April 23,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, in celebration of the

Cabot 500th Anniversary, I am pleased today, to announce the criteria for the

Provincial Student Summer Employment Programs: $4.5 million including $2.5

million in provincial funding and $2 million in federal funding will be

available through three streams of employment programs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J. M. AYLWARD: The Student Work and Services Program,

or SWASP, as we call it, will make up two of the streams, for post-secondary

students, with the third being a High School Student Program. Mr. Speaker, the

amount of funding we have available this year is more than we have been able to

offer in each of the last three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Between 1994 and 1996, the Province and

Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) participated in SWASP, a cost-shared

program designed to deliver a summer student employment program which provided

meaningful summer employment. It introduced the concept of a wage

subsidy/stipend for students, complemented by a tuition voucher redeemable at

any recognized post-secondary institution in the country.

An independent evaluation of SWASP, as well as general public

approval, indicated that it was an effective program model. Between 1994 and

1996, over 7,300 students participated in SWASP and since 1994 it has been

piloted in other provinces based on our model.

The SWASP components of the Summer Employment Programs will

include a $1.7 million Paid Employment stream to be delivered through the

Department of Human Resources and Employment at the district office level. It

will also include a $2.3 million Community Service stream which will be

delivered through the Community Services Council. Eligible students include

those who will first attend or will be returning to a post-secondary school

prior to January 31, 1998. The $0.5 million High School Program is new and it is

targeted at the high school students currently in Levels, I, II, and III.

Mr. Speaker, these programs can create over 3,000 jobs for

students this summer. Students can promote themselves to employers under the

program. However, the application process is employer-driven.

The Department of Human Resources and Employment will deliver

the SWASP Paid Employment component and the High School Program. Staff will be

trained by the end of the week and will be concentrated in six district offices.

They include: St. John's (the Water Street office), Harbour Grace, Gander, Grand

Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. General support will

also be available in other district offices. The SWASP Community Service

component applications will be available through the Community Services Council

(CSC). The Department of Human Resources and Employment is also exploring the

potential for a pilot project with Memorial University.

The SWASP Paid Employment component will include a wage

subsidy of $2.25 an hour, with the employer paying at least $3.00 an hour. The

student will also receive a $50-per-week tuition voucher. Eligible sponsors

include private sector employers and non-profit enterprises. Employer

applications are available immediately through my office and further information

is available through a toll-free line 1-800-563-6600. Applications for employers

must be received no later than May 16.

The SWASP Community Service component will include a

$50-per-week stipend for the students plus a tuition voucher up to $1400 at the

end of the job placement. Eligible sponsors include community agencies and

non-profit enterprises. The Community Services Council will be the primary third

party contractor and will create over 1,000 student jobs including 400 for

social assistance recipients. Social assistance clients will be able to retain

their earnings in addition to their social assistance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Applications for this component must be

no later than May 23.

The High School Program component will include a

government-paid subsidy of $2.25 an hour for private sector employers and $5.25

for non-profit enterprises. Non-profit enterprises will also receive a ten per

cent fee for EI, CPP and Workers Compensation premiums. Private sector employers

will pay $3.00 per hour. Eligible sponsors include private sector employers and

non-profit enterprises. Applications are immediately available and employers

must submit them to Human Resources and Employment no later than June 20.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate our Cabot 500th Anniversary,

government is providing thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the

opportunity to gain valuable work experience while earning money to further

their education.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the

minister's statement, I say it is indeed good news that government has provided

more funding than it has in any other summer for students in this Province

because there is a definitive and definite need for student employment this

summer and each and every summer hereafter.

Mr. Speaker, also, with respect to the programs that the

minister announced, being a new member in the House and a new minister, the

SWASP program has worked effectively over the past two to three years. It is a

model that has been used for the country and is a model that students themselves

have embraced. But what I am waiting for, more importantly, is a statement from

the Minister of Human Resources & Employment - for the minister to stand up in

this House and say how she will correct, what measures this government will take

to address the exodus of thousands upon thousands of people from this Province,

which is the real problem.

While we look at stopgap measures over the summer for

students to be employed, providing them with some assistance, not nearly enough

to provide for their education, that at the end of their programs, whether they

be two- or three- or four- or five-year programs, the only thing that this

government has been providing to those people is a one-way ticket out of this

Province. And unless we begin - all of us - to address that problem and

recognize fundamentally that it is a problem, there will be no solution

achieved.

I applaud the statement and what it means for students today,

but I implore the minister to seriously look at the exodus from this Province,

what it will mean not only to the Budget of this year and the next three years,

but what it will mean to health care, what it will mean to education, and

specifically and most importantly what it will mean to rural Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome, of course, any news of jobs for some students in

the Province this summer, and it is a program that has received widespread

interest around the Province. I note that the minister is, in fact, recognizing

that at least 400 social assistance recipients are students and will need

support and need jobs. It is a fraction of those who are there.

I was looking forward to the minister saying that she was not

going to force these same students, when they go to school in September, to

borrow money from the Student Loan Program to feed their children. I am looking

forward to that from this minister because women, especially with children, are

having to quit school and not continue with an education because of this very

serious problem.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this government to take a page

out of the proposals being made by the New Democratic Leader of Canada in

imposing and starting with job targets for students, employment targets for

people in this Province, the same as the Minister of Finance is engaged in

providing deficit reduction targets. It is time that this government and this

minister started telling the people how many jobs are going to be created by

this government. When are they going to start reducing the unemployment rate?

When are they going to start insisting that projects deliver jobs and reduce

unemployment, not only for students, but for all Newfoundlanders?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this

opportunity to draw to the attention of Members of the House of Assembly

something I regard to be an historically significant development which is now

being announced by the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans respecting the

shrimp fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Honourable Fred Mifflin, Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans, is at this time, as I speak, announcing that the 1997 quota for Northern

shrimp is being increased by 21,450 metric tons -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: - over the 1996 quota of 37,600 metric

tons and, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to report - and this is important because

remember, this quota is an offshore quota, with offshore licences shared

throughout the entire Atlantic Region - I want to report, Mr. Speaker, that at

long last the principle of adjacency has been fully, for the first time

acknowledged with respect to this quota.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Ninety per cent of this quota increase

representing a $100-million fishery is being allocated to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what is equally important is

that for the first time ever, the in-shore sector is being granted access to

this growing stock adjacent to our coastline and, Mr. Speaker, this is something

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been seeking for many years;

this is the first significant quota increase in this stock that we have seen, a

dramatic increase; there have been incremental increases up to this point in

time. We have made representation as a Province with the large size of this

increase that now is the time to see that this stock is brought back to

Newfoundland and Labrador and benefits directly the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I see one of the great fishermen and one of the great former

legislators of the Province, Harold Small, in the gallery today on this historic

announcement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: - and Larry Short sitting right beside

him.

Mr. Speaker, the quota increase announced today, along with

the participation of the in-shore sector, presents significant economic and

employment opportunities for people along the north-east coast of the Province

and of course, in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, as members may be aware until today,

only offshore vessels have taken this quota. There are seventeen existing

offshore licences, only eight of which were in Newfoundland and Labrador, total

landings of 30,000 metric tons in '96 at a market value of $120 million.

However, Mr. Speaker, the benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador were limited

because the in-shore fleet did not have access and for that matter, significant

amounts of shrimp were not being landed for processing either on the Coast of

Labrador or on the coastline of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, today that is changing. As I said, the estimated

value of this increase could reach between $75 million and $100 million. Similar

increases are expected for employment. For each 1,000 ton increase in the quota,

about 150 individuals will be employed in the harvesting and processing sectors

combined. The northern shrimp resource has the potential to employ between 2,000

and 3,000 people who traditionally have made their livelihood from the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, the increase in the northern shrimp stock has

been attributed to the decline in northern cod, a major predator of shrimp. If

that is true, then it is appropriate that the boom in the shrimp quotas should

benefit those who lost their livelihood when the northern cod stock closed.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak on this occasion, even though we

have differences frequently in this House, for every single member of the House,

and I know I speak for every single citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador, when I

say to Fred Mifflin in particular, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,

that he has made an historic contribution today to the future livelihood of the

fishing people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an announcement with historic

positive consequences for all the people of our Province and we give him our

thanks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: It is always good news. In fact, certainly,

Mr. Speaker, it was anticipated that the announcement would be in the 20,000 to

30,000 metric ton range, and from information revealed that the shrimp stocks

are very healthy out there, and it is tremendous news to see an increase. In

fact, it is possible scientifically that it could have gone much higher too and

wouldn't have any danger to the stocks that are there. That is very positive

news.

I will look forward to seeing a copy of the statement, the

details, a little more, an opportunity to see what is involved. I'm certainly

aware about what the Premier stated today that 90 per cent, he indicated, of

that increase will go to Newfoundland and Labrador, he stated, which will be

over 18,000 tons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Certainly it is reason to rejoice. But when

we receive 100 per cent adjacent to our shores - we should aim for no less.

Ninety per cent I can say, Mr. Speaker, is certainly welcome news. In fact,

whether it is on the eve of a federal election or not it is still good news for

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are having a tremendous amount of

good news. It reminds me that almost a year ago here in this Province we had an

overdose of good news and we are still paying the price today, when you see the

gatherings around this Province. You see people today are finding out what the

real truth of this good news is.

But on the surface I have to say an increase was anticipated.

It is welcome news, and we want to see jobs in further processing here in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course everybody

in this House welcomes the news. In respect to the praise of Fred Mifflin, it

kind of begs the question: If it is such a good idea, why didn't the former

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans do it a year ago, given the size of the quota

that the scientists have now found?

The challenge here is to make the maximum use of this

resource. We have had experience, of course, with shrimp licences in the past,

and they have been particularly beneficial to the Labrador Shrimp Company and

the Torngat Cooperative. The challenge has always been to make sure that further

processing, that the maximization of that resource, I'm sure takes place, as

well as the harvesting sector. I look forward to our Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture when he returns to the House to tell us what plans he has to ensure

that the provincial government is going to be doing its bit to make sure that we

maximize this resource here in this Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Premier. The Premier stated yesterday that more people will be hired

at Voisey's Bay. The Premier believes that an increase in jobs will mean less

profit for the company and therefore less mining tax for us. Does the Premier

believe that those over 1,000 people more working are going to produce nothing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, these are such tough

questions. We just had an announcement of a dramatic increase in the shrimp

quota, and 90 per cent of the stock increase coming to the Province, and the

Leader of the Opposition complains about the 10 per cent we never got, even

though it means thousands of jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We had a

statement yesterday that the development of a mine site in Labrador means not

600 jobs but upwards of 2,000 jobs, and the Leader of the Opposition is trying

to find problems with that as well.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition that when there are

positive developments in the Province the Leader of the Opposition should find

something, anything, positive to say about it.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier hasn't

admitted that those 1,000 or more people are going to be productive. Well, I

will draw that conclusion, I say to the Premier. If these people are productive

why do you expect the profits or the mining tax to decrease if these people are

productive?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

again with his fixation of seizing upon any way of trying to take something

positive and turn it negative, is putting words in - well his own mouth but he

is certainly trying to put words in the mouth of the members opposite and he

cannot succeed in doing it. The fact of the matter is, all we have said is we

now have a positive update from the company on the total number of jobs to be

created at a mine site. The company has issued a release saying somewhere

between 1,500 and 2,000 jobs, permanent jobs, direct jobs on the mine site, will

be the result of a development including both the ovoid and going underground.

Now obviously if you have more people working that is in the best interest of

Newfoundland and Labrador by far but it means that your cost of production is

going to be a little higher. If the Leader of the Opposition is having trouble

figuring that out we will send him over a briefing note that he can study after

hours.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is not the

Leader of the Opposition that wants the briefing note, I can say to the Premier.

Premier, these people will have to be employed at some time.

All we will be doing now is we will be extracting it faster if we extract from

the western extension and the eastern deeps along with the ovoid. Now why is the

Premier so suddenly surprised at inevitable employment that would have came

anyway? Now if the Premier is that confused about employment I ask him to

withdraw himself from negotiations in this process.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect,

I am going to go home tonight and study the transcripts of this question. I am

sure there is a point to them but it will take me a little longer to figure it

out. The fact of the matter is, the Leader of the Opposition should not be upset

today. The fact of the matter is, we are talking about an employment impact

which is positive for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no

better benefit for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador than having another

1,500 people working at a mine site and a mine development and the Leader of the

Opposition should stand up and applaud it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Just as the Leader of the Opposition

should applaud the news today that we have additional shrimp quotas contributing

tens of millions of dollars of employment to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians!

Just as the Leader of the Opposition should applaud the fact that the Minister

of Human Resources and Employment has just announced the biggest summer youth

employment program ever in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, putting our

young people back to work!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he

is walking around with a permanent black cloud over his head and he should try

and remove it!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is precisely

what the Premier has stated, his inability to figure out an answer to a simple

question that disturbs me. That is exactly the reason, Premier, I don't want the

people in this Province to find out in ten years time or even in two years time,

I say to the Premier.

Now the Premier admitted yesterday to a mining tax versus

royalties respecting a percentage of ore. I ask the Premier now, what percentage

is being looked at? Will this percentage be applicable only to Inco and Voisey's

Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think we all know that the

Leader of the Opposition has a gathering, an annual meeting, an annual

convention of the Progressive Conservative Party happening, not this weekend but

next and we all know that as a consequence he has to have a sharp and vigorous,

aggressive performance in the House to stir up the troops. I tell him, we wish

him every luck in stirring up the troops and retaining his position for many

years to come as Leader of the Opposition and I assure him he has all the

qualities for the job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the

Opposition does not need to stir up our troops, the Premier is doing a good

enough job of doing that, I can tell the Premier. He is doing an excellent job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier refuses to answer about what

the percentage will bee. The Premier is now having a memory lapse. He is not the

person we want to see in negotiations, Mr. Speaker, not the person we want. I

will repeat the question if he would like me to repeat it, and I will say it

quite slowly: What percentage is being looked at and will this percentage be

applicable only to Inco and Voisey's Bay?

PREMIER TOBIN: What percentage?

MR. SULLIVAN: The mining tax versus royalties on that

nickel, the copper and cobalt that is in Labrador, I say to the Premier.

MR. FITZGERALD: I thought you were going to take over

Rex's portfolio, boy. You do not know anything about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Opposition and his troops are making the case that we need the continued

presence of the Member for St. John's West in the political life of this

country, as the new Member of Parliament for St. John's West, we on this side

agree. If the members opposite are making the case that the member has done an

extraordinary job of laying the groundwork, laying the foundation to build an

exciting new industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, we on this side agree. If

the member opposite is making the case that Mr. Charlie Power would be a poor

substitute for a man of the quality of the Member for St. John's West, we on

this side definitely agree.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to

know the nature of a mineral mining tax regime, he should look at Bill 43.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the very Premier who, when he came here in January of

1996, withdrew that bill and refused to bring it to the House. He should look at

Bill 43. The former Premier had it on the Order Paper of this House to be

passed, and it is this Premier and this minister who withdrew it and squashed

it. Now, I say to the Premier, he is the one who should look at it.

Now, Premier, you are looking for some of the royalties up

front; you are again mortgaging our future - I would not want to have to repeat

my question twice; I will let the Premier finish his briefing session and then I

will ask the Premier the question.

Premier, you are looking for some of the royalties up front.

You are again mortgaging our future and lessening our bargaining power. When

will the Premier admit that he has given away this wonderful resource of ours?

When will he admit that he now has another Churchill Falls fiasco because of his

actions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition that he really should try to be consistent from one week or from one

month to the next.

I recall - and I would challenge those who follow these

things and keep the records, to go back and find that the Leader of the

Opposition, somewhere in the last number of months, suggested at one point that

we should look at advancing payment for the Province on revenues against

Voisey's Bay, that that might be a very good thing. He is now describing that

very suggestion which he himself has made, as mortgaging the future for the

present; and I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition that I hope he

will stand up and explain the flip-flop he has now done on the floor of the

House on this very question.

Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition, the record of he

and his Party on resource development is the following: When it comes to dealing

with foreign overfishing that Party said it could not be done, said they would

not even attempt to do it. We did it. When it came to the transshipment

facility, that Party said it would be announced for Nova Scotia, seven days

after the election and, Mr. Speaker, it is being built in Whiffin Head today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: When it came to the construction of the

smelter refinery complex -

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

PREMIER TOBIN: - that Party said it could not be done. It

is being done today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to complete his answer quickly.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying, when it

comes to a mineral mining tax regime and benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador,

that Party once again says it cannot be done and I say to the Leader of the

Opposition: Count on us, we are going to deliver a solid regime for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the Premier, there has been no flip-flop on this

side and I will stand by what I have said here in this House. It is the Premier

who is on the run, I can tell you.

Premier, you say you are planning to maximize the benefits of

Voisey's Bay. You said: We do not know how much ore is there. And you have said:

We do not know what we are dealing with. That is what the Premier said. I ask

the Premier: Do you now know? On that basis, are you planning on receiving tax

based on profit, or based on a percentage of the value of the ore, or a

combination of both?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

is really not doing a service to anybody with the kinds of questions he is

asking. With great respect, they demonstrate no knowledge of the subject at

hand. For the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and say: I am appalled that

the government has suggested we do not know the full extent of the mining

deposit at Voisey's Bay - the fact of the matter is, a great many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians this year are going to be working in Labrador,

in a $30 million exploration program to fully prove out the size of that

deposit. Does the Leader of the Opposition want that program cancelled? Does he

want us to say that we have all the answers now, we do not need to do more? I

would like to have $40 million- or $50-million-worth of exploration in Labrador.

That is the job of government, to take the time to get all the facts, to get all

of the information and make the right call. And we are not going to be rushed or

pushed by anybody into a fast deal, because there will never again be another

Churchill Falls deal in this Province, not under this government.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The biggest flip-flop we have seen in this Province is `a

better tomorrow'. Back in December, I asked the Premier, on the amount of

exploration: Why are you permitting Inco to reduce exploration efforts from

twelve rigs down to six, cutting in half the exploration in Voisey's Bay? And

the Premier could not answer it. He could not answer that question.

Now, I asked him, in reference to the Minerals Act - and it

states very clearly that where it is economically feasible, smelting and

processing of minerals mined in this Province must be undertaken here. I ask the

Premier - and back to maximizing benefits, when will the Premier table in this

House this secret viability report undertaken by government with respect to the

processing of copper smelting here in this Province on our copper reserves that

are in Voisey's Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Leader

of the Opposition that all of this public posturing is no substitute for

thoughtful public policy; and the Leader of the Opposition does not have,

clearly, any other policy with respect to any development in the Province other

than criticism - shallow criticism and not well-thought-out criticism, at that.

With respect to a consultant study, the consultant study is

in the process of being done. When it is done and we have had a chance to

analyze it, we will make the results public. The Leader of the Opposition should

not talk about secret studies. We have publicly announced that we are doing a

study. It was on the front page of the Telegram . If you regard that as a

public secret, I have news for you. There are people who get their newspapers

regularly, read them carefully and do a better job of analyzing the facts than

has the Leader of the Opposition today.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, were it

not for the Member for Bay Verte, talking about a smelter for copper, which the

Premier laughed at in November, there may not even have been a study ordered in

the first place, I say to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: One of the most disturbing trends in the

Province today is the out-migration of people from this Province. Recently,

Statistics Canada released that in the last five years the population has

declined by 2.9 per cent for a real population decrease of 17,000 people. The

Premier articulated last week that he has met with his officials or was about to

meet with his officials to determine what the impact will be on this year's

Budget and the subsequent three-year forecast. Does the Premier have any

information to deliver to the House today on what the impact will be financially

on equalization as a result of declining population in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not have the - I

know that the hon. member is attempting to ask a question. The Leader of the

Opposition does not want him to get any coverage here today. There is a

convention coming, but you should let the question he has asked - by the way

very well asked, be answered because the member has asked, I think, one of the

most important and relevant questions heard here in some time, contrary to that

we have heard prior to his rising in his place.

The fact of the matter is, the member is right. The

population of Newfoundland and Labrador has declined year over year in the

census division, Mr. Speaker. It is the only Province of Canada where that has

occurred. It is perfectly consistent with the collapse of the ground fishery. It

is a graphic illustration of just how seriously this Province have suffered

because of the collapse of that fishery, and it points out how important it is

to put our people, particularly in rural communities, back to work. That is why

the shrimp announcement is so important, but it also illustrates the size of the

problem when we are trying to deal with the continuation of an education system

where we have the lowest birth rate in the country, a declining enrolment, which

is one of the highest, if not the highest in the country, and the only

population over the census period since the collapse of the fishery anywhere in

Canada that has declined. I say to the member opposite, no, we do not have an

analysis yet from Ottawa, because what happens now is Stats Canada takes a

period of about sixteen months and it goes back and does an adjustment

province-by-province on all of these numbers. Traditionally, what happens is,

the numbers get adjusted upward slightly, usually by 5,000 to 10,000 and, on the

basis of a final number, they then make an assessment on future equalization.

I am quite prepared to offer the member who has asked the

question, and who has the important job of Chair of the Public Accounts

Committee, a full briefing by the Department of Finance, by Beverley Carter and

her team, on both the numbers and, when we have a better analysis, on the

equalization impacts.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, actually, by

the Premier's comments on the recent article, because he indicated on April 16

that he would have to meet with officials to determine what the impact would be.

Economists in this Province, people in this Opposition, have

been warning the Premier since he was elected what was coming. How is it that

previous to the Budget of March 20, that the provincial government was not able

to factor in - based upon its best guesstimates - what the impact would be? How

is it today, based upon current formulas offered under transfer and

equalization, that the Premier or the Minister of Finance cannot today stand up

in the House and tell us what the impact will be upon the Budget this year and

for the next three years? I really do not understand how the Premier cannot do

that today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, another good question by the

member. He is asking very good questions. He should be spending more time on his

feet asking questions because, in fact, based upon our own analysis we did

factor into the Budget an expected decline in equalization payments, and that is

part of our three-year Budget projection.

When the member says to me, `Give me a number', what he is

really saying is: Tell Ottawa what we think would be an acceptable reduction in

the rate of equalization.

We are prepared to negotiate to keep every dollar we can but,

based on what we now know, these numbers are about what was forecast. We have

built into our Budget projections, in our Budget plan, what we think could be a

reduction in the rate of equalization, and that was put in the plan in the

Budget announced last month. So I say to the member: Thank you for the question;

I am delighted to give the answer.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, let me ask the Premier, based upon

his response, now you are saying that the analysis was done prior to the Budget,

and that you did factor into your Budget documents as to what the decline in

population would mean in terms of actual dollars, so that then meeting with your

officials will not be nearly as bad as you anticipate it to be. So what you are

saying is that the reduction you factored into the Budget will not have an

impact in this year's Budget or the next three years. Is that what the Premier

has said?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: What the Premier is saying is that the

government has done its job, that we have been aware...

If the Leader of the - if the member opposite - a Freudian

slip, of course, the Leader of the Opposition - if the member opposite has not

been aware of the population decline over the last number of years, they have

been reported publicly by Stats Canada. What you are getting here is a five-year

census division report. The actual public reports of population decline have

gone on for some time. We have made our own projections.

You will recall that last summer we had a debate at one point

between ourselves and Stats Canada as to what the proper numbers were, and we

called into question their numbers. So yes, in our forecast -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I think the member wants an answer.

In our forecast over the next three years government has

anticipated the population decline and has made provision in its planning for

perhaps a reduction in transfers, but we would argue to minimize, with the

federal government, that reduction in transfers. And we would argue further that

if there is any retroactive adjustment, that as has occurred in the past, that

adjustment should not be put in place.

The member will know, as Chairman of the Public Accounts

Committee, that in past years Ottawa has forgiven adjustments to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we would hope that Ottawa would forgive us again

and improve our fiscal position.

MR. E. BYRNE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

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

The Premier would know that throughout the course of any

given year there are several adjustments that take place between the Province on

the one hand and the federal government on the other hand. So if I am to

assume...

Under the current formula - and the Premier can correct me if

I am wrong, but I hope he can deny this figure; it was a story that was released

from Stats Canada on February 26, 1996, three days after he was elected Premier

- it says: Based on the current formula, if we lose 15,000 people - and we have

lost 17,000, not 15,000 - our transfers could stand to be cut by $52 million

under the current equalization formula.

Can the Premier say to me, and tell the people of the

Province today, that the impact of a 17,000 out-migration due to population will

not have that severe of an impact on our Budget and will not, in fact, be $52

million? Is that what he is saying to the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Leader

of the Opposition that he should listen to the question and he should listen to

the answer. The question that has been asked is: Will there be a $55 million

impact on -

MR. E. BYRNE: Based on the current formula.

PREMIER TOBIN: The answer is no. Because the formula is

not based only on population. As you know, the formula is based on a wide

variety of factors, and population alone does not determine the rate of

equalization. The relative strength of our economy versus the national economy

really determines as much as anything else the rate of equalization. The fact

is, if our economy stays flat or declines somewhat or marginally, and the

national economy improves, then our equalization, if anything, goes up. The

reality is, just before the last Budget, literally weeks before the last Budget,

we had an increase in equalization for this fiscal year. It went up by another -

prior adjustment was what?

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: We actually had a prior -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) provincial economy (inaudible)

PREMIER TOBIN: I'm trying to answer but -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - the member can't speak and listen. We

had a prior adjustment of more than $30 million. That is one of the reasons we

were able to announce some of the important programs we announced: like paying

off all school board debt, like investing $2.5 million in computers for our

schools, like investing $2.5 million in improving our hospital program, like

investing the dollars necessary for renal dialysis in Grand Falls, like

proceeding with the James Paton Hospital.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Like proceeding with Harbour Breton.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Like a youth employment program.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his

answer, please.

PREMIER TOBIN: For all of those reasons we are looking

after our dollars and cents and investing in the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

the Premier and concerns the announcement yesterday on Voisey's Bay. While we

all welcome the job projections of increase in the number of people to be

employed in Voisey's Bay, the Premier's statement yesterday was a very

disturbing one. I want to ask the Premier why he chose that occasion to say to

the people of this Province that we can expect less in royalties from the

Voisey's Bay mineral corporation.

Why did he do that? Is he trying to soften us up for a

royalty comeback? Is he trying to send a signal to Inco and the Voisey's Bay

mineral company that the Newfoundland government expects less from them? Why did

he do that? Why did he not just say that we are delighted to have more people

employed in Labrador than (inaudible)?

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

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the

NDP I don't expect less royalties at all. I expect the maximum benefits both in

terms of jobs, in terms of supply, in terms of services, and in terms of

royalties.

One of the reporters made the point that if you have a lot

more people working that means the cost of development is going up. I said - and

I would ask somebody to look at the transcript so there is a degree of fairness

here in representing what I said - I said: I suppose you could look at it that

way, that if you have more people working your cost of production has gone up.

But for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, any time you have more people

working that is good news. Obviously people working are paying income tax,

people working are not on UI or not on social assistance. People working are

consuming in this economy, people working are building houses and purchasing

automobiles and spreading money throughout the economy of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

That is good news, and I don't anticipate for one second -

and I wish the Leader of the NDP wouldn't suggest to Inco that it can expect any

kind of an easy ride whatsoever based on the notion that more people are going

to be working in Newfoundland and Labrador. I tell you, the unionized workers of

Newfoundland and Labrador won't stand for that kind of comment by the leader of

the socialist party. He should be ashamed of himself.

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

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was the Premier

who suggested it on the front pages of the paper, and he didn't take any

opportunity when questioned by the Leader of the Opposition to deny that

statement!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the message of the Premier in

the paper yesterday was that Inco can expect this Province to back up - will the

Premier do the Province a favour and reconstitute the Select Committee of this

House to study a royalty regime for Voisey's Bay? Will the Premier do that so

there can be some input into this process and not have the kind of things

(inaudible) being made publicly by the Premier affect the negotiations without

the people of this Province having some say?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the member is going to

quote from the paper and use this as the basis for his sense of outrage, let me

read the full quote. `Any time somebody tells me we are going to have an extra

1,500 jobs, well paying, long term jobs, I am not exactly unhappy about it.' Now

I say to the Leader of the NDP, he knows it is mischievous and he knows it is

misleading and I would have to hope it is inadvertently -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: CBC? You're quoting CBC? Well you were

just quoting the paper a moment ago but you should quote the full story. Mr.

Speaker, the long and short of it is, we are having a Question Period dominated

by questions from members opposite who are doing their best to try and cast a

cloud of negativity over positive developments in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. The Leader of the NDP should stand and applaud the notion that

there is going to be an extra 1,500 jobs, not try and find something wrong with

it. Of course, all I can say is, he is copying the formula for success being

practised by the Leader of the Opposition and they are about the same place in

the polls.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Premier.

Mr. Premier, today in this Province we are faced with a very

serious health care situation. It has gone on too long, Premier, and no longer

can the status quo be accepted in this Province. Doctors are expressing serious

concerns from all areas of the Province. The system is collapsing. Premier, will

you please intervene and do something to help the people of this Province and

will you do it today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

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

I think, as was pointed out very clearly in the paper this

weekend, the system is not collapsing. We recognize the problems that are in the

system, Mr. Speaker. We recognize the valuable and hard work of our front-line

staff. We recognize the challenges they have. We recognize the difficulties we

are having in this Province and right across this country, of recruiting rural

physicians to meet the needs of our citizens but I think, Mr. Speaker, we do not

want to instill panic in our communities, in our society. Our front-line workers

and our health care system is providing a very good service to the clients of

this Province and I think we need to state it as it is.

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Might I say, Mr. Speaker, oh what a

year-and-a-half can do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Now Premier, again I am asking you today to

deal with this very crucial situation. Will you please utilize the funds from

the contingency reserve, put them into the health care system immediately,

particularly in areas that are suffering drastically in the last several months

in this Province? We have doctors from Port aux Basques, doctors from Western

Newfoundland, doctors from Central Newfoundland, the chairperson of the Health

Care Corporation who are all saying that health care in this Province is in

great difficulty. I don't care what the minister says and I won't ask the

Minister of Health any more questions because most of the time he is somewhere

else anyway but today I ask you, as Premier of this Province, to intervene on

behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, on behalf of the people of

this Province and put some money into the health care system in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think that everybody in the

Province recognizes that Newfoundland and Labrador has a challenge to maintain

its fundamental programs and fundamental services, in particular social policy

in the area of education and the area of health care. This is not something that

happened yesterday. This is not something that suddenly sprung up a year ago or

six months ago or six weeks ago. We are a Province with the largest public debt

per capita in Canada. We were a Province - it is not the case today - with the

largest annualized deficit in the country. We have the highest unemployment

rate. We have the highest rate of taxation and it has been that way, Mr.

Speaker, for decades.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition

to at least let me answer. It has been that way for decades. Change is not going

to happen overnight and it is going to take some hard work, some discipline and

some perseverance to bring change about, Mr. Speaker, but I am confident

positive change is happening today. I wish it could happen quicker. I cannot

make it happen quicker.

I say to the member opposite, who is usually a diligent

member, I would ask him to recognize this, there is more money - if it were

available - that could be used in the health care system. The government will

look, on a continuous basis and review the health care system and where we can

find the additional dollars to spend, we will.

We announced significant investments in the Budget, and as we

can afford to spend more we will spend more. It does not help the health care

system to constantly talk about a system that has collapsed, to constantly talk

about crises, and to seek in a very transparent and political way to use the

challenges - and they are real, and the problems in some of those are real - to

try and score cheap political points on the floor of the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

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

the RNC Public Complaints Commission, which covers the period from April 1, 1996

to March 31, 1996. This is in accordance with

section 39 of the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table for hon. members, two different matters

dealing with several finances of the Province. The first is a list of the

temporary loans raised under

Section 48 of the Financial Administration Act,

since the last report to the House. These are loans, essentially Treasury Bills

in amounts discounted from $30 million from May 16, 1996 through to and

including March 5, 1997. This is, in essence, our Treasury Bill Program.

The second matter is the matter of a pay-out under a

provincial loan guarantee; it is a Fisheries Loan Board guarantee. The Province

had provided a guarantee of $76,500 to the Bank of Nova Scotia on March 16,

1989, on behalf of Mr. Vincent Hughes vessel. There were problems with the

vessel. It was subsequently sold in 1995. The proceeds were less than necessary

to satisfy the loan and the Province paid out $50,475.99 under the guarantee on

May 14, 1996. So we paid out a little bit over $50,000 on a total guarantee of

$76,000.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would now like to table those.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are those loans now forgiven?

MR. DICKS: They are not forgiven. We have made a pay-out.

As to whether or not there is any recourse under the guarantee against the

individual, is not part of the report to the House and that would be a matter to

take up with the minister responsible for the Fisheries Loan Program, whom I now

believe is my colleague, the minister responsible for rural development.

The government, in some cases, Mr. Speaker, if I could

respond to this, where it gives guarantees, does have recourse in the nature of

shareholders loans and various securities, guarantees, cross-guarantees of

companies. In some circumstances, like many circumstances when the company goes

bankrupt or an individual experiences difficulties, it is not always easy or

worthwhile to realize (inaudible).

In this case, I do not have the particulars but I am sure the

hon. member might provide that information if it is a matter of public interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: The government will pay off the loan if

there is still (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes. We might very well try to collect if it

is feasible to do so.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main -

Whitbourne.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to present a

petition on behalf of the residents, parents, of the communities of Marysvale,

Brigus, Georgetown, Cupids, Roaches Line, Makinsons, many of whom are in the

galleries here today.

I will begin by reading the prayer of the petition:

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

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

District of Harbour Main - Whitbourne, humbly sweareth:

WHEREAS Bishop O'Neill Collegiate in Brigus, a

twenty-four-year-old brick building which, as a K to IX school, would have a

population of 436 students and can offer excellent programming and would be much

more cost-efficient with regard to busing students 8.5 kilometres to Bishop

O'Neill as compared to 22 kilometres to Amalgamated Academy in Bay Roberts; and

WHEREAS the Avalon West School Board has determined to keep

open a number of underpopulated older wooden structures, some of which are in

much closer proximity to more modern facilities; and

WHEREAS our proposal will keep seven communities centralized

at Bishop O'Neill and Brigus with much less busing-time for children and a

quality education for all;

WHEREFORE we, the concerned parents of the District of

Harbour Main - Whitbourne, petition the government to review our case and

resolve it to our satisfaction in granting a K to IX school system at Bishop

O'Neill and Brigus. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Dated, April 23, 1997.

Mr. Speaker, there are 789 names on this particular petition.

We have had many issues placed before this House of Assembly, but I believe one

of the most important issues facing us today is the issue of education. I do not

think there is anybody in this particular House or anybody in the Province - and

I know there are many people here in the gallery who have signed this petition -

who do not realize that there has to be restructuring.

The Premier mentioned a few minutes ago that we have a

decline in population and I suppose there is very little argument that can be

made for not decreasing the size of the education system. We have school boards

throughout the Province who have been mandated to make various decisions with

regard to school re-alignment and student re-alignment and all the decisions

that come with the new school system that we are about to have - fine, educated,

upstanding people, fine human beings.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the operative words there are "human

beings". As human beings, many of us are subject, and sometimes prone, to making

mistakes. They have had hundreds of choices and decisions to be made over the

past number of months, all very hard decisions. Not a big lot of time to make

them, in some cases, and probably for that reason - I do not know, it may not be

- some of the choices and some of the decisions that were made may not have been

the best decisions that could have been made, given the circumstances.

With all due resect to all these school boards in the

Province, I believe that probably one of the issues that should be reviewed is

the issue of closing the Bishop O'Neill school in Brigus. There are two schools

in Brigus. There is St. Edward's school, an older wooden structure, and Bishop

O'Neill, a more modern brick building, one that has had just last year $100,000

spent on a new computer room, state-of-the-art computers. Probably most

important of all -and it may not be an issue that was considered, I am not sure

- but probably one of the most important issues of all was the fact that they

have set a very high standard in the Bishop O'Neill school. The results of their

exams year after year are public knowledge. In some cases, they have had 100 per

cent passed in 100 per cent of the subjects. I know of parents in other areas

who have taken their kids out of different high schools and put them in the

Bishop O'Neill school in Brigus for that very same reason - a very

well-respected school.

I believe that further discussion, further communication,

should be initiated. I have tried my best in the past to do that, with some

success - obviously with not enough, because we are here today. I find that this

is probably one of the last resorts that I have to bring this -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. WHELAN: Just a minute to finish up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WHELAN: Basically, what I have left to say is that I

call on - it is an onerous situation, an onerous problem within the Province. I

think the onus is on all of us, the responsibility is on all of us, to look

after the future of our children. That is the most important point, that is the

bottom line in this Province. I think that we, as a government, we as parents,

we as a population here in Newfoundland, should do all that we can to see that

the right decisions are made, to make sure that in ten and twenty years time the

children we are making decisions about today do not suffer because of the

decisions we have made.

I am hoping everything possible is done on the part of

government, the school boards, we, as parents, to see that this situation is

rectified.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to respond to the

petition?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no necessity for leave to respond

to a petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, it is 3:00 p.m. Do we have leave to

respond?

MR. TULK: Sure. I wonder if we could perhaps stop the

clock in order to give the Opposition a chance to reply to this petition?

MR. SPEAKER: Is that agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments, if I

may, in response to the position taken and the wording of the petition as read

by the member opposite. As indicated, there are some 789 names to this petition.

I am quite familiar with the specifics of the circumstances concerning the

people and the parents of the communities in the Marysvale and Brigus area.

I, personally, along with my colleague, the Member for Cape

St. Francis, went to Brigus approximately ten days ago and joined with them in

their protest with respect to the closing of their school, namely, Bishop

O'Neill High School, in Brigus. And it could be clearly seen, Mr. Speaker, that

there is a lot of passion and a lot of concern on the part of the parents and

the students in the Brigus area. They are deeply concerned about the closure of

their school.

I must say, I applaud the member opposite, who has taken the

view today, Mr. Speaker, to really challenge the very words of his leader.

Because his leader had indicated in the past that he would not interfere with

decisions by these appointed school board members. It is certainly a pleasure to

hear what the member opposite has to say about this, because he is representing

- because I heard what the people had to say in the Brigus area. He is truly

representing what the people in this community truly mean. And what they want,

Mr. Speaker, is the continued opening of their school, no longer as a high

school, but as a facility which will accommodate students from Kindergarten to

Grade IX.

It is a fine facility. I, along with my colleague, viewed the

facility. It has a beautiful gymnasium; it has a computer room which compares

with any other computer room in this Province. It is a viable school. It has a

population which can easily support the continuation of this school.

So, there are circumstances - and I say to the Minister of

Education and to the hon. the Premier, there are special circumstances which

require in this Province a second review. And it is not only Brigus, it is in

Brownsdale, it is in Englee, it is in Jacques Fontaine, it is in Port au Port.

There are a number of communities in our Province which require a special look

and a special second consideration. The people and the parents in Brigus and

Marysvale and surrounding area are saying: We want somebody to listen. Under the

conditions which have been set down by the hon. the Premier and by the Minister

of Education in this Province, there is nobody who will listen, and that is

completely unfair and unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. We need somebody in this

Province who will listen. There are, indeed, special circumstances.

This is a very unique year in education. There are decisions

which are being made which will be long-lasting, if not permanent, and clearly,

one fell swoop cannot satisfy for everybody in this Province what is the end

result in terms of educational opportunity. There are special circumstances

which require a special consideration, a second review. I say to the members of

this House, that what the people in Brigus and Marysvale are saying, represents

one of those special circumstances, and I would ask the hon. the Premier to

intervene. Unlike his Minister of Education, I would ask him to take an active

role in participating in the decision-making in this particular instance and to

give some accountability to the people of the Brigus area who require,

certainly, at least that much.

Thank you very much.

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

Vidi is asking leave.

MR. HARRIS: Do I have leave to address the petition, Mr.

Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: I just want to say a few words, Mr. Speaker,

in support of the petition. The petition presents a unique problem for this

House, in that we have a group of people who came here to protest once before

and protested out in their community for several days. I spoke to those people,

and despite the name of the school, Bishop O'Neill Collegiate, named after a

Roman Catholic Prelate, this is not about denominational education. This is a

community school and the people of these communities want this Brigus school to

remain. What I am afraid has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that what people voted

for when they wanted education reform is what they would expect to happen in

Bishop O'Neill School and in Brigus, that there would be one school that all the

people could go to in Brigus.

Brigus is one of the oldest communities in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and, Mr. Speaker, perhaps what has happened is that

out there in the bureaucracy of the school boards, out there in the bureaucracy

of education, some centralizers have taken over this agenda of school reform and

are using it to pursue something that perhaps they have been thinking about for

years. What the people of Brigus and Marysvale want is a community school and

they have a community that is big enough to support a school. They have a

population of schoolchildren that is enough to support a viable school, and they

have a building that is there, workable, ready to go. What they are asking is

not something - they are not asking to turn back the clock on education reform.

They are not asking for a uni-denominational school where one is not viable.

They are asking that their community school be possible.

I agree with the Member for St. John's East, and the Member

for Harbour Main - Whitbourne, that there has to be a second look. It is not

enough - and I understand that the Premier and the government do not want to get

involved in disputes over religion, disputes over all of that. We understand

that. That decision has been made. Term 17 has been passed; it has been accepted

by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, I think Term 17 itself has

probably been accepted by the churches. What we have going on here is something

entirely different. What we have here is school board bureaucracies now taking

over the agenda, and apparently being given a carte blanche, a total power, that

this government is saying: `We do not want to interfere with; we are not going

to have anything to do with.' And I think that is wrong.

These are appointed school boards; these are appointed

officials with sort of game plans that have not really been subjected to

adequate consultation, certainly not in this particular area, and now, the

school board is defending decisions they have made and the government has

virtually said: You can do what you like. It is not going to be reviewed, so you

are okay.

I think this is a sincere request by the member, a sincere

request by the people of this area, to have the Province reconsider the life of

the Brigus community in having a school for Brigus. I think it is time that the

government had a second look, and I implore them, on behalf of these people

here, to exercise that second look and exercise a little bit of flexibility in

that policy. Do not revisit Term 17, but certainly provide an opportunity to

revisit the plans that are being imposed on the people of this Province against

their will.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Private Member's Day, I believe the

resolution today is that of the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a motion today on the floor to debate the provincial

parks issue.

WHEREAS the people of the Province own the provincial parks

the government is now trying to privatize; and

WHEREAS the people of the Province who own these parks were

never consulted by government about its decision to privatize their parks; and

WHEREAS the people of the Province are expressing loudly and

clearly that they do not want their provincial parks privatized; and

WHEREAS the government's rash, last-minute decision to

privatize the people's parks without their prior knowledge or consent is

fostering chaos and confusion which puts at risk the Cabot Celebrations and the

most important tourism year in our history;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House urge the

Provincial Government immediately to stop its efforts to privatize the people's

provincial parks.

Mr. Speaker, I have gone over this Program Review several

times in the House, and the highlights of the Program Review, and much to the

minister's dismay - I do not know; she perhaps has not read the Program Review

prior to her decision to privatize these provincial parks. But, Mr. Speaker, in

the department's own Program Review, they state very clearly that provincial

parks provide a higher quality of outdoor recreation opportunities in a safer

environment than the private parks throughout the Province, and that the

provincial parks are legislatively protected and policy-driven.

Mr. Speaker, private parks will be profit-driven, not

policy-driven. Private parks in this Province will be looking at the bottom

line, looking at whatever ways they can save money and generate money as opposed

to servicing the tourists who come to our Province and giving them a good

experience, an experience that will make them want to come back, an experience

that will have them go back to their own home provinces, or down to the states

where they live, and tell their friends and relatives and neighbours what a

great experience they had in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the private

parks in our Province are not operated at high standards. Some of them are, some

of them are not, but our provincial parks we know are operated at high standards

and we are not taking a gamble with our provincial parks. Some of the private

parks throughout the Province are operated at high standards and I am not

knocking them but, Mr. Speaker, by keeping our parks legislatively protected we

ensure that tourists who visit our Province have a good experience.

Mr. Speaker, we have been told by the government that they

cannot afford to pay the costs of maintaining these parks and wages and so on,

yet nature and eco-tourists have contributed $150 million to the provincial

economy in 1995 according to the program review put out by the department. So,

Mr. Speaker, while they paid out $1.8 million on one hand, they are taking in

$150 million on the other hand. There were twenty-eight parks removed from the

provincial park system in 1995 with the promise that the money saved through the

privatization of those parks would go back in to enhance the provincial parks

that remain in the system. That has not happened, Mr. Speaker. There was $1

million, as promised, in 1995, there was $500,000 in 1996 and in 1997 the

minister, in one statement, has given a very swift and fatal blow to the

employees of the parks, to the visitors of these parks and to the provincial

park system itself.

The program review states very clearly that private park

operators either do not have the financial resource or the desire to operate the

private parks at the same standards that our provincial parks are operated at.

It also states that 1997, being the Cabot 500 celebrations, it would be an

unwise decision to experiment with privatization during 1997, yet the minister

has taken it upon herself to privatize twenty-one of our provincial parks as

well as the sites that she is privatizing.

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate reality here is that the private

park operators are going to have to increase their fees or they are going to

have to block the parks with amenities in order to be able to afford to operate

these private parks. If the government say that they are unable to afford the

cost of maintaining these parks how does the minister expect a private park

operator to operate these provincial parks and pay a bank loan because the

minister is offering a fifty year lease on these parks in order for the new

operators to obtain bank financing? How can the minister expect these new

private operators to afford to operate these parks and at the same time pay a

bank loan without raising the prices at the gates or without blocking these

parks with amenities? That very clearly, Mr. Speaker, is something that the

people of our Province do not want.

Now the private parks that are out there with amenities are

very good. Some of them are very good. Pee Wee Park, Splash n' Putt, Trinity

Loop and so on, these parks are very good, very well operated, Mr. Speaker, but

the question is, if you put another twenty-one parks blocked with amenities

throughout the Province, are we going to jeopardize these businesses that are

presently in place? Are we going to over flood the market with private parks

that are blocked with amenities over and above the fact that the people of our

Province say that we have enough private parks? We have enough parks with

amenities. We want our parks to remain provincial parks where we can enjoy

nature, where we can go out and pick blueberries, where we can go out and take

our families for a swim. How can somebody go into a private park and take their

family for a swim without fear of being run over by a sea-doo or a bumper boat,

Mr. Speaker?

Some of the small communities throughout our Province that

have these provincial parks within the community boundaries rely on these

provincial parks for their very existence. We all know of the stories of

out-migration, we all know of the stories of small communities struggling to

survive. If these private parks put convenience stores within them, what happens

to the convenience stores that are in the communities that rely on the traffic

through the provincial parks for their existence?

What happens if the park closes, which is not outside the

realm of possibility. We have seen it in 1995. What happens if these parks

close? Do the communities die? The minister is providing the new operators of

these parks with one month. She has told me that she is going to come out and

tell the public and tell the new operators what operators actually are taking

over these parks by the end of April. So she is going to give them a month to

put in place a business plan, to make sure they have their financing arranged,

to hire staff, to be up and running at the same standards that the provincial

parks are operating at by the opening of this tourist season. That is not

possible. That is simply not possible, and the minister herself knows it.

I have to ask the minister a question, and I fully expect her

to get up, and I welcome the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans to get up and

provide comments, and I welcome the Member for Windsor - Springdale to get up

and provide us with their comments on this debate today, and I expect them to

get up. The public expects these people to get up. The question I have for the

minister - she has told me last week in a telephone conversation that they now

have it reduced to a short list on all of the parks. There is a short list now

in place on all of the parks, and that they are having meetings within the next

couple of days with the people who have presented proposals who are on that

short list. Anybody who is not on the short list won't be having a meeting,

there is no need for a meeting. I wonder if the minister can tell us when the

last of those meetings have taken place, if they have all taken place.

The people in this Province have a fundamental right to

utilize and enjoy our provincial parks. They are our provincial parks. I've

requested from the minister information pertaining to the total investment gone

into our provincial parks, the total investment by the people of our Province

throughout the years into these provincial parks that are now being privatized.

One would expect that the government would have this information at hand before

it made a decision to privatize these parks. It would simply be unacceptable to

the people of our Province to sell off one of these parks for $10,000 or $15,000

after the people of our Province have invested tens of thousands of dollars into

one of these parks, and maybe more.

The fact that the minister could stand in the House yesterday

and tell us that this information is not available is unacceptable. That she has

not done her research, that she has not determined the total investment gone

into these parks throughout the years. Because if we were in government and we

were to make such a rash decision, I can guarantee you that we would have our

research done before we would make a decision such as privatizing these

twenty-one parks. We would know the total investment gone into these parks by

the people of our Province. We wouldn't be basing it on the current assets in

the parks. We would base it on the total investment by the people of our

Province, the owners of these parks, before we made a decision to privatize;

because I would not expect you to invest $150,000 into your home and then turn

around tomorrow and sell it for $15,000. You know that is unacceptable, and I

know it is unacceptable, and anybody in their right mind would know it is

unacceptable.

To take a park that we have invested tens of thousands of

dollars into, that we have invested our culture into, and much of our heritage

into, can we afford to sell these parks for $10,000 or $15,000?

I would like for the minister, when she stands in defence of

this motion today, to tell us exactly in detail what she is basing her decision

on, and to ensure us that we are going to get fair value for these parks,

because I don't believe we are going to. I certainly don't believe that the

people of this Province are going to get the value back when these parks are

privatized.

Furthermore, on a fifty-year lease, what guarantee, if a

private operator is unable to pay the bills and pay the bank loan, the bills

that the government say they are unable to afford to pay, if for some reason the

private operator is unable to afford to meet the demands, does the bank then

take over control of the balance of the fifty-year lease? And, if so, do we have

any control over who this bank then would pass control of the park to? Would we

have any control at all on whose hands the bank would turn these parks over to?

Mr. Speaker, there has been tremendous chaos and confusion

created through the privatization of these twenty-one parks, and it has been

created because there has been a lack of information provided by the government.

There has been a lack of response by the government. There has been absolutely

no consultation by this government whatsoever, absolutely no consultation by

this government at all, and yet this government wants the people of the Province

to trust them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon I stand to talk about the privatization of our

parks and to respond to the motion by the hon. Member for St. John's South,

opposite.

In listening to his discussions, and already hearing him

through the media greatly over the last few weeks, he talks about the chaos and

confusion caused by government. And in listening to his remarks this afternoon I

realize that much of the chaos and confusion has been caused by the hon.

member's comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I would like to point out to this House, and to

the hon. members opposite, there has been very strong interest in the

privatization of these parks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS KELLY: We have obtained seventy-seven good proposals

on these parks, which we are at the moment evaluating.

I would like to say to the hon. member - he asked a question

as to where we are in the process - we have been detailing, on a weekly basis,

where we are with the privatization process. We have, as of yesterday, completed

all of the short-listed interviews with the proponents who have risen to the top

in looking at how these privatized parks will be run in the future.

I would also like to say, when the hon. member points out

that `we have no public park system, we are privatizing all of our parks', we

have thirteen good, core, public parks left in the system. We also, very proudly

in this Province, have two National Parks in Gros Morne and in Terra Nova.

I am also wanting to point out today the total lack of regard

that the member opposite has been pointing out for the private sector in this

Province, and not just the private sector. We had ten excellent proposals out of

the seventy-seven from employee groups, and I have to tell you that they were

very good proposals, and some of these were, in fact, short-listed. We had ten

proposals from employee groups on seven parks.

I would also like to say to the hon. member that he has been

ranting and going on and on about how tough this is on our Province. We had to

make tough decisions in this last budget. I have not heard the hon. member in

all the times he has been on the open line shows and talking to the media and

talking in public meetings, I have not once heard him give a solution whereby we

could have the cost savings. Would he like us to shut down yet another school, a

hospital ward? These are the types of decisions that we have to make here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: And I have to say through all of his comments

about struggling rural communities, yes our communities are struggling, has he

ever stopped to think that these parks could in fact be opportunities for our

rural communities? Why is it that every time we talk change or we move ahead and

do things differently, must the hon. members opposite always think that it has

to be negative?

When I have been reading through and looking at these

seventy-seven proposals, I realize the strong business background and the good

work that was put into those proposals and I have great fate that many or all of

these parks will be successfully privatized.

When he talks about just one month left for to put together a

business plan, what did he think we were going to people asking for? These

seventy-seven proposals that we received are good, solid business plans. He says

only one month to create a business plan. The business plans have been created.

The private sector also can implement certain efficiencies,

partnerships and concessions in the parks that it is not appropriate for

government to do. He said all of these parks will have amenities in them. My

goodness what about we have some electrical hook-ups, some sewer hook-ups and a

few bumper boats and that. The public want these types of parks. The public also

wants good core public parks which we are providing. You know we have to offer a

diversity of experiences to both our own people who want camping experiences in

this Provinces and to visitors who are coming to our Province.

The Cabot 500th celebrations, the hon. member makes it sound

like it is terrible, we are having a lot of tourists come, we are not going to

be able to take care of them. We have parks systems, we have private camp

grounds, we will have more private camp grounds now. We have enough camp grounds

in this Province that even if these twenty-one parks were not privatized we

would have an adequate number for the extra twenty per cent tourists we expect

this year. We have a very large number of very good camp grounds in this

Province, in our public parks, in our national parks and in our private parks.

We have some very good private parks. He alludes to, oh yes, we may have a few

good private parks. We have a lot of good private ones and to ensure that as our

parks are privatized and to ensure that our private parks are also kept up to

standard we will work very closely with the industry. We are putting in place an

inspection process this year and we also, through the upcoming year, are working

very closely with Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador to put a rating system

in place for our parks similar to what we have done for hotels, motels and bed

and breakfasts.

Licensing the new operators in these parks will not be a

rubber stamp process. You seen to imply that we are just passing over these

parks with no standards. We have always had standards in this Province and we

will continue to have standards. Businesses who will be going into these parks,

whether they be municipalities, tourism associations, development associations,

employee takeover situations or private business, will all have to adhere to the

tourist establishment act. We also have to ensure that each operator, and we

will ensure, complies with the clear regulations set out by other departments,

the Department of Health and the Fire Commissioner for example.

The tourism industry as I have said is working towards a

rating system for camp grounds, not unlike the system we have in place for other

tourism operations. So, for our part a camp ground that does not get a license,

will not operate.

Moving on to a discussion about the park employees who have

been displaced by this process, we have been working very hard with our

employees all through our department. We have sat down with the union, we have

sat down with employees, we have sat down with concerned groups all through the

system. There were ninety-two seasonal positions impacted by this park

privatization initiative. Forty-five new positions have been identified in the

thirteen core parks. We have approximately ten to twelve people who will

voluntarily go through the normal retirement process. We also have a voluntary

retirement program that we are discussing with our employees now and already we

know that three have exited through that process and we may have as high as ten

to fifteen. We know that we have three employees who have for normal reasons

that we lose some employees every year, gained employment in other areas in

other jobs.

We will also expect that some employees who have been

displaced will be taking over parks, that their business proposals will be

successful. We will know that in the upcoming days. I also notice, in many of

the proposals that were put forward by the various private entrepreneurs, by

development associations, tourism associations, municipalities that they are

indicating that they want to employ these previous park employees. They know

that these employees have the experience, the education and the know how to run

these parks properly this summer. It is my anticipation that most, if not all of

these employees will have alternate employment or be retired or, will work

through the privatized system in our Province. So I stand here today, to say to

you that we are on time with the process of privatizing the parks; we are on

schedule and we intend that these parks will be open this summer servicing the

public as in previous years because this will be a banner year for tourism in

our Province. This is the best time in our history to do this.

Do you think it would have been best that the end of the

season when the big opportunity was gone and the larger influx of tourists this

year - this is a banner time to start a new business, a new tourism business,

and we hope that all of the privatized parks, the ones that have previously been

privatized and in fact all of our tourism businesses this year we know will have

the ability to rise to new heights because this year is our jumping off point

for a brand new tourism industry for this Province; and this will, in the

future, I am sure, as was pointed out in the Province's Strategic Economic Plan

several years ago when we identified that aquaculture, information technology

and tourism would be the three bright spots in the three new areas of business

growth in our Province and that is why we planned these Cabot celebrations,

mainly to celebrate 500 years of history. To also look forward to the next 500

years and to celebrate our land, our culture and our people. Our public parks,

our national parks and our privatized parks will all play a great role in that

celebration.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted today to rise and make a few comments on this

because the House has been closed I say to the minister and we have not had the

opportunity to debate it so I am glad that my colleague put forward the motion

so we could speak in the House here, because I have heard it all too, I say to

the minister, from all over the Province, especially as you travel around this

Province, from the employees to the people who live in these areas where they

used these parks over the years and I do not agree with the minister on one

particular point. I think it is the worst timing.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I will go so far as to say

maybe it is a good idea to privatize some parks down the road. Maybe it is, and

I say to the minister as a solution, that if you had taken that approach, and I

will give alternatives today, not just criticize but I will give some

alternatives, some in which we use some logic. For the one thing, Mr. Speaker, I

think the timing was lousy. I think with the Cabot celebrations upon us and so

on, with some planning, and if we looked at different parks around the Province

that maybe, some were best for privatization.

I will ask the minister this: Who decided on core parks? Was

it a Cabinet committee, was it a small group somewhere in Confederation

Building? Who decided, why couldn't the people who had the parks closed down

have a say, maybe justify their cause for keeping their parks open? They did not

have a say and therein, Mr. Speaker, lies the root of the problem. There was no

say. There was no consultation.

When the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board went around

this Province looking for consultation on the Budget and so on, how many times

did the minister raise that the parks - by the way - your parks may be

privatized in this Province? He did not raise it, Mr. Speaker. There was only

one group who raised it and that was Hospitality Newfoundland; there was no

consultation and therein lies the root of the problem, I say to the minister,

which is a mistake as are a lot of the policies of the government. Consult, but

not just consult for the sake of listening to people but actually take heed and

listen to what the people have said. The employees of those parks will have

given the best advice I would say, Mr. Speaker.

Secondly, the people who live in that particular area - for

instance in my area, a beautiful park at Flatwater. No, it isn't crowded, yes,

there are some things that could be improved there. But I have people in that

area, who come in from Grand Falls and I can name lots of places, who come every

year to visit that beautiful little park. They don't want big rides in it, they

don't want bumper boats. They like the pristine environment, they like the

campfire site, and so on. I've had these people come up and talk to me.

What makes sense to me, and as an alternative to the

minister, and constructively I say to her, is that the real process should have

been: Okay, there may be some merit to this whole situation. Let's take a year,

let the Cabot celebrations begin. Not throw it into turmoil. There should never

be that situation is the point I make about that, and most people I talk to

agree. Let's look at it for a year, let's go out and consult, let's ask the

employees how their parks can be improved. They almost live there during the

summer, they work there all year round. I know people personally who work in the

parks. He had suggestions for me of how that park can be improved. To me they

are the experts on the park, not a Cabinet - with all due respect to us in the

House of Assembly here, or Cabinet committees, with all due respect to us, I

would rather sit around with park people, and add a few people in who use these

parks every year. They would be the experts on parks.

I use the analogy of the fishery. We talked about scientists

and people in Ottawa and in buildings in here with DFO deciding the fate of the

fishery. The real experts were in the boats. The same thing as with the parks.

The people who worked there year after year - and like I said, people I know

personally -, the people who used the parks - and these are the people I really

feel sorry for. The employees themselves who know the parks best, and for the

people like for instance when I was in Grand Falls for a public meeting, I had

an old couple walk up to me and say: Mr. Shelley, we use these parks every year.

We take a route and we take four or five, and we take our grandchildren with us,

and we visit those parks, and we like them just the way they are. That is what

they said.

Those are the people I say to the minister who I would like

to see protected. I will add to that by saying that if we want to take some of

those parks in a year from now after we have listened to the employees, after we

have listened to the advice of the people who use these parks every summer - I

don't use them every summer. Not as regularly as I probably should.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) go to Splash-and-Putt.

MR. SHELLEY: Go to Splash-and-Putt. No, I don't go to

Splash-and-Putt, I say, but I do frequent the park in Baie Verte, Mr. Speaker,

Flatwater Pond Park. Indian River Park, another beautiful park in Green Bay.

MR. H. HODDER: And what's wrong with Splash-and-Putt?

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I do frequent those parks, but

not as much - that is my whole point - as the frequent users, the people who

can't afford to go to Florida, or can't afford to go to P.E.I. for that matter.

MR. HARRIS: Who can't afford to go to Splash-and-Putt.

MR. SHELLEY: Or go to Nova Scotia. Or can't afford to go

to Splash-and-Putt, exactly my point. These are the people, like that old couple

who walked up to me and said: I use these parks every year. We go there and

there and there, and they gave me some (inaudible) about some of the parks in

Central Newfoundland that they love. They said: This is our regular route. We

don't ask for a lot, we just take our grandchildren and we frequent those parks.

They are really upset at the possibilities, Mr. Speaker, where these parks could

end up.

I'm not even sure about this, but I ask the minister: Are the

regulations solid, air-tight, so that the long term, in five years from now, we

don't see a private enterprise person say to us: We spent all kinds of money in

this park but it isn't working, so now we want it for some private interest.

That is a fear. Can the minister assure us 100 per cent that private interest in

five years from now -

MR. HARRIS: Are they going to allow them to mortgage the

parks to raise money for (inaudible)?

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, that is what I say to the

Member for... what (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. SHELLEY: Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. It changes so

often I can't keep it straight. Mr. Speaker, it is the ministers responsibility

as the minister for this department. It is to ensure not 90 per cent or 99 per

cent, 100 per cent that these parks, long term, will be there for people to

enjoy. If she can't guarantee us that 100 per cent then we should call it off

until we do the proper consultation, speak to the employees, speak to the people

who use the parks.

We throw up this argument a lot of times about priorities,

and the minister mentioned something about keeping open hospital beds and

schools. We know that the parks compared to that aren't a priority. Education

and health are the priorities, we know that. But people, what they are talking

about, if the amount of money that keeps these parks open is money well spent.

Because it is an investment into our culture, our heritage, over years and

years.

I spoke to the man in Grand Falls who was the first person to

enter the Beothuck Park out there. I forget his name. I wish I had it here.

Maybe the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mulroney. Yes, Mr. Mulroney, in Catamaran

Park I think it is?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: In Beothuck Park. I spoke to that man, Mr.

Speaker. If the minister wants some good advice, sit down and talk to that man.

Eighty-odd years old who could tell us how that park started right from the

first tree that was cut there and how people first went camping there. These are

the kind of people I want to see their questions answered. The minister said now

there are going to be twelve or thirteen parks left open. So I want all of you

people around your parks, who work in the parks, who use them, I want you to

have a chance to put forward your argument for keeping the park open in your

area. Now I think that would have been a sensible approach. If the minister

wants alternatives and suggestions instead of criticism, I say to her, that is

the sensible approach. Delay it for one year. The potential is still there. The

parks are not going to run away. They are still there but will utilize people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon? Would I do what? You should ask me

that again because I would like to answer it.

Mr. Speaker, I will utilize my salary to go against the

priorities in this Province with the health care and education, I say to the

minister, I will do it very quickly. We talked about priorities a few minutes

ago and let me say it first, so we don't jump up and down in the House, Rick

Hansen, a national hero, a hero of mine, Mr. Speaker. I am very much in support

of Rick Hansen and the movement across this country but I wonder, Mr. Speaker,

was the priority for Mr. Hansen, who I have supported over the years personally

with donations, or are the priorities for people in this Province, more

directly? When you give about $500,000 for that and - what is it, $1.8 million

for all these parks to stay open for a year? We have to sort of question that,

Mr. Speaker. You have to question it, where are our priorities?

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I could go on for an hour

here in this House today and talk about priorities in building elevators out

there, renovating our offices and other things. There are lots of priorities,

Mr. Speaker. So we should not get into that debate today, I say to the minister,

because - we could all go back and forth like we do in this House for hours and

hours on priorities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want leave?

MR. SHELLEY: I would need leave, I say to the member.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) and we would have lots of

money.

MR. SHELLEY: I can make a lot of examples in this House

today. I know all members could and we could get up and go back and forth about

the Tories before that and the Sprung Greenhouses. We can go back to Churchill

Falls and we could talk about private elevators. We could do a lot of that but

the bottom line in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that the process again, is a

vintage example of this government and how they say they consult but actually

there was no consultation whatsoever here. It is no good to consult and have a

plan, Mr. Speaker, if you don't listen to who gave you the suggestions in the

first place. Therein lies the problem here, Mr. Speaker, that indeed some

privatization of some parks could actually work and work good. I would support

it but what we should have done is gone back to the people who are the real

experts, the people in the parks, the people who use them and the people who

work there.

I say to the minister too, what a ridiculous statement that

came out when this all started: By the way, we are going to give the employees

in the parks a chance to buy them and take them over. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't

know what proposals the minister had and maybe she has a few employees involved

somewhere along the way but I am going to tell the minister that the majority,

the vast majority and the people that I have talked to who work in the parks, do

not have two cents to rub together, Mr. Speaker, let alone go and buy the park.

It is such a ridiculous statement. Yes, we are going to give you a chance to buy

the park. As soon as you get your stamps together and you pay off your

electricity bill, which has gone up with the HST and your children's clothes and

everything else, we are going to give you a chance to buy the park. Well unless

you are giving it to them for ten cents, Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much, in this

Province, there are too many employees rushing and beating down the minister's

door to buy the parks. So if you are going to be straight with them then tell

them upfront.

The truth is, there is going to be privatizing into private

hands and we don't have airtight regulations in place so that in five or six

years from now we don't have to turn to the minister, if she is still there, and

say to her, look, they are turning this into a private abode for some people who

are coming up from the States or coming from Europe because they are going to

use that land, that pristine environment. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that these

lands, where these parks are, are pristine. They were picked years ago because

they are good areas. There are rivers running through a lot of them. They are

beautiful.

In my area, I know the Flatwater Pond Park is one of the best

places on the peninsula. Indian River Park, a beautiful river flowing through

there. Imagine that being turned over to private individuals? What we have to do

in this Province is get back to the basics and stop believing that we are the

experts when it comes to all these changes. When you say consult, it really

means actually sitting down and listening to somebody talk to you and then put

it into action because no plan is any good unless you execute it. You can have

the best plan on paper, from a football team to a hockey team. You can have the

best plan there is. You can have the best players there are but if you cannot

execute the plan, the plan goes nowhere. Mr. Speaker, all we are saying here is

that this should have been delayed. It should have been set back. It should have

been used properly. Thirteen core parks now, you say minister. You should have

given the people around the Province a chance to justify their existence and

their parks, so they could come forward and say, `We want to be one of those

thirteen.' But you did not do that, and it was not fair. It was not fair to the

people of the Province.

If tough decisions have to be made - we all know tough

decisions have to be made. This was not a tough decision, this was an

unnecessary decision. That is what it was, Mr. Speaker. It was not tough - $1.8

million in your budget, this summer to throw the parks into turmoil and chaos,

and get everybody excited for no reason at all, when for next year, we could

have sat down throughout this summer and made up a good plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: $1.8 million is what it cost annually.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: $1.8 million or $1.7 million, somewhere in

that area.

Mr. Speaker, I travel across other parts of this country and

go to parks, and Newfoundland parks are very unique. They are quiet; they have

just a small fireplace; they have a campground; you have tent sites, and that is

what the people love. And the people I referred to earlier who frequent these

parks, you cannot put a price tag on that for them. There is not a price tag

that this government or anybody could put on that park for this elderly couple

to take their grandchildren and enjoy a couple of days in Indian River Park. You

cannot put a price tag on that. That is why we have to go back and ask these

people -

AN HON. MEMBER: Smell the salt beef and cabbage.

MR. SHELLEY: That is right. That is a good example. The

Member for Bonavista talks about when you are driving through the park, or

walking through the park, and smell a boil up over in the corner, some campsite

with the salt beef and cabbage going, you cannot put a price tag on that stuff.

Although I do not get to the parks very often, that is what I do - or to smell

the bacon frying in the morning at somebody's campsite, or walk around and get

waved in by somebody to come in for a cup of tea at their site.

That is the real Newfoundland spirit, and that is the real

Newfoundland heritage. That is why this is so valuable and, I say to the

minister, that is why this has hit a nerve. You might have thought it was just a

small thing, $1.8 million in the budget, nobody was going to get upset about it,

but that is why it has upset people, because you hit a nerve. You hit the old

Newfoundland nerve that says: Do not go stepping - you are taking away

everything else. There are cuts and cuts and cuts, and the HST is here, there is

new taxes; you are going to close our schools; our hospitals are going down, but

they are saying: Do not touch our parks. That is part of our heritage; do not

touch it.

At least - now, this is my recommendation to the minister

today - at least delay the process so that we give people a chance, especially

the employees and frequent users of these parks, adequate consultation so that

they get input on the future of these parks down the road; so that a minister

does not have to stand up and say, `Five years ago we made a mistake. We sent

our parks to privatization and now they are ruined.' You cannot take that back.

That is what you say. That is why, for the short-term fix, in this particular

case, I disagree. It was not the right approach to take.

Remember what I say, and I will have this on record in the

House. I do not necessarily disagree that privatization of some parks would not

work. I believe they would. The point we have to make is that the process from

the start, the consultation process, was not taken into consideration, was not

used properly, and we did not listen to those people who know it best, the

employees and the people who frequent the parks.

So for the sake of Newfoundlanders - a plea from the people I

spoke to in Grand Falls and Central Newfoundland and Western Newfoundland over

the last couple of months about this issue, it has hit a nerve with them and

they are saying: Back off. You are closing down everything else, but we want to

be able to take our old camper, our old clunker, and go up to Indian River Park

and put on a feed of salt beef and cabbage, and leave us alone. That is precious

to us.

That is what they are saying. That is what you should listen

to. Because you can close a school, you can degrade a hospital, you can have

dirt roads, but do not touch something that is very dear to us, something that

means a lot. That is my plea.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Topsail would not know what a

park is, I do not think. The legal beagle from Topsail would not know what a

park is, I do not think. The legal beagle from Topsail would not know what a

park looks like.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, I would like

to say to the minister: Consider that as a process and as an alternative to what

she is suggesting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to have a few words to say about this

particular motion, and make it very clear that I intend to vote against this

particular motion, the motion being, of course, that we call upon the Provincial

Government to stop its efforts to privatize provincial parks.

Why would I want to speak against what has appeared to be a

very popular move, or a very popular uprising fermented by the Opposition. If we

were in a time, Mr. Speaker, when we were in the land of milk and honey, when we

were in the land of $100 million- and $200 million-a year deficits, where we

could go out and borrow on the bond market any amounts of dollars that you want,

I probably would be one of the first to argue that perhaps we should find the

funds somewhere in the budget to maintain our provincial parks. Having come from

a twenty-five-year, going on twenty-seven-year background in resource

management, public consultations, environmental issues, you would not expect me

to be one of those who would advocate privatization, closure sale of parks. Let

us be very clear, Mr. Speaker, I am not in favour of closure of our provincial

parks.

However, such is not the case, Mr. Speaker. In this day and

age where dollars are very restricted, we have to be very careful as to how we

spend our moneys, we have to make very conscious decisions as to whether or not

we have the funding to fund project A or project B. We have to make decisions as

to whether or not we are going to keep, in this case, provincial parks in the

public domain open or are we going to pursue other areas of expenditure, i.e.

health care, social welfare, education, you name it.

I would just like to reflect a little bit, Mr. Speaker, on

some of the events of the last number of weeks and months since the decision was

made to privatize the provincial parks, to privatize some twenty-one of them. I

would like to make some reference to meetings that were held in my own district,

the district of Humber East. They were meetings organized by the Opposition in

Corner Brook, meetings which I attended because I firmly believe that any

meeting that is organized in my district, whether by the Opposition, public

interest or whatever, this member will be there. I went to that meeting, not

because I thought there was a great deal of protest in my district against the

issue. Because, up until that point, I had not received one single phone call

from a single resident in the district of Humber East. That was not entirely

surprising, Mr. Speaker, because there were no parks in my district that were

being closed, but we are a very urban area and many people have their campers,

they have their trailers and they do go forward each weekend to the provincial

parks and spend some time; therefore, I expected some comment from those people.

There was not one call, Mr. Speaker, from anyone within the district from that

day up until the night of the public meeting.

On the night of the public meeting there were some

twenty-four people in attendance, twenty-four people. There was myself, my

assistant, there were two members from the press, there were twenty members from

the public in attendance. As the meeting progressed and people got up and had

their say, it became quite clear that most of the people in attendance were not

from the Corner Brook area at all. Most of them, in fact, were park employees

who had come in from White Bay, from the Northern Peninsula, down the coast.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, during the course of the little mingling that

happened after that, I said: Well, let us see how many people at this meeting

are from my district. How many people are from the Corner Brook, Humber Valley

region? By this time, I had narrowed it down to about two people, maybe, because

the rest of them I had identified as to where they were from. When I spoke to

those two people, I found one of them was a park employee who had not taken the

time to speak at all, there was one resident of the Corner Brook area in

attendance at that one meeting, one person. I had a chat with that individual

and I told him that up until that time I had not received a single phone call

from anyone in the district. Of course, predictably, the next morning I got one

phone call from that one individual.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are they not calling you?

MR. MERCER: Because it is not an issue in my district.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. MERCER: The second point, Mr. Speaker - this

individual then took it upon himself to form another public group in the Corner

Brook area. He convened another meeting, and this time, seven people showed up,

a grand total of seven people. And from that day to this, Mr. Speaker, I have

still received one phone, not even one of the seven people who showed up for

that meeting has had anything to say. So, I only make that point, Mr. Speaker,

because we hear a lot from the Opposition. We hear a lot from the hon. the

Member for St. John's South. I am not exactly sure where he is receiving it all

- it is certainly not from Western Newfoundland, it is certainly not from the

Districts of Humber East, Humber Valley, Bay of Islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell them how accurate your information

is.

MR. MERCER: The member on the other side wants to talk

about accuracy of information and, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the issue I now

wish to turn to. At each of these meetings I understand that a document called:

Save our Parks was distributed. I certainly have a copy of one that was

presented at that meeting. And, as we have heard many, many times, this

particular document calls itself: Program Review Highlights .

Now, only the hon. members opposite know where this document

comes from; only the hon. members opposite know that it is not the official

position of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Only the members

opposite know that it came from the officials within the Parks Division, which

is what the minister and her department had done during Program Review, They had

asked each of the individuals in charge of different programs to put together

their thoughts on the various programs they were delivering. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, is it any wonder that the Program Review that was being touted by the

Opposition states things like: the standards of provincial parks tend to be

higher than the private sector equivalent; that the Province provides higher

quality facilities than the public sector and that many of the park operators

have expressed financial difficulties? Is it any wonder that people who are

charged with the running of a provincial park system, in charge of putting

together this document, would say such things? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.

When you look at the individuals who had put this together,

people who had worked in the park system for the best part of their working

lives, people who are in fear, perhaps, of their jobs - would you not have done

the same things? Would you not have made the same statements? Would you not have

put your best foot forward? Of course, you would. I would. I have been there, I

would know how to write such a document. I would certainly do everything in my

power to convince the minister of the day not to take an action in which I would

perhaps have some vested interest.

But that having been said, Mr. Minister, I think the members

opposite must know that in any bureaucratic system, people make recommendations;

recommendations move up the line; recommendations are reviewed, recommendations

are acted upon, and yes, Mr. Speaker, sometimes recommendations are rejected;

and I suspect and say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is exactly what has

happened in this particular case. This is not an official position of the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and this has been said many times

in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members know this. They choose not to

believe in what is true.

Another point that was made in this particular document, Mr.

Speaker - it says, back in 1995, of up to twenty-eight parks removed from the

system in 1995, only eleven were operational during the summer of 1996,

factually correct. Of these eleven, only six were operated by individual

entrepreneurs. The document goes on further to say, Mr. Speaker, that based upon

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.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you reading that?

MR. MERCER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am reading such a

challenging document I have to read every word of it, I have to digest it; I

have to get every nuance of every word.

The point I am making, is, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite

know that when the divestiture proposals were made in 1995, yes, there were

twenty-eight parks put forward, there were only twelve for which proposals were

received. Not surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, not surprisingly at all, because at the

time, I would suggest to you that the parks at the lower end of the scale were

the first to be privatized or to be offered for privatization but yet, Mr.

Speaker, of the twelve proposals that were accepted, and of the twelve parks

that were privatized, eleven of them were still operational in 1997 - not a bad

success rate. Over 90 per cent of the parks that were actually privatized, put

in the hands of the private sector in 1995, are still operational today - not a

very bad record for the private sector, a sector of which some members of the

Opposition think it will be chaos if any of the remaining parks fall into their

hands.

Another point made in the particular document - and here we

get away a little bit from the Program Review Highlights, and we are getting

into something that is called: Facts to Focus On. I would like to key in on the

words facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: Well, focus we can do pretty well. One of the

things that is said here - it starts off with a very factual statement: "21 of

your public parks will be privatized." One for one. Another states that

privatization will result in the "Loss of our ability to promote tourism in

Newfoundland and Labrador." How does that follow, Mr. Speaker? How does it

follow that just because the government ceases to operate a park, or it ceases

to operate an abattoir, or whatever, we have now lost our ability to promote

something? It is silly.

Obviously, what the Opposition is saying is that they have

lost all faith in the private sector to be able to operate and to make a

meaningful contribution to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. I hope that

is not what they are saying, but that is what they appear to be saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, I am simply making these points

because a lot of the information that has been spread by members of the

Opposition, unfortunately, is misinformation. I find that very regrettable. I

did not enter public life to spread mistruths or misinformation. My role in

politics, as it was in private life, was to lay information before the public in

the best way possible and allow them to make their decision. If they make that

decision in your favour, great; if they make a decision against you, too bad,

but that is the way the game is played.

I think the Opposition has a very valid role to lay before

the public information which is factually correct and to allow the public to

make a decision. Unfortunately, much of what is contained in this document,

Program Review Highlights, Facts To Focus On, is really a misrepresentation of

the facts.

Just one last point. There are many others in this document

which we could speak on at great length. It states here as well: "Complete

closure of some parks" - as a result of closure of some of these parks - and

keep in mind we are not talking about closure, we are talking about

privatization, here we are talking about closure of parks - as a result of their

being closed - privatized is the right word - these "will become unprotected

ecosystems, open to environmental damage."

Now, what the heck does that mean? They revert to Crown land,

they become the Crown land that you and I go out and skiddoo on, cut a bit of

wood on? Unprotected ecosystems open to environmental damage? This is pure

nonsense. To be suggesting from time to time that our provincial parks are

pristine ecological reserves, exquisite examples of ecosystems and so on and so

forth, I think these people on the other side need to take a look at what the

provincial parks are. They are very nice places to go, to hike, to camp, they

are not pristine ecosystems. They are not designated as such in Newfoundland or

recognized by any Canadian or international authority.

With these few words, Mr. Speaker, I speak against the

resolution and will be so voting in the negative. Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today just to make a few comments in support of the

private member's resolution which has been put forward by my colleague, the

Member for St. John's South.

It is an issue