health has frozen its Budget for three years, the crunch is being

felt in hospitals and nursing homes. In fact, the operating Budget for long-term

care facilities this year is reduced by $11 million. The Health Care Corporation

of St. John's has projected an operating deficit over the next three years, and

the CEO has predicted that services would begin to suffer if an influx of money

was not found. The Western Health Care Corporation is currently experiencing an

operating deficit. I ask the minister if he is now permitting hospital boards to

borrow and run up a deficit on their operating Budget?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the latter part of the hon. member's question, hospital

boards are only permitted at any given time to run a deficit, or to incur

borrowing, subject to the authorization and approval of the minister. That is

nothing new. In instances where it is appropriate to do it on a short-term basis

we do it, but in the normal course of events, hospital boards are expected, are

mandated and are required, to operate on a balanced budget, and there is no

change in that.

In terms of how much money we are putting into the health

care system, I think it is probably time that we take a minute and reflect on

some of the information that is factual but that would not readily come from the

members of the Opposition in terms of the way they proposition things. The fact

is that in 1991-1992 we put $838 million into the operation of the health care

system, and today we have put $913 million into the operation of the health care

system in the Province.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we have more

doctors today than we had ten years ago, and more than we had five years ago.

The fact of the matter is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

please.

MR. MATTHEWS: The fact of the matter is that we have 3

per cent more nurses in the system today than we did three years ago, and I

could go on and on and point out to the hon. member how things have improved,

notwithstanding some of the restructuring that has taken place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mandated to operate on a balanced budget, and then allowed to

borrow; that doesn't make sense to me, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see how you can

have both.

The Health Care Corporation of St. John's intends to borrow

$100 million to finance the relation of the Janeway and to make improvements at

St. Clare's. Now, a recent announcement by the Health Care Corporation on $2.5

million will be expended to reduce waiting lists for cardiac surgery.

I ask the minister: Will the minister confirm that no new

money is being provided to accommodate cardiac patients, and in fact the money

will be borrowed by the Health Care Corporation and repaid from its current

operating grant, which will result in reduced services in other areas?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to two

different things in his question. He talks about the redevelopment, which is

going to cost about $100 million in terms of capital. Then he talks about money

being made available for the cardiac program.

I would tell the hon. member that last year we put $1.5

million new money -

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not the question.

MR. MATTHEWS: If that is not the question, tell me what

the question is.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Will the Minister confirm that no new

money is being provided to accommodate cardiac patients and, in fact, the money

will be borrowed by the Health Care Corporation and repaid from current

operating grant, which will result in reduced services in other areas?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government made a provision last year in our health

budget to provide an additional - over and above the monies that would normally

go to the Health Care Corporation - $1.5 million to help them address the

cardiac program waiting list that we have at the Health Sciences.

We have not been fully been able, through the Corporation, to

solve the cardiac waiting list over at the Health Sciences simply because:

Number one, we have not yet been able to redevelop OR studio space to give more

time over there, nor have we been able to redevelop the I.C.U. to give us more

I.C.U. and intermediary care beds over there. That part of the redevelopment is

part of the larger redevelopment that is taking place over at the Health

Sciences and at St. Clare's as a result of the $100 million expansion that we

are doing for the new capital improvements.

We are not borrowing money to develop or ameliorate the

waiting list on heart surgery. We are borrowing money, we are borrowing, either

the government directly in lending or the Health Care Corporation on the

signature of the government, one or the other, we will borrow about $100 million

to do a major capital expansion that has nothing to do with the clinical program

that deals with cardiac waiting lists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the

minister should have a chat with the Health Care Corporation more often and ask

it where it is getting its money, I will say to the minister.

There are numerous people in hospitals this very day waiting

for cardiac surgery. A few weeks ago I spoke with a person who was waiting in

hospital fifty-five days. Yesterday I spoke with a person who was waiting over

six weeks. That man was prepared for surgery on five separate occasions, I say

to the minister, and each one was cancelled. The latest cancellation was

yesterday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - due to a shortage of I.C.U. beds.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, what are you going to

do when you close the Grace Hospital and put other demands on operating room and

I.C.U. space? Are we going to see a further reduction in services then?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is

absolutely correct to this extent that he indicates there is a long waiting list

for cardiac procedures at the Health Sciences. As a matter of fact, yesterday

afternoon at 5:00 I met with the C.E.O., the chairman of the Health Care

Corporation board, I met with Dr. Eric Stone and Dr. Eric Parsons, and others

who are involved in that program, to have a further discussion as to how we can

ameliorate some of the stress that is being put on patients and put on the

system to deal with the problem.

The facts are, clearly, that we have over 200 today on that

waiting list. I'm familiar with - I think I am - the case that he brought

forward, a man who was cancelled five times. I spoke to his wife yesterday. I

spoke to her last night at my home; she called me at 10:30 p.m. I spoke to her

again this morning. Literally we are doing everything humanly possible within

the system that we have for doing cardiac procedures to address that waiting

list. I am asking the Health Care Corporation after the meeting I had with them

last night to further investigate additional ways that they might be able to

help alleviate that waiting list. If it is sending people out of the Province,

I'm prepared to undertake to have that done. If it is moving services to another

site -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - to allow for more things to be done at

the Health Sciences, I'm prepared to have that done. But we are not asleep at

the switch. We are on top of the issues that are pertinent to health care today

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - and we will do due diligence to the

concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, the minister is

not asleep at the switch, I will admit. It is hard to be asleep at the switch

when you aren't even at the switch, I say to the minister.

Does the minister realize it is costing up to $800 a day to

keep cardiac patients in hospital waiting for surgery? A fifty-five day wait for

surgery is costing taxpayers $44,000, and there are dozens of people in that

position today. I ask the minister: Why doesn't the Province provide the money

now to clear up the backlog and start operating our health care system in a more

cost-efficient manner?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can only repeat

what has been said before. I can only reiterate what Dr. Stone and Dr. Parsons

said publicly on TV. the other day. The issue of the waiting list for cardiac

procedure has nothing to do with money. It has to do with physical capacity at

the Health Sciences and or the St. Clare's Hospital to get more procedures put

through the system. Now if the hon. -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I'm frankly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I'm having competition, Mr. Speaker, and I

don't like competition. If the hon. member is criticizing the health care system

and government for keeping critically ill people in hospital at any cost while

we are endeavouring to deliver services to them, then that is a criticism that

he will have to wear and bear and live with. We are not as administrators and as

managers of the health care system, Mr. Speaker, prepared to send critically ill

people home just because they cost $800 a day in a hospital. We will keep them

in hospital and we will look after them in hospital; we will maintain them until

we are able to deliver the services that they need -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - and if the hon. member suggests that we

send people home who are feeling sick because we can't perform an operation then

he will have to deal with his own conscience.

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

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a solution to that problem but it is not the one the

minister is talking about. It is due to surgeries.

Last year, slightly less than nine surgeries were done per

week when the expectation was over ten and up to twelve. It is not getting done,

Minister, there are no beds available after surgery and you know it. Now the

family -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question; he is on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The family I spoke with yesterday was very perturbed and if

you can imagine the stress of lying in a hospital bed for six weeks, hoping and

expecting every day to have cardiac surgery, it puts tremendous strain on the

family and on the individual.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Will he consider the

human elements and act immediately to correct this problem?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let me again reiterate. Let me

again

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me again reiterate, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I shared with the hon. member

just a few minutes ago the critical need we have to get through the system

people who need cardiac surgery. I confirm for the House and for the hon. member

that there is a waiting list of over 200 people. I shared with the hon. member

the fact that, even last night, I sat in my boardroom with the CEO and the Chair

of the Board of the Health Care Corporation and the people who run our cardiac

program over there, to discuss ways and means of moving more people through the

system.

The facts of the matter are these: We cannot physically put

more procedures through the facilities that we have in their current state. We

are moving as quickly as we can to do the re-development at the Health Sciences

Centre and St. Clare's so that we can get more procedures put through, but in

the meantime, we are prepared to discuss and to entertain any and all

alternatives including if we have to send people out of the Province to ensure

that they have available to them heart surgery.

The one thing we will not do is what the hon. member is

suggesting, the one thing we will not do is abandon the people of the Province

and send them home just because they are costing us money to keep them in

hospital. We will undertake to do due diligence to their needs as we have always

done and we will continue to do.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Social Services.

In the past several days I have had complaints from

recipients of home care services to the effect that a local business,

Newfoundland Domestic Home Care Services has been contacting potential clients

using information that allegedly has been supplied directly or indirectly by the

Department of Social Services personnel.

Can the minister assure all those who use home care services

- paid for by the government - that confidential information about clients,

addresses, their names, home care needs has been and is now safely guarded by

her department?

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

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

The confidential information about people is held within the

Department of Social Services and is used for the benefits that we have to

provide the care that is required. In as much as we have a system of over 1,100

persons whom I do support and know they do excellent work in very challenging

times, I would have to say that this information is confidential. If the member

is alluding that this information has been released in an inappropriate way, I

ask that he make that known to me and I would follow-up in an appropriate manner

as in an employer-employee relationship.

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

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

Newfoundland Domestic Home Care Services has told some of the

people they have contacted that their information sources are within the

Department of Social Services. Obviously they have information that breaches

confidentiality guidelines. If the information did not originate within the

Department of Social Services what other possible source of information base is

there that could have access to this type of information which has been shared

with the Newfoundland Domestic Home Care Services?

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

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

I would say to my colleague, if you are aware that this

information has been released, if confidential information has been released, I

would ask that you make me aware of the source of that information.

In response to the second part of your question, I would say

again that with over 1,100 employees, I can say that that information did not

come with the approval of me or my department. If it did come I would like to

know from the source to which you have received that information. The only

alternative that I could suggest is that anyone is free at any time to disclose

information about their own personal needs. I would not be able to rule out the

fact that people do share information with people who are offering services.

That is my choice to make as an individual or your choice or any other

individual but in terms of being sanctioned from my department, I would not be

releasing personal, confidential information about an individual without their

knowledge. They certainly would have the right to do that if they wanted to

avail of other services, as they do now. In many cases, people who are availing

of home support services are acting and are the employers. They are able to give

information about their needs so people can say to them what they are able to

provide and that is a totally different relationship than the one you described.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

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

I agree, madam minister, that clients can share information

however, that is not what has happened here. Newfoundland Domestic Home Care

Services have called clients and have told them information that they should not

have access to. Given the fact, madam minister, that a little over a year ago

confidential information from the department was indeed being forwarded in

error, by fax, to a construction company in Labrador, given the fact that

recently an employee was severed from the department for accessing or sharing

confidential information, why should those who use the services of the

department have confidence that you and your officials control access to

confidential data?

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

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

I have no idea what you are talking about, some sort of

severance or severing of some employee. I don't know what you are referring to

in this particular case but what I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, is that as the

Minister of Social Services and as a member of this government we have a lot of

confidence in our front line workers. We support the work they are doing. We

respect the work they are doing under very challenging situations and in as much

as I can speak for over 1,100 employees, I am confident that they are working to

the best of their ability and that they would not release information that is

inappropriate. If they are, if they have, I ask that you bring it forward and we

will deal with it in an employer/employee fashion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Human Resource Development

or Human Resources, whatever the new name is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Not yet? As of April 1 then.

In view of the fact that the federal government has given

notice that it will opt out of the program for older worker adjustment based on

March 31, 1997, and in view of the fact that they said that any new program

designed for older worker adjustment would have to be negotiated between the

Province and the federal government, can the minister, who is now responsible,

advise the House on where those discussions are? Can we look forward to a new

program for older worker adjustment and when will that be coming?

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I still have employment programs

until April 1.

In terms of the older worker program, we are still in

discussions with the federal government. There have been no commitments yet. The

program runs out March 31. We are hopeful that there will be another program

introduced but as of today, we still don't have anything for them to talk about.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the

Provincial Government move, and move expeditiously. For the last twelve months

this government and, indeed, the people of the Province have known, that at

least once case, Hopebrook Mines, is closing down. It has been forecasted for

over a year. Some twenty workers who would be eligible for that program have

written the minister and have asked could anything, or can anything be done to

provide them some adjustment when a major site closes down, some adjustment in

the workforce to get them through to retirement benefits? Can the minister

comment on that? Is her department, or is government proceeding to look at doing

anything for those twenty workers, especially in view of the fact that

government has realized for the last year that this closure and shutdown was

coming?

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we are as concerned as anyone with

respect to what may happen at Hopebrook Mines. Clearly, we have to work closely

with the Federal Government in developing any program for older workers, and

will continue to work very closely with them. We have nothing at this point in

time. The other program is still in existence until the end of March, but we are

hopeful that there will be something. The federal government knows exactly where

we are coming from on this front; that we really are pushing for a program as a

result of the Powell one being gone.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would suggest that concern, on the one

hand, is one thing but action, on the other hand, is completely another. In view

of yesterday's announcement where some $308 million was announced for the

Province for over the next three years, and in view of the fact that a letter

written to the minister by the president of the local union out there has

requested a new program, and has also requested a retraining component, would we

see coming from those funds announced yesterday a program for older worker

adjustment - those funds which will be co-managed by the Province, over which

the Province has some discretion and some decision-making? And, will we see a

retraining component put in place for not only workers at Hopebrook, of major

shutdowns, but for other workers in the Province as well?

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

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

Although, this particular program has not been targeted as

one of the areas, it can, in fact, meet the requirements because anyone who has

an attachment to the workforce within the last thirty-six months, and anyone who

has paternal or maternal relationship to the workforce within the last five

years, will have access to training and programs.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, maybe I should have asked the

question of the minister first because now we are getting somewhere. She is

saying on the one hand that this program, or the conditions we have talked

about, actually meets the requirements. If they do make the requirements, let me

ask the minister, will she make a commitment today to meet with the local union

out there to access the situation of the twenty older workers, and to put

something in place for them before August 31st of this year so it will give them

some sense of security as to where there future is going?

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

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

I think there is a different issue here. I support my

colleague in that there is a separate program in place for older workers which

expires the thirty-first of this year. As my colleague has said, there have been

ongoing discussions about renewal of some form of contract and we are working

with the Federal Government on that. But, with respect to the other part of the

question, anyone who has an attachment to the workforce and is wanting or

willing to work and find alternate training or some assistance to find work,

that program, the Labour Market Development Agreement, can assist anyone in that

program.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this government will meet with anyone

at any time to assist them in any way we can. But, I cannot make a commitment

because I would like an opportunity to meet with them. If they want to meet with

me, I would be happy to meet with them.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Environment and Labour,

can he guarantee this House that no deals will be entered into on water export,

and that no applications will be approved on water export, until a generic

royalty regime has been in place on the export of water from our Province?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of

the member in the water resources of the Province, and I can commit to him that

this government will not undertake a deal, or a new arrangement of a proposal,

to deal a proposal on water export without full scrutiny. The government is

looking at this as an opportunity for the people of the Province. We look at it

as a pro-active policy, and we will bring forward the guidelines and the

strategy for dealing with it. We have already announced a public policy and are

filling out the details.

Mr. Speaker, the government will deal with the matter and

will deal with proponents in a serious way. I am sure that as you bring it

forward and create some opportunities that it will be seen as a positive policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: When can we expect a generic royalty

regime on the export of water from our Province?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that

it would be in the fullness of time; I am going to give him a more concrete

answer. We are working on it right now as we speak. The Department of Industry,

Trade and Technology is working with our Department of Environment and Labour,

and we are going to have a royalty regime in place very shortly.

Mr. Speaker, we are hoping that once we do that we will see

people coming into the Province, and people within the Province, looking at this

opportunity. As a matter of fact, we have had a number of enquiries for water

export in the Province, and we are looking forward to seeing it occur. So I can

assure the member that we will have the arrangements done in due course, and

that as we see the proposals come in, we will be able to see it come forward.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the department's regulations regarding our provincial

water supplies, there is an order of priority for water use in this Province.

Energy is behind both domestic and export use of water resources. Is the

minister prepared to accept an application today for the export of water from

Star Lake?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that, because

we have not seen an application. We would have to review the application, review

the proposal, and see whether or not it would meet our policy. If a company

wants to bring forward a proposal for some water body, then they can do so and

we will consider it with the policy.

Now, this is a pro-active policy with water sources that we

may have in the Province that are not utilized, where they can create an

opportunity for value-added water export opportunities.

I do not know; I have not seen an application for Star Lake,

and if we do we will deal with it.

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

final supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has before him proposals which are going to the

environmental assessment stage on the export of water from Gisborne Lake. I ask

the minister: When is he going to establish a bulk volume maximum on the export

of water, such as they have done in British Columbia, so that our Province can

not only take the benefits from a water royalty regime but we can also take the

benefits from the jobs for bottling, packaging, labelling, and even the shipment

of water from Gisborne Lake?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am finding it a little bit

strange that the Opposition has such an interest in what we are going to do with

our water in a sense of the possible opportunity, and they are really not

advocating that we look at this opportunity, but they are not expressing any

opposition to the importation of bottled water into this Province, which is

costing us - we are not getting any opportunity out of that whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) juice coming into this Province

from other provinces (inaudible).

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are exploring the

opportunities to export water out of the Province. We are trying to create some

job opportunities for the Province.

The British Columbia policy I am very familiar with. As a

matter of fact, they are looking at our policy now because they think it is not

half bad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the homework

that the Opposition member is doing, because he is doing his homework and I

appreciate it. I say to him that we are taking the policy forward, and we are

looking forward to creating some new opportunities for water export.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Petitions

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy today to again rise and present yet another

petition against the privatization of our provincial parks. The petition reads:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the hon. House

of Assembly to voice our concerns over the government's decision to privatize

our provincial parks. We are asking the government to immediately reverse its

decision to privatize the parks, as we feel the decision was made in haste and

without any consultation from the people who own these parks, the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

presented against the privatization of provincial parks. To date, we have

approximately 17,000 names on petitions. It is quite clear that the people of

our Province are not in favour of the privatization of our provincial parks. The

people of our Province own these provincial parks. Provincial parks are not

meant to generate a revenue surplus. They are paid for by the taxpayers of our

Province and they are meant to be utilized and enjoyed by the taxpayers of our

Province. It is appalling that our Province is looking at privatizing a number

of provincial parks, especially on the eve of the most important tourism year in

our history, the Cabot 500 year. There will be plenty more petitions coming

forth on the privatization of our provincial parks. This is an issue that will

not die.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am pleased today to stand in my place and support the

petition presented by the Member for St. John's South regarding the

privatization of parks. We have been presenting petitions in this House now for

the past while concerning this issue, an issue that the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation announced with no public consultation whatsoever. Within

two days, she was backtracking in the media, making statements that the media

were out to get her; basically, I would say, that they were not quoting her

accurately. In actual fact they were quoting directly from a press release that

the minister put out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Education is over there,

Mr. Speaker, he just woke up. He does not seem to take this matter too

seriously. I think he should. Because what is coming down the tubes with respect

to parks and other issues in this Province will directly impact upon that

individual in the near future when we see large demonstrations in the streets

concerning this issue and many other issues that this government is planning to

force down the throats of the people of this Province.

Now, as I said earlier, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation introduced this change to the park system, the privatization of parks

within the Province, with no consultation whatsoever from the public. I

remember, during the last election the now-Premier, the then-person looking to

become Premier again, after it being handed to him on a platter - and we had

members from the opposite side, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and a

few more who were afraid to run, who announced that they were going to have news

conferences to announce that they did not have the nerve to run against the

Premier. The Minister of Education was touted to be number one and probably

could have been, if he had had the nerve to run against the Premier. But he did

not have the nerve. A few members on the other side of the House got together

and did the job on him. When he was out of the Province they decided to anoint

the Premier we have today.

That is a side issue. This issue is an issue that the people

in this Province hold very dear to their hearts. They feel they own the parks,

and they do own the parks. The public of this Province have paid, year-in and

year-out, over the years for these parks. They have announced millions of

dollars. Millions of dollars went into these parks over the past few years. Two

years ago, the then-Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation at that time,

who is now the Minister of Education I think, announced the privatization of

over twenty parks, to enhance the public park system in this Province. What has

actually happened now, a year or two later?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now the Minister of Education is saying we

should have privatized them all. That is the very point that I am getting to,

Mr. Speaker. A year-and-a-half after we privatized twenty-eight or twenty-nine

parks, some of them not operating today, we have another twenty-one being

privatized. So now what are we getting into?

Are we getting into a situation now, where a year down the

road the number of parks that are left, Mr. Speaker, will be privatized and we

will not have any public park system whatsoever within the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador? I think, Mr. Speaker, that would be a tragedy for the

people of this Province.

We are touting all the time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the Premier and a few other ministers on that

side of the House about the potential for tourism in this Province. People from

outside this Province, from all over Canada, North America, Europe come here to

see the way we live. And the way we live, of course, and the traditions we have

include the park system. Visitors do not want to see, in the parks, all kinds of

water slides, merry-go-rounds and Ferris wheels and that type of thing, Mr.

Speaker. They want to come and see the natural environment, the pristine

environment that we have now, Mr. Speaker. That is what people are coming into

this Province to see. But if we leave it to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation and a few of the people that are advising her, what will we see here

in the parks out in Butterpot and a few of the other parks around the Province?

Disneylands; are we going to have a bunch of Disneylands here in Newfoundland?

Is that what we are trying to promote in this Province? Is that the idea that

the government has to -

DR. GIBBONS: An awful lot of people go to Disneyland.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, they go to Disneyland, there is no

doubt about that, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, who woke up just

now, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of people who go to Disneyland, there is no

doubt about that but they go to Florida for that, Mr. Speaker. They do not come

to Newfoundland for Disneyland. That is the point we are making. That is the

very point that I am making and the people in this Province are making, Mr.

Speaker.

I had a meeting in my district a few weeks ago, on a cold

winter night, a stormy night, actually. I had taxpayers from Mount Pearl, St.

John's, Pouch Cove, Flatrock, Torbay, Bauline, Logy Bay, Mr. Speaker, from all

over, at the meeting. There were close to sixty people there on that

mid-winter's night in Newfoundland, to talk about the parks. So that will give

you some idea of the passion that people have with respect to the parks in this

Province. Mr. Speaker, I saw passion in that room that night, in the Kinsmen

Centre in Torbay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from a number of residents

from Labrador City in the district of Labrador West, who are petitioning the

hon. House of Assembly to direct government to establish a universal,

comprehensive school lunch program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador

to help end child hunger and to give our children a better chance.

Mr. Speaker, this petition calls on government to recognize

the dire need that exists in the schools of our Province to ensure that all

children who are attending school have an opportunity to learn their lessons, to

learn what school has to offer, to be able to pay attention in school and not be

diverted from that attention by their own need, by hunger.

Mr. Speaker, just today on my way in here after lunch, I

heard an interview on CBC radio. Cathy LeGrow, who is involved with the School

Trustees Association of Newfoundland and is also the Vice-President of the

Canadian Federation of School Trustees, announced that her organization, as a

Canada-wide organization, has adopted as a special concern, the needs of hungry

children and poor children in this country. They intend, Mr. Speaker, to get

active in advocating programs for children, in particular, programs such as a

school lunch program and the programs for pre-school needy children which have

been identified in Dr. Patricia Canning's report, Special Matters , which

was released last fall after the government had sat on it for some months.

Mr. Speaker, this hon. member and other colleagues who have

spoken on this petition to date have recognized that this is a vital and

pressing need, that it cannot be less than the highest priority of government to

recognize the need that children have for a proper diet and proper nutrition in

order to allow them to participate fully in school programs and to learn what

they need to learn to give them a chance to get a decent education, to give them

a chance to get the skills that they need to be able to make a life for

themselves in society, to be able to support themselves and have a decent life

to support a family and to contribute to society and the economy. No one, Mr.

Speaker, will deny that that is the goal of each and every individual, to have a

happy, productive life and to be able to participate fully in the society around

them.

This petition, Mr. Speaker, is pretty basic. It recognizes

that poverty and its effects are serious problems in this Province and that

things are getting worse for people, not better. We have a situation where more

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

assistance, and we know from recent reports from the Dietetic Association that

the amount of money available on basic social assistance in this Province is

hardly enough to buy food, a nutritious food basket, let alone to provide for

the other needs of a family on social assistance. It is estimated that 85 per

cent of the basic social assistance rate would be required to feed adequately, a

nutritious diet to a family of four here in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt

with not by a model. I know the Minister of Education spoke yesterday and said:

we have looked at that and it does not work. Well, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, we

have not had a program that the Department of Education has sponsored. We have

not had a program that the school board has paid for. We have not had a program

where school principals and school boards implemented a program that provided a

school lunch program in each and every school in the Province. If the minister

is saying that we have tried that and it has failed, I defy him to tell us when

and where that was tried in this Province.

We have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where the needs of children

have been well documented and have been presented to this government and now it

is time, Mr. Speaker, for the government to act.

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

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

I rise again today to support the petition that is put

forward consistent with the ones that I have presented and consistent with the

ones that the member has been getting, in his capacity as the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, in the Canning report, the report of the review

of special education, there is a whole

chapter which talks about Poverty and

Education -

Chapter 3. All members would do well to read that

chapter in some

considerable detail because that

chapter focuses on the connection between

poverty and education. Just read a few sentences from it: Poverty, with its host

of attendant problems places children at risk of school failure.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that to be true. We know that is a

researched fact. In fact, a review of all the studies from the 1920s to the

1970s was conducted by authors Challs, Jacobs and Baldwin in 1990, and they

found that children's literary skills were correlated consistently over studies

and over time with the professional, educational and economic status of their

parents; so, Mr. Speaker, we do not need any more research. We know that these

students who come from poor families and who are under or malnourished, are at

risk of school failure for reasons that are far beyond their own control. So,

Mr. Speaker, we know that we have to address the problem.

I have met with researchers who have been putting forward

these particular statements. Earlier today, I met with a leading international

researcher who studies nutrition and who will tell the connection between

nutrition and health and performance. We know that there is a correlation and we

are saying to the government, we have to do something to address it because our

failure to address the issue of poverty in children will be long-term. It is not

something that we can say as a child gets older that by the time they are ten or

twelve or fifteen that it goes away. It is cyclical. The children of today will

be the adults of tomorrow and if we do not address the issues today in a wise

manner, we are going to pay the price. And the price is going to be in poor

attendance at school; it is going to be in people who do not reach their

potential; it is going to be in families that are going to be dysfunctional

economically. So, all of the research -

I commend the entire

chapter 3 of the Patricia Canning report

to all members, and if you have any doubt at all as to what this correlation is,

then read through that entire chapter. Read through the

chapter in the Williams

Royal Commission report that talks about barriers to educational performance.

One of the first barriers mentioned in the Williams Royal Commission report is

the barrier of poverty.

Mr. Speaker, we say to all members that we, on this side of

the House, intend to continue to put forward the issues of children, because if

we do not intervene when they are very young, then we have lost the opportunity

to encourage them to reach their full potential, and opportunities that are lost

in childhood are opportunities that are lost in adulthood.

Therefore, we say to all people who are interested in this

particular topic that we, on this side of the House, commend any member - we

know other members are getting petitions. We find it ironic that not one single

member on the government side has brought forward a petition on this matter.

Therefore, we wonder why the petitions are not being brought forward by the

government members. We know they exist; we know that they have been forwarded,

but we do not see these petitions being brought before the House. Yet, this

government prides itself on consultation. Well, a petition is a form of

consultation. It is a way in which people can say to their elected members:

Would you bring this forward to the House of Assembly for some consideration and

put forward my view?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few comments in response to the petition

presented by the hon. member and supported by the Opposition House Leader.

The question at the end, or the proposition raised by the

Opposition House Leader is wondering why members on this side of the House do

not bring forward similar petitions. It is because, very simply, we take the

issue very seriously and do not want to play politics with it by making that

kind of a comment.

The reality is that just like the two members today, they

know full well that there is a provincially-based school lunch program in place.

It is very well funded, very well organized, tremendously supported by

volunteers, a full staff, supported by the corporate sector, available to people

everywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador. And members on this side, when they get

the petition, instead of raising the petition in the House and making a speech

about it, they do like the members could have done today, they refer the

petitioners to the provincially-based School Lunch Program and say, `If you want

to have it considered in your area, meet with these people. They will show you

how to organize it; they will show you how to access the funding; they will show

you how to make it work.' That is what members on this side of the House do.

They do not get up here and get on with this foolishness for political reasons.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: They take it seriously. We are trying to deal

with it, and we deal with it seriously.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Is the Minister of Education saying in this

House that he is accepting zero responsibility for petitioners coming before

this House for that very important issue? Is he referring it to an arm's length

board? Is that what the minister is doing, because if he is doing that he should

not be sitting in that seat as Minister of Education?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, more evidence of exactly what I was just saying.

Members on this side of the House, this government, support the petitioners

because they take the issues seriously. We have put our money where our mouth

is, along with corporate sector sponsors in the Province, in terms of looking at

funding very well established School Lunch Programs, and knowing that we are

supporting a recipe for success that is already well developed in the Province.

Instead of doing what the hon. the Opposition House Leader

suggested, that they get up and wonder why the petitions are not being raised in

the House, just to bring attention to it, we bring it to the attention. The

government, when it was brought to our attention last year, responded by putting

in an extra $125,000. We now have another $200,000 put in by a major corporate

sector sponsor. We refer the people to areas where the program is working. We

are not interested in politics like the members opposite are, we are interested

in results for the benefit of the children, and that is what we are determined

to deliver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

people in St. John's, Torbay, Middle Cove, Terrenceville and other areas. Of

course, it is concerning the privatization of parks.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now if the Minister of Education wants the

floor, he can certainly jump up and have a few words.

MR. GRIMES: I probably will.

MR. J. BYRNE: I hope you do. It is about time for you to

get up and give a bit of support for the people in the Province who elected you

to speak on their behalf, especially with respect to the privatization of parks,

which is a big area; it is a big factor out in your district, I would imagine.

No doubt about it, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if the Minister of Education would like me to

read this petition, but he usually has a problem with the wording of petitions.

I will read it:

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

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

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to accept

the following prayer: We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to

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

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

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

was made in haste - which has been proven before - without any consultation of

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education was just on his feet

speaking to a petition. What I can gather from what he said, to put it in my own

words, I suppose, the petitions in the House are not being presented on that

side of the House because - I am not sure if he said they do not take them

seriously. Is that what he said, that the people over there do not take them

seriously?

MR. GRIMES: Get Hansard and read it, boy.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, here is the answer.

The reason why they do not present them over there is that there is no point in

the people giving petitions to them to be presented, because they are not

supporting the petitions put to them. Petitions are a form of consultation, as

mentioned by the Member for Waterford Valley, they are a form of consultation,

and this Province has done no consultation on any of the major issues.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board went around with -

I do not know what kind of a show, some kind of road show, and pretended he was

listening to the people. An individual even brought it up to him the other night

when he was on television answering questions, that it was a show, that they

were not being listened to, he was just writing notes, basically ignoring what

was being said. That is the type of thing that has been going on in this

Province with respect to the government, no consultation, trying to give the

impression, sometimes, that there is consultation, but none, not really.

Now, this petition here with respect to the privatization of

parks: I was mentioning earlier when I was speaking to the petition presented by

the Member for St. John's South that there were phases going on here. A couple

of years ago the government decided they were going to privatize so many parks

to enhance the public park system. They are privatizing so many more now, and

next year, maybe the year after, we will see no public park system in the

Province.

The Minister of Education, when I was up speaking the last

time, made a comment that we should not have a public park system in the

Province, it should be completely privatized. If that is the case, then that

begs the next question - taking good notes now, I hope - who is going to get

these parks? Who is going to get them? They have gone against their own review

that was put out not long ago that suggested they would not even look at,

consider, privatizing parks this year because of the Cabot 500 celebrations -

that they would not consider privatizing the parks. But the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation in her wisdom, the lady who said last fall, with respect

to people coming to this Province, that they could stay in igloos in

Newfoundland and Labrador - now, that is the person we are putting this whole

park system on, that is the person who is going to be making the decision here

with respect to the privatization of parks in this Province.

The Minister of Education supports it. Obviously, everybody

on that side of the House supports it. There is not one individual on that side

of the House have yet stood in their place and spoke against the privatization

of parks. They know full well that the majority of people in this Province

oppose the privatization of parks.

Now, another comment that was made was that there may not be

any job losses, and that the employees can take over these parks and put in a

business proposal by April 4th, 6th, or whatever the case may be.

Now, first of all, is that realistic, to put in a business

proposal to take over these parks within three or four weeks from the first

announcement, when what you have to look at was the finances, the usage, and all

types of factors, including looking for funding from the banks? Can you imagine

the number of employees that are part-time employees who work summertime, and

part of the fall, maybe, going to a chartered bank looking for financing to get

into a business when their UI is going to run out in two or three weeks? Mr.

Speaker, that is a joke in itself.

Then the government says, well, maybe we can assist these

people. Now, they are going to assist these people. It is going to cost $1.8

million a year to keep the public parks open.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. GIBBONS: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Mines and

Energy refuses leave for me to speak on the parks system so obviously he

supports the privatization of parks.

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

MR. OSBORNE: I am happy to stand and speak on this

particular petition. I have presented a number of petitions on the same issue

already. There are a number of reasons why I am happy to stand and speak on this

particular petition. As my hon. colleague has mentioned the time frame to set up

a business is just not there. The last of February we were told that these parks

are going to be privatized, and by April 4 people were suppose to come forth

with a business plan. They were supposed to design a business plan, put their

financing in place, and have employees put in place. They were suppose to be

aware of how they were going to operate that park, and even more startling was

the fact that if they put in a proposal and it was accepted they were suppose to

have this business up and running to the same standards that our provincial

parks are operated at for this tourist season, and that is just simply

impossible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe their friends were picked out

beforehand.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, unless there was somebody picked out

for these parks beforehand. It is impossible to have a business plan put in

place and operated prior -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the parks were privatized in 1995 there were

twenty-eight parks taken out of the system. On June 14, 1995 the first

notification of successful applications was put in for the takeover of these

parks, after the notice was given on March 7. That is a number of months before

they actually had their first notification to actually operate one of these

parks as a business, and that is a reasonable time frame. What the provincial

government is expecting here, Mr. Speaker, is completely unreasonable.

On March 7 when these parks were offered up for private

takeover the then Minister Grimes stated that government is committed to

protecting and preserving the Province's most important natural areas that have

been selected to represent the ecological diversity of our Province. He went on

to say, at that time those parks identified to remain in the system were done so

under the direction of the 1995 task force.

Has the ecological significance of these areas changed in a

mere two years? Because, after twenty-eight parks were taken out of the system,

and we were told that the remaining parks were going to stay there to protect

the ecological areas of our Province, and that they would do so under the

direction of the 1995 task force, it is amazing how, all of a sudden, now, two

years later we can chop another twenty-one parks out of the provincial park

system and justify it in the name of saving $1.8 million.

Furthermore, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

can say that these parks will still be legislatively protected, yet through the

tendering package the very same minister is offering a fifty-year lease on these

parks to the successful private operator. With a fifty-year lease these private

operators, if they are unable - and I would suspect many of them will be.

Because according to the program review that was released in September 1996,

many of the private operators of parks in our Province today are suffering

financially, and do not have the financial ability to invest into these parks to

keep the standards up to what the standards are in the provincial parks.

If these private operators who are in place right now are

suffering financially, that tells you that the private operators of these

twenty-one parks may suffer as well, the same way the existing private operators

are. If those private operators are expected to pay the wages and pay the

utilities and keep the parks up to standards -

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of

comments with respect to the petition; again, I find it a little difficult that

the hon. members in presenting the petitions about their concerns with respect

to the parks in the Province - it would have a lot more credibility from this

side I think if we felt they were dealing with the issues on the merits of the

case and recognizing the facts of what had occurred before, instead of making up

a story, and the whole notion....

The saddest part of it all, I think - and I won't take much

time, because I look forward to hearing the rest of the dissertation by the

Leader of the Opposition and their finance critic about the Budget. He is doing

such a great job. The saddest

part is to see a person like that, who is a good,

decent man, being willing to get on with all kinds of foolishness and nonsense

that he knows to be untrue, and is getting dragged down in the mud for whatever

reason. I don't understand it, because I know the hon. member from a life long

before politics. I know that he is basically a decent person. I can't believe

some of the things he utters now for a purpose of politics, because it can't be

anything else. It isn't at all based on anything he has had in his past. Let me

give one example of the problem that we have.

MR. H. HODDER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: We have issues with respect to -

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard the

Minister of Education say the hon. the Member for St. John's South knows what he

has said to be untrue. That would have the affect of deliberately misleading the

House. I'm raising the point of order that I do believe that breaches the rules

of parliamentary procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will be very happy to check

Hansard, but if the hon. minister made that statement I would ask him to

withdraw.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If I said anything - I'm

not suggesting that anybody is lying here. I would not suggest that, and I have

not suggested that, and would withdraw it. If there are any words that show up

in Hansard that suggest I said that I withdraw, unequivocally.

Let me give an example of the concern that we have. In

presenting the case with the previous examples of privatisation where we did a

dozen or so, fifteen or so, parks a couple of years ago with great success, the

Opposition is willing to present the view that is saying a number of them were

offered for privatisation and they were closed. They know, for example, that one

of them is the Baie Verte Park that was offered for privatisation the last time

as a technicality. Because it hadn't operated as a park for some ten years

before that, but it had to be put into the group and decommissioned and reverted

to Crown land as a technicality. They would offer that as being a failure of the

system, a park that we reverted to Crown lands that had not operated as a park

for ten years. The Member for Baie Verte can attest to it, old `coppertop'

himself. He knows it to be the fact. His colleagues know it to be the fact.

But they will stand up and try to suggest that the whole

thing is wrongheaded or going in the wrong direction because that park wasn't

picked up by a private operator. The reality is it had not operated as a

provincial park for over a decade before it was decommissioned the last time.

They are willing to stand up in the House and go to public meetings around the

Province, Mr. Speaker, and say there is a sign of failure in the last initiative

because of the fact that a park, that had not even been opened as a park for ten

years was decommissioned, made into Crown land because nobody had used it as a

park for ten years. That is what they present in public meetings and in this

House as an issue to say here was a park that used to run and it shows that

privatization does not work. They know the difference, Mr. Speaker, and that is

the point I'm trying to make. When you know the difference and you are willing

to use it as information to mislead the people in the Province in public

meetings and otherwise, that causes great difficulty, Mr. Speaker, with the

credibility of the whole issue.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for

St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I find it appalling that the

previous Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the now Minister of

Education can stand in his spot and say that we are spreading falsities over

here.

Mr. Speaker, the Province's own Program Review that was put

out by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation on September 27, 1996 -

and I have stated in this House many, many times, Mr. Speaker, that of the

twenty-eight parks cut from the system there were serious inquiries on fifteen

of which ten are still operating. Mr. Speaker, in the Program Review -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member speaking to a point of order or is he just

engaging in the debate?

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just in conclusion to the petition, we take the petitions on

all matters seriously because they are signed by residents of the Province who

have expressed a concern but the point that I make, Mr. Speaker, is when they

sign the petition - because people go around for political reasons and no other

and mislead them at the public meetings. They say because a park like Baie Verte

is not operating it shows, proves and demonstrates - that is what they say at

the public meetings, Mr. Speaker, and if you are sitting in a public meeting and

they know the difference but they portray it and represent it differently and

lead people into saying, you have to sign this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: - than that, Mr. Speaker, is why we have

difficulty with the presentation and the sincerity of it.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't going to rise but I

would like to respond to some of the comments the hon. member made and to

present the following petition that; we the residents of Newfoundland -

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister

of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we were speaking to a petition

that was raised by the Member for Cape St. Francis and spoken to by the Member

for St. John's South and responded to by the Minister of Education. That

petition, as I understand the rules of the House, is completed.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I was presenting another

petition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. Member for Kilbride presenting a new petition?

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely, as I already indicated.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: As I was about to read; we the residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador wish to petition the provincial government, the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and the Premier, to immediately

reverse the decision to privatize the provincial parks as they are the people's

resource. We feel that this decision was made in haste without any consultation

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

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up too much time but

the Minister of Education has raised the notion and the question of credibility

and that is exactly what this issue is about. It is about credibility. It is

about the credibility of government decision making. It is about the credibility

of government consultation. It is about the credibility of the haste with which

government made this decision and it's about the credibility of the reasons

government has put forward for this decision in closing down provincial parks. I

would like to visit a couple of them. Government talks about, that in no way,

shape or form will any of these privatized parks or the ones that are put out

for sale, the ones that are privatized, will interfere with the upcoming Cabot

celebrations. A legitimate question, will it or will it not? The only

information that we have and the only information that we have been able to

determine for ourselves, to ask government questions on is governments own

information which came from program review.

The other information that we have is based upon sound and

factual experience of how the parks, that were privatized in 1995 and the

process by which they were privatized and the time frame from beginning to end

in terms of what it took.

Let's look at program review. In government's own Program

Review, internal documents provided to the minister, it said clearly that any

initiative to privatize parks right now would probably interrupt or interfere

with accommodations for the upcoming Cabot celebrations. That is in government's

own report. I will send the Minister of Education a copy of Hansard later.

The last privatization initiative which occurred in 1995, by

the time privatization began and the call for proposals went out, it took

approximately one year - not three months - it took one year for that process to

complete itself. Now those are facts. Those are undisputable. Some would call it

self-evident, but the reality is that they are what they are. Neither the

Minister of Education nor the Premier nor the Minister of Tourism can dispute it

because those are the facts.

Let's look at the Minister of Tourism's response in terms of

talking about the employment benefits, that there would be absolutely no

decrease in employment as a result of the privatization initiative. That is what

she said. Let's look back to 1995. How many of the provincial park employees

that were part of the privatization scheme of provincial parks in 1995 are

working in those parks today?

MR. J. BYRNE: How many? I don't know.

MR. E. BYRNE: Zero.

MR. J. BYRNE: Zero?

MR. E. BYRNE: None.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. E. BYRNE: Not one.

Let's talk about when the Minister of Tourism turned around

and said to provincial park employees: The opportunity for you, as employees,

will be there for you to take over the parks and run them as your own business.

Let's look back to 1995. How many of those employees actually

were in a position or took over the privatized parks at that time? None, Mr.

Speaker, zero.

When we look at the process, the timeframe which people were

given to put together a business plan for these parks, we ask questions: What is

for sale? What is the cost price? Is Cochrane Pond the same price as Jonathan's

Pond in Gander?

MR. J. BYRNE: Who knows?

MR. E. BYRNE: Nobody knows, and the government and the

Ministers of Education and Tourism can get up and try to lambaste the Opposition

for articulating questions that the public themselves are asking? The questions

that the public themselves are asking and not getting any answers?

Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable in this day and age, on such

a serious issue where there has been significant public outcry, that fundamental

questions surrounding this issue on the privatization of parks are not being

answered. Simply put, government has within its hands the ability to stand up

and answer the questions put forward by the critic of tourism, the Member for

St. John's South. They have the ability and the power within their hands to

stand up and lay all their cards on the table.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, by leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

Government has before them an ability and power to lay all of

its cards on the table, and to come clean with the people of the Province on

this issue and answer very fundamental questions, questions that people

themselves are asking. The Opposition is asking for nothing more and nothing

less.

Thank you.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand to support this petition, and in

supporting the petition I would like to refer to the government's own Program

Review, to clear the air and correct something that was said in the House on an

earlier petition on the same issue.

Mr. Speaker, it says here that of the twenty-eight parks

removed from the system in 1995, only eleven were operational during the summer

of 1996, and that number actually now has gone down to ten. Of those eleven, six

were operated by individual entrepreneurs, so if the government figures they can

boast about that number, Mr. Speaker, I can't see why, I can't see how. Mr.

Speaker, based on the results of the 1995 divestiture, it appears that few

individuals are willing to invest in the camp-ground business during these

economically depressed times. That comes from the Department of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation's own program review, Mr. Speaker, and in our cross-Province

consultations with the people something that the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation herself has refused to do, Mr. Speaker, we have never mentioned,

not even one, never mentioned the name of one of those twenty-eight parks

closed, let alone the park for Baie Verte. We never said that twenty-eight parks

were privatized and it is now only ten operating; we said exactly what I said in

this House today and what I said in the House yesterday and what I said in the

House on many other occasions, Mr. Speaker, and that is, that of the

twenty-eight parks that were removed from the system in 1995, that there are

only ten operating today and let me make that quite clear, because, the Minister

of Education apparently has a problem understanding that.

Mr. Speaker, further to that, we have spoken about the

standards in the parks and, in the minister's own program review, released by

the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, it states quite clearly that,

the standards of provincial parks tend to be higher than that of the private

sector equivalent. The Province provides higher quality facilities. It also

says, Mr. Speaker, that provincial parks are legislatively protected and policy

driven to ensure that the environmental and safety issues are addressed in an

adequate manner therefore ensuring that the nature of tourism product is

maintained at a high standard.

Mr. Speaker, it says that: provincial parks provide a high

quality outdoor recreation opportunity in a safe and environmental manner. They

serve as an environmentally sensible means of enjoyable outdoor recreation

without putting undue pressure on the environment. Private park operators may

not have the financial resources or the desire to implement the standards that

are commonplace in our provincial parks.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how much clearer we can be on this

particular issue, and the people of our Province are very, very concerned about

the privatization of provincial parks and I feel that, in our consultations with

the people of our Province, we have gone about this in a very fair manner. We

have represented the facts, we have not clouded the issue, and the reason we

have gotten 17,000 names on petitions, Mr. Speaker, is because it is a very real

issue. It is a very sincere issue, and, Mr. Speaker, it seems that it is only

the Opposition and the people of the Province who have a concern with the

privatization of the provincial parks.

It appears to me that the government is in favour of it with

the exception perhaps of one member and that member was quoted in yesterday's

regional paper The Advertiser , as lobbying hard the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation to try to get her to keep certain parks in that area open

but, to no avail; so we may have some people sitting on the back benches, Mr.

Speaker, of this House, on the government side, finally starting to feel the

pressure of the people in their areas and that has become evident because some

members, at least one, has been putting pressure on the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation to reverse her decision, at least, in part. On that note,

Mr. Speaker, I will pass the floor back.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Motion No. 1, Mr. Speaker, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER (M. Penney): Motion 1, the hon. the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board to move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider the raising of Supply to be

Granted to Her Majesty.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No, that is Motion 1, Budget Speech.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted again to have an opportunity to give the real

Budget of this Province for 1997-98, the real Budget. We heard the Minister of

Health tell us today, he is not asleep at the switch. I mean, how many people in

this Province today really think he is at the switch? I would say that in a poll

of the people in this Province, there would not be one in a thousand who thinks

the Minister of Health is at the switch. In fact, he is far removed from it, and

here in the Budget, released last week, it is a glossy - the only thing that was

not glossy was the paper it was printed on, that is the only thing that was not

glossy about it.

While I am on the Minister of Health, yes, the Minister of

Health's famous quote I think I will start with that while he is still here. He

says: It is a crafty piece of work my son, your fingerprints are all over it.

That is what he said. I mean, can you imagine coming out of the House here and

saying to Malcolm: It is a crafty piece of work my son, your fingerprints are

all over it?

(Inaudible) the same minister who tried to bluff us in the

House today. He tried to bluff us with a ministerial statement that was over two

years ago, Mr. Speaker. They had a statement saying that we are going to assist

physicians in rural Newfoundland. He said: How are we going to assist them? Here

is how we are going to assist them. Can you imagine? The physicians who are in

Baie Verte, La Scie, Bonavista, Burin, Bell Island, Goose Bay, Labrador City,

Lourdes, Old Perlican, St. Anthony, Virgin Arm, Glovertown, Lewisporte, Port aux

Basques, St. George's, Twillingate, we are going to give them, if they stay

there for two years, a big sum of $5,000 a year before taxes, $2,000 a year

after taxes.

MR. MATTHEWS: You don't know what their after-taxes

income is. I mean, that is like saying you are only getting about $3,000 a

month. I mean, you are (inaudible) tax bracket.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had the floor. I

thought I was recognized to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will explain it after taxes. On a salary

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

I will confirm that the hon. Leader of the Opposition was

recognized by the Chair and you do have the floor.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker is

aware of it and the Minister of Health is not. On a starting salary - and I will

give you my reasoning for that deduction, Minister of Health. I know he isn't

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. He might like to be, but God help

us, he isn't. If he does to finance, and every year he gets his hands on it,

what he is after doing to health....

Based on the salary scale that your department has provided,

it is $67,400, roughly. It is the starting salary for a physician in rural

Newfoundland at the bottom step of the scale. He can go to a high amount of

roughly $100,000, but I would say the average, and the minister can confirm

this, is about $80,000. That would be the average in the Province. Based on that

gross income, when somebody has a taxable income over $60,000 you are into a tax

bracket that takes away about 52 per cent or 53 per cent, assuming you have no

other income.

We do have salaried physicians out there today doing locums.

We all know, and (inaudible) heard the minister on the radio this morning on

C.B.C. talk about it. The issue I raised in the House a year ago, I said to him:

You will pay transportation for a doctor. He said: Here is what you will do. On

the Burin Peninsula I raised it. The doctors on the Burin Peninsula were worked

to death. Even when they are off, when they want to come in on call, they won't

pay them. But they will fly somebody in to the Burin Peninsula and pay their air

fare, or pay their ground transportation. They put food in their refrigerator, I

will tell him. They will pay him $500 a day, I think it is, and numerous other

costs, and they won't increase the salary of the doctor who is in the area.

The minister said: There is enough out in locums. I warned

him a year ago on the public record, and he was on the radio this morning, lo

and behold a new discovery. All these locums, he said, could be paying other

doctors. I would say whoop-de-do! The minister woke up. Not at the switch but

well removed from the switch, about a year later, and now he is looking at the

situation. Look, if you have to pay doctors enough to serve in rural

Newfoundland they won't have to be worrying about locums. When you have a loco

in charge of locums we have a big problem, I would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy,

no, there are no votes in Placentia for you at all, none whatsoever.

Now, based on the mathematics - the Minister of Health asked

the question - based on the three -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Ferryland?

MR. SULLIVAN: There aren't many of them left up there.

There are not many votes left in Ferryland. The Liberal ones are getting scarcer

everyday in Ferryland, I can tell him, in Calvert, in Bay Bulls, in Witless Bay.

Sensible people in that district, very intelligent people in Ferryland district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon? Well, they weren't for seventeen

years, I say to the minister, and they were almost Liberal when I ran first in

1992. Almost, 125 vote difference. Forty-two per cent of the vote I managed to

squeeze in on. So there is no such thing

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well now, I thank the minister for his

great confidence in me.

Back to the Minister of Health, based on the three levels of

income set down by Revenue Canada on taxable income - I am answering the

minister's questions - Minister, the $5,000 you give the doctors in these areas,

their take-home, excluding other deductions - whether it is UI, Canada Pension

or other insurance, any other deductions -would only be a little over $2,000

based on the income tax scales that are out there today on salary level.

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you saying we should not have given

them anything, or what?

MR. SULLIVAN: You should have given them more.

MR. MATTHEWS: More?

MR. SULLIVAN: More.

MR. MATTHEWS: Where?

AN HON. MEMBER: In the Budget, boy!

MR. SULLIVAN: In the Budget; $2.6 million in the Budget

spread over eighty-four unfilled positions that is $3,000 a year. The tax income

there at that, $1,300 of take-home pay and you expect them to stay - $50,000

less than they are getting in other provinces.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you going to get the money,

`Loyola'?

MR. SULLIVAN: Where do you get the money? Okay, I will

tell you where we can get some: first of all, instead of increasing Cabinet we

can reduce it down to a dozen instead of going up to sixteen. Instead of having

forty-eight seats, we can have a maximum of forty seats, which we called for,

and I have. It is too big. Can you imagine, forty-eight people around this House

of Assembly wasting taxpayers' money when nine sensible people could be doing

the job? Now, why do we need thirty-nine others here in this House? I do not see

it. We will have a more cost-efficient and effective government, I can guarantee

you. We may find one - yes, up 4 per cent in the last one. At that rate we -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are up to ten now, are you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, at that rate, in about fifteen year's

time - actually, at that rate, believe it or not, 32 per cent - Premier Wells

had 47 per cent, 15 per cent shy. So at that rate, in one year we will have

enough votes in this Province and that is the mathematics of it. Now, the

reality is, at the rate you are going it could be a lot sooner. Do not worry, if

you can keep that Minister of Health around and a few others, you will get where

we want you to be very soon, very, very soon. The Minister of Health and the

Minister of Finance, I am not sure -

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Education.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Education, he did the job

on tourism, Cabot 500, millions unaccountable of taxpayers' dollars into

education. He promised savings in education. What did he do? Oh, we need Term

17. We cannot have those senators holding it up. We need it to put the money

back into education. To reinvest it, he told us. What did he do when they got it

through? They siphoned it out, sucked $40 million right out of education, out of

the classrooms, on the backs of the people in this Province who need it. That is

what they did - a breach of faith that the people placed in them. They have

breached that contract. They were going to reinvest it back into education. They

were going to improve the classrooms. They were going to deal with problems in

curriculum, deal with disruptive behaviour. We have a report here, the problems

in our system, the Dr. Canning report. Now, they do not like the report - there

are other opinions. The Strategic Social Plan - they are re-doctoring the

Strategic Social Plan that went around the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Millions of it altogether. I am not sure of

the figure on Special Matters . I do not know what the dollar value on it

was. It is in the thousands of dollars, anyway, several thousand.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Dr. Canning? No, it is not Dr. Canning from

Labrador West. He might be getting there but - it might be a special matter we

need to deal with but it is a different one.

The minister had the audacity to tell us: We are doing what

we can - cardiac surgery, doing what we can. Three-and-a-half years ago it was a

problem. There are twice as many now as there were then. Where is the problem?

It has not been solved because when there are more people getting put on a list,

fifty-five days in hospital expecting to get their surgery tomorrow and next

week and the day after, it is a strain. Someone with 80 per cent blockage, I

tell you, it is really enough to put someone over the brink. It is enough to

bring on death, basically, with the stress. Nobody should have to - then, the

minister, to stand in the House today and imply that we should send them home.

The minister said we should send them home. What an insult by the minister!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) said that.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is an insult.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you said send them home!

MR. SULLIVAN: I said you should do the surgeries.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said send them home!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister, talking about sending them

home, the Minister of Health, sick people in hospital. Can you imagine the

Minister of Health saying that? If you were in hospital you would get served, I

say to the minister. You would get served. You should send them to the operating

room, then you should send them to the I.C.U., then you should send them home. I

say to the minister, that is what you should do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Sometimes I wonder who is recognized here

to speak. Sometimes it hurts a little bit to tell the truth. I can understand

why the minister feels bad. The guy who failed to have accountability on

millions of dollars of Cabot 500, gouged $40 million out of education, the guy

who was the saviour of teachers in the Province and then knifed them in the

back, and he has the audacity now to tell us he is interested in education in

the Province. He should be so embarrassed he does not even come to the House.

You should stay away, Minister.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) write my name on the Budget now,

and see if I have a personal (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is on the Budget; that is Budget.

Forestry and agriculture; it tells us in the Budget, and this is Budget, we are

going to take up to $1.7 million out of silviculture in a province that is

over-harvesting by 50 per cent.

MR. TULK: Over-harvesting by how much?

MR. SULLIVAN: They harvested 1.88 million cubic metres,

that was the sustainable harvest, and they harvested over 3 million cubic

metres. The companies alone took 1.88 million cubic metres and that represented

62.6 per cent of the total harvest, I say to the minister. That is what is in

your report.

MR. TULK: No, it is not in my report. That is your

fiction that you are trying to get out of the report.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what is in your report. The

minister does not know his own report. Did he read it?

MR. TULK: Yes, absolutely, long before you saw it.

MR. SULLIVAN: First of all, it took him six years to give

us a five-year report on a twenty-year plan that will take fifty years probably

to implement. I mean, get real. It is time -

MR. TULK: Thank you, teacher Sullivan. I can read as well

as you can.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not say you cannot read, I asked: Did

you read it? I do not ever want to question anybody's ability. I just want to

question whether they did do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and you should do something about it.

Now, in Labrador, they tell us, there is another 550,000 cubic metres of which

only 100,000 has been harvested. We have lots of trees in Labrador. Well, I say,

God help us, if they do to the trees in Labrador what they are after doing to

the trees in this Province under that minister.

MR. TULK: Your Tory buddies!

MR. SULLIVAN: The former minister, any minister!

MR. TULK: Your Charlie Power (inaudible) -

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

MR. TULK: - who you are now supporting in St. John's

West!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Any minister; this minister or the former

minister, sure, any minister.

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

The Chair is not going to tolerate the shouting across the

House any longer. I call for order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, proper thing.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The current minister, the former minister who represented

Windsor - Buchans, now it is Windsor - Springdale. The former minister... I

think it was forestry - no, I am not sure whether it was forestry, the Member

for Humber Valley, whether the forestry was in with agriculture then. Anyway,

whatever minister who was there. It does not matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It doesn't matter where, I do not care who

they were. When you over-harvest you have disaster.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)? You are supporting him!

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you are hardly going to support a

person who cannot make up his mind. Who is going to support a person who does

not know if he wants to run? Your colleague cannot decide if he wants to run. He

has decided whether he wants to draw a salary from here and stay here and then

run. He wants it on both hands. You have to make up your mind. How can you

support a phantom?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) forestry (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Government House Leader, responsible

for setting decorum in the House here, is one of the ones who keeps the decorum

least here in the House. No wonder the Speaker has a problem. No wonder they do

not like what they hear about the Budget.

Today, as a prime example, I spoke on the Budget. I am

delighted the Minister of Finance listened yesterday to what I had to say. I

asked: Can you imagine people running volunteer organizations in this Province,

screening people - in some organizations up to forty people - to work with young

kids? We have had our share of abused young kids, sexual and physical and other

types of abuse in the Province, and volunteer organizations need to screen -

AN HON. MEMBER: More than our share.

MR. SULLIVAN: More than our share.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the member is well aware of that, I

must say, very much aware of it.

And now, to go and charge them! I am glad the minister came

back today with a Ministerial Statement that said, We are not going to charge

volunteers of non-profit organizations to have that certificate. So that is

backtracking, and we are delighted. We support backtracking, but what disturbs

me first of all is: Where was the consultation that should have been taking

place? Where was it? Where was the consultation on many of the decisions here in

the Budget? Did they consult with these groups? No, but still you announced it

and you backtracked. It shows a very ill-thought-out process here in the Budget,

when you have to turn around the day after, when people in the public forum kick

up a stink, to have to come back and say, `We were wrong'.

Well, at least admitting you were wrong is noble - I agree

with that - but it is an insult to the people out there who were not consulted

and have to keep reminding you of the effect it is going to have on volunteers

in this Province. Volunteers in this Province are needed more than ever before

because there are cutbacks. Government cutbacks to these organizations have made

it all the more important to have these volunteers, and we should be doing

everything to facilitate the process to make it easier for volunteers to work

with the youth of our Province. I am glad the minister listened yesterday in my

response to the Budget. I am delighted.

We have problems out there in our health system and there is

not one thing in this entire Budget - this Budget dealing with hospitals and

long-term care facilities, has $11 million less in it. How many people out there

today really believe that our health care system is going to get better when you

take $11 million out of acute care and other institutions? What are they doing?

They are driving hospitals to borrow. The public relations notes prepared by

departments tell us that the hospitals here - over the next three years, they

are going to operate with a deficit here in the Health Care Corporation of St.

John's. They are telling us that the Western Health Care Board is now operating

at a current operating deficit, and now we are going to say government is going

to balance the Budget and we are going to make the Health Care Corporation

borrow $100 million to go out and do expansions and changes.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are into more fiction than fact.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, this is fact. It is here, and I will

read it to the minister.

In The Evening Telegram , a quote by the Health Care

Corporation, the Health Sciences Centre, goes on to say that the minister did

not know -

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn it down.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I can turn it down, too.

The minister stated in the House this afternoon that: I was

wrong when I said the $2.5 million for cardiac surgery is not going to be

borrowed.

Here is what the Health Care Corporation said at their news

conference. The statement carried here said: This $2.5 million construction will

start at the Health Sciences Centre this summer in conjunction with the

construction of the new Janeway Child Health and Children's Rehabilitation

Centre.

And it was on public record by Elizabeth Davis - I asked the

question at a public meeting at Holiday Inn: What are you going to do for the

$100 million? Is government going to borrow, or is the Health Care Corporation

going to borrow? They have indicated, and it is on the record, that they are

going to borrow $100 million, and what is going to happen there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pass it over and I will have a look. That

is the one west of Burgeo. That is an excellent idea. I support that. I think it

is tremendous; I sure do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I support the ecological reserve, in fact,

west of the Burgeo Highway, I do believe. It runs just directly west. I think it

touches on the western side and goes further west. Is that under federal -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is strictly provincial?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what I thought. I knew there was an

announcement on that. You supplied the land and the feds supplied the money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Abitibi supplied the money.

MR. SULLIVAN: They supplied some of the land, didn't

they? That announcement was a couple of weeks ago, or last month.

MR. TULK: No, last November, boy.

MR. SULLIVAN: Anyway, I do recall it, I read it, and we

can only support it.

Mr. Speaker, health care is one area that has been hit

extremely hard in this Budget. In fact it has been frozen over all the Budget,

but acute care and long-term care has been reduced by $11 million, and it is

going to have devastating effects. We have seen what effects freezing a budget,

just one year ago, has had on health care in this Province. When you freeze it,

it is equivalent to reducing it by about 7 per cent, and over the next year we

are going to be seeing the affects in this Province. We will be seeing longer

waiting lists, more concerns with health care because we will have more elderly

people in the Province with greater needs. Even the minister and social

strategic consultation documents indicate that over the next twenty years we are

going to have less people working, less paying taxes, more elderly and a greater

need for care, and less people to be able to fund that particular need.

That is the reality today, but the Finance Minister gives us

a different picture, that everything is going to be hunky-dory in the future.

Maybe the Minister of Environment and Labour can answer

today. The Minister of Environment and Labour did not know yesterday that to

have a septic system inspected, it says in the book from $200 to $1,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: This book says $1,000 for individual

systems.

MR. SULLIVAN: What are individual systems?

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: They are not included, so a private

residence outside a municipality - what about a municipality?

AN HON. MEMBER: A municipality is included.

MR. SULLIVAN: So the basic connection is on but they are

normally done under a capital works contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: So, normally with engineered, on-site

engineer, that company would now have to include in their price when they bid -

AN HON. MEMBER: It will be charged to municipalities.

MR. SULLIVAN: The municipality will have to pay now, and

that will be a part of the money in the bid to allow in that allocation to pay

for that price. In other words if a $200,000 capital works project is approved

and there are going to be fifty services in that amount, up to $1,000, it could

cost $50,000. No, $200 is the minimum it said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: So you are not going to expect fifty

connections and fifty (inaudible) at the one time. They are done in sequence as

they are covered in. How is that going to be done?

AN HON. MEMBER: I can check on it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I certainly would be interested in knowing

that. Even you have the details you could pass them on because they are very

important to people out there, and it is important when a municipality is given

a certain amount, by the time the consulting fees come off, the fees come off

now for inspections, that is less money to do the actual construction work that

is needed and the money does not go as far. That is an indirect taxation right

on the people in those municipalities because when you get $200,000 you really

only get $150,000 because the rest is going for inspections and going to pay the

consultant engineers and so on. In other words we are hauling back the same

money that government passed out, we are putting it back on jointly funded ones

under federal infrastructure. The government has another way to haul back some

of that federal money, and some of it local municipal money, to recover their

one third on those projects. So that is a game we are playing.

Let us look at this scenario. If we are going to have

$150,000, $50,000 $50,000 $50,000, and the $50,000 by government, the fees for

inspection come back so government saves. They do not spend their $50,000

anymore now. They are probably only going to spend their $40,000 so they get

$10,000 back and it only costs them $40,000 and they only have less than one

third, probably 20-some per cent of what is expended. That is a taxation game; a

manipulation of figures if that is the way it is done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Good. I would love to know the answer. We

have asked it but I haven't got an answer yet. We asked in Question Period

yesterday

AN HON. MEMBER: Yesterday, I have the answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Today, good. Could we table and get a copy

too?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Good, I appreciate that. I say to the

minister, I would like to have a copy, I will depend on my

interpretation when I

read it, I don't want to depend on the minister's

interpretation as we would

like to put the positive, true spin on it, not the political spin on that

particular statement. I trust the minister's capability to do it but I am sure I

like to rely on my own judgement of what is there, and then, if I am stumped and

in doubt about it, I will consult with the minister and have his officials give

me the incorrect version then.

Talking about municipalities, I have a feeling there is a

little game happening here in government; they collect a part of their share,

that is a little game of taxation there because the taxation is coming back to

this government. When you have municipalities that have been cut in municipal

operating grants, 20 per cent a year for the next three years and the minister I

think, said that about one-half of the municipalities out there now I think are

having problems. They are on the verge of bankruptcy I think and probably

another forty or so are just about there and that is about 60 per cent I think

on it. When you take back 60 per cent on those municipalities and there is a lot

of examples like one little community that I will just use that is in my

district had 127 people. They had 80-some odd two years ago and I think they are

down 60-some odd now, a little municipality. They have no stores, no businesses,

no tax base, direct a point on the elderly people - a lot of people moved out,

just single people in some houses. They are going to have severe financial

problems seriously -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't they come to St. John's?

MR. SULLIVAN: I would say to the minister, the $9 million

to help him with refinancing that is fine, I mean, to help communities I don't

have a problem with that but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Nine, it is said in the Budget, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: I got $1.5 million (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, $1.5 million little fund aside, okay.

So we would be looking for that $1.5. That $9 million to use and then we are

going to devastate communities? In rural Newfoundland, communities will not

recover from a 60 per cent slashing of their municipal operating grants. Idle

communities that do not have without one business, with elderly people,

population is half what it was four or five years ago. Other communities are

dwindling in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The communities are disappearing.

I mean, they are practically disappearing, their tax base is gone and even were

there businesses there, they are not functioning anymore and if you drive up

property tax to a business that is not there, drive up the costs when there is

no operation there, is going to create severe problems; you are going to

compound the problems and I fear for what will happen, but there are avenues to

address our concerns in the Province and we have put forth many of them; lots of

avenues.

One is called: taxing your resources, royalties return to the

people who own the resource. Inco, and the big companies of the world out there

and not a tax regime in place to solve our woes in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, Chile has one in place and there are

discoveries from eighteen years later, Argentina has them, other provinces so

you are going to wait until you discover something before you have a royalty

regime. We are going to wait - before we change income tax or any other? That

does not make sense. As long as you have potential for resources, you should

have resource taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Water is here, we have lots of that. You

are planning on shipping out twenty-seven billion bottles the size of those

little Evian bottles or Perrier Water, the equivalent of twenty-seven billion in

one proposal of those. The water is there as my colleague indicated, it is clear

water, it is as clear as what we see here, shipping it out of this Province,

there should be a royalty on that. It is a resource. It is a resource. There

should be a royalty on the nickel, copper, and cobalt coming from Voisey's Bay.

There should be a royalty on all the resources of the Province. Alberta has a

royalty. It didn't just settle for jobs. It didn't just say: Give us a few jobs.

We did the Upper Churchill. We wanted jobs only, nothing else. What did we get?

We got jobs only, and now we have a major headache to deal with for the next

number of years.

The Premier tried to solve it last year when he skipped

across the country with his little entourage, little publicity, hauled out

secret document papers. Where are we with it months later? Right back where I

said we would be. We have to sit down to the table. We have to develop an

overall deal on the Lower Churchill. We have to look at opening up Labrador, and

the Lower Churchill is the avenue to do it. That is the avenue to the

Trans-Labrador Highway. It is the avenue to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon? Give what to Quebec?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Indeed I don't. I would like to take

everything back that the former Liberal government gave it. I would like to take

it all back. That is what I would like to do. God help us, and this Premier

reminds me of somebody before who gave everything away. He is doing it now; he

is doing a good job. I would like to reverse that. I would like to take it back,

yes. Everybody would like to pull the plug on it but it isn't the legal route.

It would get you in trouble; we will pay dearly for it. What you would like to

do, what is best to do and what to do, are two different things.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he was going to do that. All he did

was pull out of a file that was there for ten or fifteen years a little piece of

paper, jumped up and down in Montrea