March 27,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 10

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the controversy in recent days surrounding the

school designation process in District 5, Central Newfoundland, is cause for

concern and needs some clarification.

The reforms to the education system which we are now in the

process of implementing are based on the recommendations of a Royal Commission

which submitted its final report in March of 1992. During its investigation into

the delivery of educational services, the Royal Commission found that many

people expressed the desire for greater control of education at the local level.

Parents wanted a greater say in the education of their children and greater

control over the organization and administration of schools.

Repeated submissions to the Royal Commission recommended that

local school boards be given more autonomy in the organization and

administration of schools in their area. The Commission also recommended that

parents be given a meaningful role in the operation of schools, and that school

councils be established in all schools to provide an avenue for parental

participation.

Government has listened, Mr. Speaker. We have listened to the

people who say decisions made at Confederation Building do not adequately

reflect local needs. Government acted on these recommendations and gave local

school boards jurisdiction over the way schools are organized within the

boundaries of their districts. This includes the right to decide on the number

of schools it will operate, the location of these schools and the grade levels

to be taught in each school. The decisions with respect to the organization and

designation of schools within the Grand Falls - Windsor area are therefore well

within the jurisdiction of the school board for District No. 5.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to be critical of this

board in District 5 or any other board. It is within their right to make the

decisions that will accommodate the wishes of parents and that they can defend

at the local level in each case. The registration process, Mr. Speaker, was not

a vote. It was an opportunity for parents to express their preference. The board

should first determine the number of buildings needed to accommodate the student

population. The education plan for the district should be done in a manner to

maximize the educational opportunity for all the students. The board is then

expected to, whenever possible, accommodate the preference of parents as

expressed in the recent registration process.

Mr. Speaker, neither the Department of Education nor myself

as minister intend to interfere with this process. We do, however, expect the

boards to act in a fair and responsible fashion in making decisions that

maximize the educational opportunities for the children they serve. The

Department of Education, as always, Mr. Speaker, stands ready and willing to

assist, but is firmly committed to the local decision-making model arising from

the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Education.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I just heard, Mr. Speaker, is nothing but a cop-out. It

is a complete abdication of responsibility by this minister and his department

in dealing with the crisis which exists in education in our Province. It is the

responsibility and the mandate of this minister to exercise leadership and to

provide guidance and direction to these boards.

This is the maiden year for these boards. They are doing

their best. They are dealing with the outcry from parents, a justifiable outcry,

I might add, and it is the responsibility of this minister and his department to

exercise leadership and to provide the resources, the personnel, the guidance

and the direction to assist at this very critical time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi. Does the member have leave?

By leave, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to agree that the statement of the minister represents

an abdication of the responsibility of the Department of Education to supervise

the implementation of the Royal Commission recommendations and the changes to

Term 17. To suggest that to accommodate the preference of parents where possible

as a third priority after two or three others totally misrepresents the notion

in people's minds when they voted in favour of education reform, Mr. Speaker.

This is, in fact, the minister who appointed these boards,

who supplies the money, who designates the amount of money for new schools

saying, in effect, that he will wash his hands of decisions that are made that

may be unpopular and not in conformity to the wishes of the people when they

changed Term 17. It is, Mr. Speaker, an abdication of government's

responsibility.

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Honourable Paul

Dicks, Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, I wish to make the following

statement.

The introduction of the HST on April 1, 1997 will result in

the elimination of the Retail Sales Tax exemption currently provided on building

materials purchased for housing in Labrador. In order to reduce the impact of

the exemption removal, it was announced in the 1997 Budget Speech, that the

Province will be providing a rebate of the provincial portion of the HST, the 8

per cent, paid on building materials purchased for the construction, repair or

improvement of residences in Labrador.

The Province will administer the rebate and make payments to

taxpayers, for claims totally at least $25 of the provincial portion of the HST

(8%) paid, upon application to the Department of Finance, supported by receipts.

For the purchase of building materials only, it will be a

simple matter of the taxpayer filing a rebate claim, accompanied by receipts,

with the Department of Finance.

For the purchase of a new home or for renovations, the rebate

will be based on the building material content of the contract.

Building materials used to construct a residence will qualify

for the rebate, but furniture and appliances will be excluded. The Department of

Finance will be providing rebate information throughout Labrador early in April.

We are pleased to offer this rebate to the residents of

Labrador and anticipate that approximately $1 million in benefits per annum will

result from the rebate program.

This is another example, Mr. Speaker, of what the government

is doing and not talking about.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All we are saying is they are announcing something that has

already been done. It is nothing new. They are announcing something that has

already been done. So I do not see the new news, Mr. Speaker. They are already

getting a rebate and a break on it right now so what is different? They are

trying to make a good announcement out of something that has already taken

place. We have seen four of them this week already, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au-Clair. Does

she have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I want to commend the government for continuing

to realize that Labrador is indeed different and unique from the rest of the

Province and sees the necessity of having policy and legislation that reflect

the environment of Labrador and the people who live there. I welcome the news

this morning. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Rural Renewal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify for the benefit

of the House and the general public, government's intent with respect to the

future operation of the five Telecentres in the Province. Some concern has been

raised in the media as to the future of these Telecentres.

The federal and provincial governments have supported five

Telecentres in the Province over the last seven years. These centres are located

in Trepassey, Clarenville, Baie Verte, Stephenville, and Forteau, and provide a

range of economic and business development services for the use of information

technology.

Mr. Speaker, the federal and provincial governments recognize

the value of such services to the people who live in rural Newfoundland, and

small business and economic development support services throughout the

Province. Therefore we are currently reviewing means by which those services

delivered through the five Telecentres can be extended to all twenty economic

zones in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: We will do this, Mr. Speaker, through

partnerships with other federal, provincial and community based organizations.

This may mean that the organizational structures that currently exist may have

to change in order that those services deemed important to economic and small

business development can be maintained and indeed be extended to serve all areas

of the Province more effectively.

In times where financial resources are limited, it is

incumbent upon all of us to consider more efficient means to provide public

service. This review will be completed within ninety days. No changes in the

operation of the five Telecentres will be made during this period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would

like to thank the minister for her statement just a couple of minutes before I

came to the House. I suggest to the minister if she had used the telecentres I

might have got it even earlier.

Of course, in my first bit of debate in this House in this

session I talked about the telecentres. The minister wasn't here, but the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was. Of course, we have talked about

this many times. We all know the benefit of these telecentres to rural

Newfoundland. It is a link through technology which helps us and encourages

people to invest and get involved in business. These five centres have done a

tremendous job in the last little while.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is a constructive concern, I

say to the minister, that they not only be maintained but that they are enhanced

throughout the entire Province to serve people in rural Newfoundland, because we

need them now more than ever, I say to the minister. Thank you very much.

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

Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the news

that the government is considering the inclusion of all twenty economic zones in

the Province to be involved in these telecentres. I hope that this is not just

something that we won't see any action on. The five centres that are there have

been shown to be useful. If all twenty centres can be involved in this process I

think we can look forward to better communications and better involvement in all

of rural Newfoundland in participation in information technology and news about

business opportunities.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright -

L'Anse-au-Clair.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave? The hon. member doesn't have

leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my hon.

colleagues to join me in offering best wishes to the organizers, judges and

participants of the 1997 Newfoundland and Labrador Drama Festival, which runs

from March 31 to April 4 at the Arts and Culture Centre here in St. John's.

In this, the Provincial Year of the Arts, we celebrate the

many ways our culture and heritage have been enriched by the contributions of

those involved with the festival, and we look forward to a week of outstanding

theatre.

The 1997 Festival marks the achievement of another milestone.

All five of the plays are written, performed and directed by Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and all five productions are set in this Province and deal with

topics that we can all relate to. This is a first for the festival, and it is

certainly an accomplishment worth noting as we move into high gear with the

Cabot 500 Anniversary celebrations.

This festival represents the culmination of a full year of

hard work for the organizers and theatre groups. And what's more, the people

involved are volunteers. They do this out of a love of the theatre and the

satisfaction of knowing that they have helped to preserve and enhance our rich

artistic heritage. Truly, the dramatic spirit is alive and well in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

The best

part is that we, as potential members of the

audience, get to reap the benefits of all that hard work. I encourage all of my

colleagues to attend the performances of the 1997 Newfoundland and Labrador

Drama Festival. It is a very special event that is by us, for us, and about us.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is perfectly fitting to offer

congratulations to everyone involved in the festival, even though the curtain

has yet to rise. So, to the Avion Players of Gander, the Beothuck Street Players

of St. John's, the Carol Players of Labrador City, the Northcliffe Drama Club of

Grand Falls - Windsor, and the St. John's Players - who are not only hosting the

event but also celebrating their 60th Anniversary - I wish you all the very best

of luck indeed.

Thank you, and break a leg.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of members on this side of the House I congratulate

all participants and those involved in the 1997 Newfoundland and Labrador Drama

Festival.

As we are all aware, we have indeed a very rich cultural

history in our Province, and the performing arts is only one avenue in which

this cultural history and tradition is expressed and exposed.

Mr. Speaker, we congratulate all participants, and in

particular, the Avion Players of Gander, Beothuck Street Players of St. John's,

Carol Players of Labrador City, Northcliffe Drama Club of Grand Falls - Windsor,

and the St. John's Players, and we wish them well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, wish to congratulate all of the participants in the

Drama Festival. I think it is quite exciting to see that all of the plays are

local plays written by Newfoundlanders and are being produced here,

demonstrating once more the terrific cultural community and talent that we have.

I hope the enthusiasm about this event convinces the minister

and her government to reconsider their plans to divest themselves of Arts and

Culture Centres. Because it is these organizations and these buildings and these

facilities throughout the Province that have also provided a place for these

operations to take place and for this talent to be exhibited. Government must

ensure that these facilities continue to exist.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, there is a crisis in the

health care system here in our Province today. Just in the last day, doctors at

the Western Health Care Corporation are indicating it is in a state of collapse.

We have just seen a budget in which $11 million was taken out of acute care and

long-term care facilities in this Province. I ask the minister: Will he move

immediately to ensure that this $11 million is put back in the system to save

the system from collapse?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The health care budget was frozen last year in the usual

spirit of doing what is right on behalf of the people of the Province. After

just one year of a three-year frozen budget, we chose to unfreeze that, if you

like, by continuing to add this year, where it was appropriate, additional money

to the health care sector. This year we have more money in health care than we

did last year under a flat line three-year budget.

We have not taken $11 million out of health care. We are

re-allocating resources from the institutional side to the community side, as is

appropriate, and is as per the three-year plans that have been laid out by the

health care boards last year when we sat down to work out our budgets for a

three-year program. We will continue to re-allocate within the health care

envelope the budgetary resources that we have to ensure that they are spent in

the most appropriate fashion and get done the best job possible.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unless this is a false document I received, the health

facilities operations on page 208 of the Estimates, I say to the minister, show

that there is $11 million taken out of health care facilities operations this

year. I ask the minister: Will he stop that pretence he is dealing with and get

on and deal with the crisis he has caused in the system in this Province?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member obviously does not hear very well early in

the morning. I indicated to him that yes, we have moved from the institutional

side, the two-thirds part of our budget, about $11 million this year that we

have re-allocated to other areas of priority within the health care system. We

will continue to move around the money within the envelope as is appropriate to

ensure that we get the best value for the money and that we get the need met in

the most expeditious and efficient manner. That will continue over the next two

or three years, however long we are dealing with a flat line budget with an

envelope within which we can work.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not only are patients in this Province being in distress,

there are dozens of calls every single week, human elements, human cases, with

whom I speak, people and their families every day. Now, doctors are coming out.

Doctors are now stressed out, overworked, under-paid, in a system that they are

saying is collapsing - and the minister does nothing about it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, I ask the minister: Will he just stand

and admit that we have a crisis in our system today?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will admit readily that we have a crisis within our system,

but it is not the health care system, it is within the Parliamentary system.

Because when the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition continues to

perpetrate a trail of gloom and doom and fear and rumour-mongering and putting

forth propositions that will scare the life out of anybody, even the

strongest-hearted politician, then I believe we have a problem in the system;

but the problem is within the system that he represents, not the health care

system that this government runs.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is no fearmongering or concern when people waiting for

surgery die while they are waiting, I say to the minister, and people are

waiting for fifty and sixty days for life-saving surgery. They are real cases,

Minister, cases which I have referred to the Health Care Corporation, in many

instances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, the boards are out there crying out

for help and the minister is ignoring the cries of the human element, of the

people out there today. Now, I ask the minister: Will he stop paying lip service

to this, stop denying it and do something today to address the crisis in our

health care system before we have a total collapse?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am prepared to stand and defend the record of this

government with respect to health care in this Province. I am prepared, Mr.

Speaker, to defend the record of a government, who, on the basis of our fiscal

capacity, our GDP, spend more money per capita in health care in this Province

than any other province or territory in Canada. I am prepared to defend the

record of a government who re-allocate within the budget where it is appropriate

to do so to get more value for our money. I am prepared to defend the record of

a government who have recently allocated, in addition to the flat line budget,

another $15 million or $20 million for health care purposes this year. I am

prepared to continue to work within the allocations that we have to insure that

the job is done properly.

It was interesting, Mr. Speaker, the other morning when I was

driving across town, I noticed the famed Open Line Show host speaking with the

Leader of the Opposition. He was raising the proposition as to whether or not we

are probably putting too much money in health care vis-a-vis all of the other

services that we delivered, and he was talking about the very high percentage

that is going into health care. I say to the people who are on Open Line shows

and to all of the people of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer quickly, please.

MR. MATTHEWS: - that health care is our number one

priority and we will continue to do what is right and proper in the name of good

health care.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is the one who is denying the problem in the

system today.

We do not want a health care system delivered by this

government, in Ontario. This minister, when he took over the portfolio, I

believe in August of 1994, knew the problems in the system and failed to do

anything about them, and now he is looking at directing patients to another

province, to deliver our health care system. There was money for Trans City to

build hospitals -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we are building them on one

hand and we are closing them on another, we are not getting the funds to

operate; Can the minister rationalize the dollars in the system? Can he see that

we are not taking dollars out of acute care facilities in this Province and

ensure that people are not going to get poor service next year, like they had

this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is a challenge for every

single government in Canada of every single political stripe within Canada to

maintain pace with the increasing cost of health care. That is a challenge for

Newfoundland and Labrador as well. But, Mr. Speaker, I would think that the

Leader of the Opposition would want to recognize the work and the representation

of the Minister of Health in succeeding in dealing with - in this fiscal year,

with additional monies to address it - the problem of rural physicians in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we have seen an increase in

the rural physician wage package upwards of 25 per cent to 30 per cent as a

direct result of the articulate representation by the Minister of Health of this

Province and that matter has been dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a review of the health care service

in Central Newfoundland and as a result of that review, we now have a decision

made in the Budget, to proceed with a brand new hospital at Harbour Breton. We

have seen a decision to proceed with the completion of the rebuild, the redesign

and the reconstruction of a new facility at Gander. Mr. Speaker, we have seen

the decision to proceed with renal dialysis in the town of Grand Falls -

Windsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we have seen the decision to

proceed with a $30-million new facility to handle the increased needs of that

great basket of economic opportunity - Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we have seen money put aside

to look at the requirements for new facilities, both in Bonne Bay and in

Stephenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, over and above the $4.5

million - and I am coming to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: We have spent now, for equipment, $2.5

million more this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions, for the Minister of Education, are with respect

to an issue which was referred to in this House approximately two weeks ago and

which has received some public notoriety within the last few days. The issue is

with respect to the air quality of the classrooms in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Can he tell us today which

schools in this Province are being analyzed and tested for poor air quality?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the last couple of years, the Department of Education

and the school boards have taken a very pro-active approach with respect to the

issue of air quality in the schools of Newfoundland and Labrador. There were a

number of incidents reported, starting two or three years ago, whereby students

and teachers were complaining with respect to possible nausea, headaches,

increased allergies, flu symptoms, and many people suspected it might be related

to the quality of the air and air circulation within the buildings. So rather

than just test the two or three schools where that was brought to the attention

of school boards, the government went forward of its own initiative and randomly

sampled over fifty of the 427 schools in the Province.

I am glad now that the Opposition is catching up to a matter

that we discussed fully and openly in the press a couple of days ago; as was

indicated, when the fifty schools were tested at random, on some measure -

because there are a series of measures used by the professionals in the health

care side and Occupational Health and Safety, because both issues are a concern,

that some measures might be found to be less than ideal, but in only very rare

instances, one or two in the last couple of years, have the health care

professionals suggested that the air quality in buildings was so serious that

maybe the best approach was to take immediate corrective action or abandon the

building. When that was the assessment of the professionals, the action was

immediately taken.

There are a couple of schools in the Province right now where

reports have been brought forward by the parents and the students. They are

being assessed as we speak, and corrective action will be taken if necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Will he table today the results of all

tests that were conducted in the schools in our Province?

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

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

I do not know what purpose would be served by tabling the

information in the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hide it.

MR. GRIMES: I was hoping that comment would come forward

- the Leader of the Opposition is saying because we want to hide the

information. The reality is that we gave the results of the testing to the

directors of the school boards a year ago when the testing was done. They have

the information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The people who deal with the schools in the

Province, the people who deal with the children in the classrooms, were given

the full reports. They were also given the temporary corrective measures that

were proposed and recommended, and they are implementing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: So the question was: Would we table the

information? I do not think there is anybody in here, particularly members

opposite, who would do anything about the information. We have provided it to

the people who are actually taking the action.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the minister gives

the impression that the matter has been addressed and resolved. I say to him,

within the past ten days we have had discussions with individuals in the

community of Cox's Cove, which is in the district of the hon. the Premier, where

there are today problems with respect to air quality. I, personally, have had

discussions with parents in the west end of this city, whose children are

attending schools in the West End, where there are problems with respect to air

quality. So I am saying to the minister, it is not a problem of the past. That

is why I am asking the minister to table today the present - not the past, the

present - what is the reality with respect to air quality in our Newfoundland

schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I recognize that the hon. the Opposition critic felt

obligated to ask his third question, because otherwise they would probably run

out of questions. The answers have already been given.

It is a serious matter, though, Mr. Speaker, and in fact,

when incidents like those occurring this year are reported, the school board

itself initiates a full and detailed study in the schools that parents and

students requested. That is happening in a couple of schools this year and the

information is passed along now to the new construction board. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, in the Budget this year, as again was indicated a couple of years ago,

$2.5 million of the $14.2 million that is available for school construction

projects this year is earmarked and dedicated to taking corrective measures in

the most serious incidents that are determined by the professionals and it is

being actioned as we speak, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Social Services. Under

the Child Welfare Act, any person who believes that the interest of a child has

been compromised, in a matter contrary to the Act, is legally required to report

such matters to the Director of Child Welfare. Will the minister confirm that an

employee of a group home for teenagers in St. John's made a report in accordance

with the law and in a subsequent reaction, when the management of the group home

found out the source of complaint, the employer engaged in constructive and

successful dismissal actions against the employee? In other words, the employee

was, in effect, dismissed for doing what he was required to do under the Child

Welfare Act.

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

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

I ask my hon. colleague to be more specific in which home he

is referring to. We have a number of homes in the city and in the Province in

which we provide those types of services. I ask that he be more specific in his

question.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have given detailed

information to the Director of Child Welfare. I know the minister has been

totally briefed. She knows exactly the home I am talking about. Will the

minister also confirm that the employee, who was acting in compliance with the

law, obtained legal counsel and in an out-of-court settlement was paid more than

$6,000 by the group home to maintain his silence on both the initial reason for

the report to the Director of Child Welfare as well as for the maintenance of

silence on the gag order itself?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague, for

the record, to put out the specifics of the case that you are referring to

rather than to put across the impression again that all of our group homes are

working under some sort of a shadow. If you have the information and you want it

on the record, as you obviously want my answer on the record, Mr. Speaker, I ask

that my colleague come forward and identify the case he is referring to and I

will then answer the questions with respect to that particular case.

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

House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam minister, I know that you know

specifically the group home I am talking about. Given the fact that the minister

either knew or should have known that an employee of this particular group home

lost his job for doing what the law required he do and given the fact that the

group home is funded by the Department of Social Services, does the minister

have any comment as to whether or not she has seen anything wrong with the

action of the group home management in this particular case?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have asked twice and I

will ask again of my colleague, for the record, to state the name of the home

that he is referring to without casting aspersions on all the other group homes.

In any event, I know that my hon. colleague is refusing to identify the name for

the record, and I ask that he do that so that I can refer to the home in the

question.

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

final supplementary.

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

Would the minister confirm that an internal audit of the

group home is now being conducted to ascertain whether or not departmental funds

were used to pay for the gag order?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: For the fourth time, Mr. Speaker, I ask

my colleague to put forward the name of the organization to which he refers so

that I can respond in an appropriate manner to the questions he is asking.

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

final supplementary.

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

After four questions, the minister still has not acknowledged

that she has detailed knowledge of this particular circumstance. It is a

corporation here in St. John's and the name of the home that I refer to operates

two group homes. Shalom is the name of the home. The minister has intimate

knowledge. My file is very full on this particular case. I ask, finally, for

today's question: Would the minister confirm that this same employee's spouse

was told a few days ago upon her return to work after maternity leave that her

services were no longer required because, `she could not expect to work in the

group home after what her husband did.' Her husband complied with the law, I say

to the minister. What protection does the minister offer to group home employees

who comply with the requirements of the Child Welfare Act, and does the minister

continue to have confidence in the integrity of group home management such as

Shalom Incorporated?

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

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

Now that I have been made aware of the home you have referred

to, I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, as I have said to my colleague, that this

matter is under full investigation. Whenever a complaint is brought forward

specifically with issues, as I have been made aware of, that home is under full

investigation. It is not completed. Our main concern is the safety of those

children, which we are assured of at this time. There are other parts of any

investigation, which require investigation of the finances of the

employee/employer relations. That is ongoing, Mr. Speaker, we are very aware of

it, very concerned about it, and we are conducting a full investigation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods. I, along with many people in this Province, have been expressing

concerns about the state of forestry in this Province for some time. For a

prolonged period of time, I, along with those people, waited with bated breath

for the report, the analysis, and the plan for forestry in this Province, Mr.

Speaker. It seems like something that is put on the back burner too often in

this Province. One of the things I do agree with that the minister said in the

plan is that there is a crisis looming, and that people in this Province fear

that the forests are headed the same way as the fishery unless we act

immediately. My first question is to ask the minister if he is satisfied with

the report and the analysis, and does he think it justifies the plan he is about

to embark on in forestry?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon.

gentleman as a report to put out for consultation in this Province for people to

react to, I am perfectly satisfied with the report.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte on a

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: That was a very serious question and I am

glad the minister responded in that way. Now, I would like to ask a second

question concerning Labrador. Of course, there are intentions in the plan when

talking about Labrador and the resource in Labrador. I agree there is a

potential for forestry in Labrador if it is done right, I say to the Minister of

Forest Resources and Lands. I ask him: Does he think the amount of information

used for Labrador, the wood supply analysis for Labrador, which I thought was

ludicrous, is adequate to come up with an appropriate plan for Labrador?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon.

gentleman, we realize that in order for wood to grow in Labrador, given the

climate and the nature of the soil there, it will take somewhat longer than it

does on the Island. As a matter of act, I think the years that we have used for

rotation is 120 years that we see the forests can rotate.

Let me also say to the hon. gentleman that what we are doing

in Labrador, even at the present time, is while we have put this forward we are

also saying to the stakeholders in Labrador: Come forward. We are holding

meetings, I believe - as a matter of fact, I have a report on my desk from a

stakeholders meeting in Cartwright some little while ago which says: Come

forward, take a look at this report, come forward and put forward your ideas on

what you see as a management plan. All of the stakeholders in Labrador, come

forward and put forward for each of the districts - I think they are districts

19, 20 and 21 - for all of those areas, put forward your ideas and we will

incorporate it into this whole plan.

Mr. Speaker, we realize that Labrador is special, that it is

special in terms of its vegetation, that it is special in terms of its soil,

that it is special in terms of its climate, and that therefore we have to be

very careful we do not destroy the forest before we give it a chance to grow

back (inaudible). We are very conscious of that and we are asking the

stakeholders to come forward.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to consult and

it is one thing to have action, and that is what he is talking about

stakeholders. The suggestion I put forth a little while ago was the stewardship

board, where we just don't have a consultation meeting in some time and then it

goes through bureaucrats and we lose the whole process again. That is the

problem in this Province, where we consult and then there is no link between

there.

Next question for the minister, silviculture. Silviculture

makes the most sense and provides jobs, but at the same time it invests in the

long-term future in our forestry. Can the minister justify somehow the decrease

in silviculture? It is a decrease in silviculture overall by the government. How

can the minister justify, if we are in a severe crisis situation, a decrease in

silviculture when there should be more?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon.

gentleman in answering his question that in terms of bureaucrats and

consultation, I just came back from Port Hope Simpson three weeks ago in which I

spent a full weekend in Port Hope Simpson, and I'm a politician and not a

bureaucrat. I have to say to the hon. gentleman that it was one of the best

conferences I've ever attended in my twenty years in public life. I have to say

to the hon. gentleman that the people in Port Hope Simpson and on the Coast of

Labrador - the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair was there, the federal

member was there, the people from Abitibi-Price were there, the people from the

integrated sawmillers were there. The Opposition though was not there. Those are

the people who don't show up. They come in here and ask those kind of silly

questions.

I have to say to the hon. gentleman that the people of the

Coast of Labrador are looking forward to developing their forestry in

conjunction with this government, in conjunction with some of the bureaucrats in

the department, and we had a great conference. It was great. We are looking

forward, as I know the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair is, to developing

that forest for the people of Labrador and for their benefit, and in conjunction

with them.

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

MR. TULK: In regards to silviculture, Mr. Speaker, let me

say to him that we have planted well over 100 million trees two years ago. Well

over 100 million trees.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not enough.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman says "Not enough."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. TULK: He asks: Why don't you take care of the

forests? Then he says: Give more to my people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Government House Leader to take his seat.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman can't have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, thank you. My question is to

the Premier. Premier, two years ago in June 1995 then-Premier Wells and our new

Premier, who was then the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, announced a $100

million Economic Renewal Agreement to be delivered over a five-year period for

aquaculture, information technology, and tourism. The federal government will

contribute $16 million a year and the Province would contribute $4 million. I

would like to ask the Premier: How much of this money is earmarked for

aquaculture?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the member has asked

this question because it gives me an opportunity to stand in my place, because I

know the member has a keen interest in aquaculture. I know that he will be

delighted to know that yesterday we had an announcement of some $800,000 out of

this fund to bring halibut aquaculture technology to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the total production

worldwide of aquaculture products has grown from 10 million metric tons to 22

million metric tons in the last twenty years.

Mr. Speaker, the total value in Canada has gone from $7

million in 1984 to $1.2 billion today. The only question is whether Canada is

going to be part of it.

I am pleased to say, with our aquaculture initiative,

Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be a dynamic new player as we embark upon

an investment program of $20 million to bring new jobs to the people of this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the minister should announce the funding on the

actor's awards. We would certainly nominate him for an Oscar.

Premier, over the past two years this agreement has been

announced on numerous occasions, during the last year's election, in the 1996

Budget, and again in this year's budget. Will the Premier live up to his 1996

election promise and build a research and development centre for aquaculture

culture in the Bay d'Espoir area? Will he commit, right here today, to build

this research centre?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, not only are we going to

invest $800,000 for new halibut development in aquaculture in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador; not only are we going to invest hundreds of

thousands, perhaps in the range of a million, more for cod development in this

Province; not only are we going to invest in the scientists and research

institutions to make Newfoundland and Labrador a leader; we are going to utilize

the full potential as explained to all of us on a regular basis on Wednesday

mornings in our caucus by the member, Mr. Oliver Langdon, who has done a

tremendous job of articulating a vision for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, to finish, the reason we are

building new hospitals and building new schools, and building new roads in Bay

d'Espoir, is that we know the area is going to boom with economic activity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Petitions

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

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

Before I present a petition, I would like to ask the Premier

a question: I wonder is he taking acting lessons along with his french lessons?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) send a copy across to the

rest of the boys.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes boy, send it over. Send it over, I say

to the Premier.

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

as I said I would do, like previous petitions that I presented with respect to

the privatization of parks in Newfoundland and Labrador. The petition reads - I

read it before and I will read it again, Mr. Speaker: To the hon. House of

Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled. The petition

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

for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer;

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to

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

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

the people's resource. We feel that this decision was made in haste without any

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

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there are signatures here mostly from Torbay,

actually. This must have been one of the petitions in the area of Torbay. Now, I

have spoken a lot on the privatization of parks and I know that members on the

opposite side of the House agree with a lot of the comments that have been made

over here but they will not stand in their place and support the petitions, nor

will they present any petitions.

One of the points that I would like to address is the fact

that the minister made statements that the employees of the parks will possibly

have the opportunity to take over some of these parks. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think

the minister is aware of a few applications possibly from employees within the

various parks. I believe, in the Marine Drive park, down in my district, an

individual who works in the park is interested in submitting an application to

take over the park. Now, the problem is, of course, Mr. Speaker, that many of

these employees are seasonal employees. They really cannot come up with the

money to put in whatever facilities and/or services they would like to offer the

people of the Province. The intent of privatization of the parks, from what I

have been told, is to save $1.8 million. Now, I believe the minister - and I

stand to be corrected on this - has offered some assistance to these employees

to help take over the parks. Now, if indeed there is financial assistance -

other than just advice - how much money, I wonder, is the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation planning to put into the assistance program for the

employees to take over the parks? If it is nothing, well then they may save $1.8

million, which will end up being a detriment in the long term to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, especially with respect to tourism, but if indeed

they are going to give some financial assistance to the employees to help them

in taking over the parks then, of course, that would cut down on the amount of

money that the Provincial Government would save with respect to the $1.8

million.

Now, as I said before, we have had meetings across the

Province with respect to this issue and there are many concerns that come up

with respect to the privatization of parks. One, that seems to be the major one,

is that people are very fearful out there that we will lose the public park

system. Now, the minister has stated that there will be no fear of that and that

we will not be losing the public park system, that these parks will probably be

the last and there is a core number of parks left for the people in the

Province; but then, those words can ring pretty hollow, because we have heard it

before. Two years ago when they privatized twenty-eight or twenty-nine parks - I

think there are ten operating now - we were told that it would be to enhance the

public park system, but what has happened? Now, a year or two later, we have

more parks being privatized with a few left. Who is to say, Mr. Speaker, that a

year or two down the road there will not be another brain wave similar to this

one from within -

MR. SULLIVAN: Lack of a brain wave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, so-called brain wave, I suppose. They

acted without thinking, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, there has been no planning gone

into this. Then all the parks would be privatized and we would have no public

park system. Some people might believe in that. I am sure the people out there

in private industry, who have their eye on these parks, there may be one, there

may be thirteen people, there may be fifty people interested in these parks but

the whole thing is, who is to say that a year or so down the road that we may

not have a proposal from some buddy of some minister or member of the

government, to put in an unsolicited proposal and take over all the parks and we

will have no public parks system in this Province.

Now, there are a lot of issues that come into play here

because, Mr. Speaker, a lot of these parks, all the parks, from my knowledge,

have been put there at the cost of the taxpayers in this Province. And if the

minister is going to privatize these parks, are we going to see, if there is a

100-acre park or a 1,000-acre or 5,000-acre or a hectare park -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to conclude?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would not (inaudible) do that, if I were

you.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. The hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to second the petition, Mr. Speaker. We have

presented many, many petitions now in the House on this particular issue. We

have gotten approximately 17,000 names on petitions and we will have many more

to present in the coming days.

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me how the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation can expect, while she says on one side of her face that,

the Province can no longer afford to subsidize these parks, they can no longer

afford the $1.8 million that they are pumping into these parks, yet, on the

other side, she is expecting private operators to take over these parks, and not

only does she expect them to pay the bills that the Provincial Government say

they can no longer afford to pay, but she expects them to pay a bank loan

because she is offering a 50-year lease to the new owners to - or there is a

50-year lease available on the parks to the new owners in order for them to

secure bank financing. Mr. Speaker, if the Provincial Government cannot afford

to pay the $1.8 million required to keep these parks operating, how in the world

can a private operator not only pay the loan on a 50-year lease but also pay the

expenses that the Province cannot afford to pay?

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have to question seriously on

this 50-year lease. If indeed these private operators are unable to afford to

pay not only the bank loan, but the bills, the utilities, salaries and so on,

and if they default on their payments and the bank takes over the park because

of the fact that the bank then holds the balance of the 50-year lease, if the

bank take over this park, does the Province have any say, as to whom the bank

will then sell the rights to the remainder of the 50-year lease? To whomever the

bank decides to give the remainder of the 50-year lease, what power does the

Province have to ensure that these operators are going to operate at the

standard that they are passing out now to the private individuals who are

expected to operate these parks?

Mr. Speaker, in the minister's own program review, it states

that the standards of provincial parks tend to be higher than the private sector

equivalent and that provincial parks provide a higher quality facility.

Provincial parks provide high quality outdoor recreational opportunities in a

safe and environmentally secure manner, and they serve as an environmentally

sustainable means of enjoying the outdoors without putting undue pressure on the

environment. If the bank is to pass over the remainder of the 50-year lease to

whoever is willing to pay for it, whoever is willing to take over the remainder

of the 50-year lease, Mr. Speaker, what guarantees do we have that they are

going to be operated at the standards that even the Province expects of the new

private operators that they have the ability to choose, to hand-pick?

Mr. Speaker, it goes on further to say that private parks

operators may not have the financial resources or the desire to implement the

standards that are commonplace in all provincial parks. Mr. Speaker, if that be

the case, not only can we expect a degraded level of standards to the private

operators who take over the parks through the divestiture now from the

Provincial Government, but we can expect a further reduction in standards once

those people who cannot afford to operate these parks lose them to the banks and

the banks hand them out to whoever they should choose, whoever comes along with

the money. What is going to happen to these provincial parks, I ask the

minister, once the operators who take them over cannot afford to operate them

and they end up in the hands of the banks?

Mr. Speaker, I sent off a letter to the minister almost a

month ago asking for information on the cost of operating these parks and the

total investment by the Province into these parks over the years. I still have

not gotten a response. If the minister were so prepared to cut loose twenty-one

parks, then she should have this information available at her fingertips, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition from a number of constituents of

mine who are petitioning the House of Assembly to direct government to establish

a universal comprehensive school lunch program for every school in Newfoundland

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

The petitioners are concerned that the effects of poverty and

child hunger are not only causing harm to the children on an ongoing daily

basis, but are also preventing them from participating in the opportunities that

school presents, to learn and be valuable, effective members of society, and to

have a chance to get a decent job and support themselves and their families.

According to the minister this morning, there are 427 schools

in the Province. There is a volunteer-based school lunch foundation and school

lunch program that offers opportunities and encouragement for community groups

to establish school lunch programs, but there are not very many. I am going to

get the exact figures over the Easter break and come back with them to the House

as to how many operating school lunch or school breakfast programs actually

exist in the Province today. I would venture to say that not much more than 10

per cent of the 427 schools in the Province have either program.

That represents a very inadequate response to the desperate

need that exists in this Province to ensure that schoolchildren are given an

opportunity to have a decent meal, a nutritious meal, at least once every school

day, to help alleviate the child hunger problem that is being faced, that has

been recognized by government-sponsored studies, that has been recognized by the

Canadian Association of School Trustees, that has been recognized by educators

throughout the Province, that has been recognized by teachers for many years in

the Province, and is an issue that has sort of come out of the closet.

It has been a hidden issue. It has hardly ever been made

public until recently, teachers are now getting to the point where they are

going to make it an issue. I heard one school board official on television the

other night saying that the time has come for them to make it an important issue

for schools in the Province, to address children's needs that may be needs

existing outside of the classroom itself, but very much affect what goes on in

the classroom and the ability of those particular students to participate in the

educational experience.

I think we are going to hear more of this. I, for one, am not

going to sit down and stop talking about this until we see something more in the

way of concrete action than this government is prepared to acknowledge is

necessary. This is an issue which is of very grave concern to this hon. member

and to many people throughout the Province who recognize that now we have more

than one-third of our children living in families on social assistance. We know

that the social assistance rates are inadequate to provide nutritious food for

families. We know more and more people are relying on food banks. We know we are

in a crisis situation in the ability of families to adequately feed themselves

and their children, and we know that this issue has to be addressed.

I am calling on government to address this issue as a matter

of right, not as a matter of voluntarism or a matter of charity, but as a matter

of right of citizens, of children in our society, to have a decent opportunity

to learn from the school system on which we spend so much of our money.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise again today to speak in support of the petition put

forward by my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, we have been reading the report called

Special Matters , dated June, 1996, written by Dr. Patricia Canning. I was

watching on cable television last night as Dr. Patricia Canning and others were

talking about the issue of child poverty, and in particular, the issue that she

has raised in her report.

Newfoundland and Labrador experiences the highest rates of

both family poverty and adult illiteracy in all the Provinces of Canada. In the

latest stats that were available for this report, in 1992 the poverty rate for

Canadian families was 13.3 per cent. In Newfoundland in 1992, over 18 per cent

of families, representing 38,000 children, live below the poverty line. The

poverty rate for children who live in single-parent homes was estimated to be 73

per cent. Seventy-three per cent of the children who live in single-parent homes

live in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, with the reports that have been put forward, we

know that children who live in poverty may suffer the consequences long term. We

have heard many researchers, we have heard many of the people who speak in the

House, and the parents who are signing the various petitions, plead with the

government not to rely on volunteerism - however that is important - not to rely

on the corporate community, but to show some initiative, show some leadership.

Even back in the 1930s, the Commission of Government knew

that they had to address the issue of poverty in Newfoundland families. If they

could do something about it in the harsh days of the Great Depression, we, in

1997, must do more than they were able to do then.

Mr. Speaker, we know the long-term consequences on children.

We know that many children who are not able to eat properly cannot and will not

achieve properly in school. As the federal Minister of Finance said in his

federal Budget a few weeks ago, `opportunities lost in childhood are

opportunities lost in adulthood'. We should listen to that. It is one of the

wisest statements that the federal minister, Paul Martin, said in his Budget

Speech. It showed that he wanted to lead a direction that would try to address

this national crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague bringing forward the

petitions, keep up the work. We are also getting petitions with the same kind of

plea to the House, that we want to see something done. We want to see concrete

action. Move it beyond the rhetoric. We hope there will come a day, and it will

come real soon, when the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi and I will not have

to rise in this House and speak on behalf of children and childhood poverty. We

would welcome that day, and we hope that day will come in the not-too-distant

future.

As we said in 1986, we hope that by the turn of this century,

we can eliminate child poverty in Canada, and in particular we want to eliminate

it in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Order No. 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 2. Are you talking about Motion 2?

MR. TULK: No, no, Order No. 2, Mr. Speaker, Committee of

Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. Order No. 2, the Committee of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill No. 2. The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, today I rise, once again, to

say a few words on the Interim Supply Bill, a bill that government is asking to

be passed in this House to allow them to spend some money, I suppose, until we

get the Budget approved. I know that the Budget that has come before this House

very recently for 1997-98, I believe to be in a number of places very deceptive.

I believe the document to be a deceptive document in that the Minister of

Finance has said in the past that last year's Budget basically was predicting a

$40 million deficit and this year's Budget ended up with a $29 million deficit,

so we have to wonder why. That begs a lot of questions to be asked with respect

to the layoffs, the layoffs that are coming within the civil service.

If we are $11 million better than we had anticipated over

last year's Budget then why are civil servants being asked to leave their jobs?

Of course the effect that the civil service has on the private sector in this

Province is phenomenal because when we see 1100 people going out the door we are

naturally going to have layoffs in the private sector, and that in term will

have ripple effects throughout the economy and would be detrimental to the RST,

the PST, the HST, and whatever taxes are on the go, the income tax and what have

you. In actual fact the Province can be hurting itself by letting civil servants

go. People have said to me, if we are that well-off why are we going out the

door, Mr. Speaker? The turmoil that has been created by this administration with

this Budget is unreal.

Now, we all know, and I have spoken many times in this House

of Assembly on the morale of the civil service. I believe about three years ago

I spoke on the morale in the civil service and it has been getting worse ever

since. Now, while workers in the civil service were hoping that cuts were over

and done with, and that people were finished going out the door, they are being

told that over the next three years there are going to be 1100 more go out the

door. So, that is now creating three more years of turmoil within the civil

service.

Of course, the tactics of this administration and the

previous administration has been to pit one group against the other over the

past few years. In the referendum last year we saw churches being pitted against

churches, community against community, and we now see schools being pitted one

against the other in various areas of the Province, and so on, Mr. Chairman. We

saw the Minister of Municipal Affairs going around the Province trying to get

this municipality up against the communities that are not paying taxes, so it is

divide and conquer.

We saw the Minister of Justice, which was absolutely

ridiculous, before Christmas, coming out and asking the RCMP and the RNC to put

in applications I would say, Mr. Chairman, if you really want to boil it down,

applications for their jobs. They asked them to look at jurisdictions and make

proposals to government, to the Department of Justice, for jurisdiction to say,

okay, we can do this area for X amount of dollars, we can do that area for X

amount of dollars, and what happened, Mr. Chairman. We had the RCMP going all

over this Province with petitions, having public meetings and what have you,

until they were ordered not to, to try and save their jobs.

Then we had the RNC, who decided to take the other route, Mr.

Chairman, and basically sit back and see what comes down the tube. We will not

fight for our jobs, which I think spoke very well for the RNC, the way they

handled it.

It was ridiculous for this Administration to pit one police

force against another in this Province. Both police forces are well respected,

both police forces do their jobs well in the jurisdictions that they cover. To

try and to pit these groups against each other is just downright wrong. It is

morally wrong, and that speaks then of the morals of this Administration.

To me this Budget, as I said earlier, is a deceptive Budget,

and it goes to the heart I suppose of what is going on in this Province today.

We have seen, since 1991, municipalities being... I won't say raped, that isn't

the right word, I would say, but certainly down loaded upon in a very negative

factor. We have this Budget saying that the government is going to give the

municipalities approximately $10 million to help them out, the municipalities

that are in hard shape.

But what is going on, the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs yesterday when I asked him the question was highly insulted,

basically, that he was asked the question. He stood in his place and said he was

waiting for questions. The Budget only came down last Thursday and we have only

been sitting this week.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I will have lots of

questions for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in the future. I

have fifteen or sixteen questions here now. I will give him the choice to pick

which one he wants. He can pick anywhere from one to sixteen now when the House

sits back in late April.

What is going on with respect to that $10 million - and it is

benefiting two groups, but it is benefiting the Province more so than the

municipalities. The minister and the government are trying to get the

municipalities to refinance and use the private sector or the chartered banks to

refinance. If they are successful in doing that and the government can give

them, well, depending on the financial situation, X amount of dollars to get

them into the chartered banks, that would take the debt away from the Province.

Therefore it would make the bottom line of the Province's Budget look better. In

the long haul what will happen to the Newfoundland Municipal Financial

Corporation if in fact what is planned goes through?

It could very well be that it could be a good thing in the

short term for the municipalities and the towns in this Province. It could be a

good thing in the short term if the interest rate stays down. We know they want

the towns to refinance, of course, because of the high interest rates being

charged by the NMFC, and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs said

yesterday there could be some penalties for that. If there are going to be

penalties paid to the government, is it now going to be giving the

municipalities money to get them to refinance and actually taking it back to pay

the penalties through NMFC? Those are some of the questions that need to be

answered, and some of the questions that will be asked I'm sure in the future in

this House of Assembly.

With respect to the interim supply itself, the Administration

or the government is looking for $1,019,465,700. That is roughly one-third of

the Budget. The government is asking for one-third of the Budget on interim

supply. To me that seems to be a rather large amount of money to be asking for

in the interim before the whole Budget, the 1997-1998 Budget, is approved. A lot

of money to be asking for. That will lead me to the next question which is: Are

we going to sit again this spring? I imagine we will, but for how long? How long

will we be sitting? We haven't been sitting very much since last fall, let me

tell you. The reason for that, of course, is that the government doesn't want to

have the questions asked to it that we are asking in this House of Assembly. Of

course, we have a lot of questions to ask.

The Member for Waterford Valley was up this morning asking

the Minister of Social Services questions and the Minister of Social Services

got up and asked him to be more specific and to name the location of the home he

is talking about and when he did, the minister, basically said: well, we cannot

answer your questions now because an investigation is underway. She knew

full-well, before she asked the Member for Waterford Valley to be specific, she

had the information but she did not answer the question, Mr. Chairman.

We have the critic for health, the Leader of the Opposition,

asking questions often to the Minister of Health and we get the same old answer:

The health care of the Province is adequate and it is improving. `Adequate' is

the key word, Mr. Chairman, and the definition of `adequate' by whose terms. So,

Mr. Chairman, this Interim Supply bill - I can understand them wanting to have

so much approved at one shot, and I expect later on this morning that it will go

through. Obviously this is going to be the last day that we are going to be

sitting before Easter and we, certainly on this side of the House, would not

want to hold up pay cheques of the civil servants although as I said earlier,

Mr. Chairman, a good many of them are pretty scared today.

Another point with respect to this Budget, Mr. Chairman, and

the tactics of this administration, is the situation with respect to pensions

and people being forced to go out the door. I know that there are people within

- teachers, take teachers for example. I have a friend who was forced,

basically, to retire a little over two weeks ago, and who has been teaching for

thirty years, who wanted to finish this school year and had planned to finish

this school year but because of the tactics of this administration was afraid to

stay, because he did not know what was going to happen to him if he decided to

stay.

We have other people, people with Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing, people within the civil service, people working within this building,

Mr. Chairman, who are now checking out the retirement scheme, it is not a plan,

it is a retirement scheme of this administration to force people out the door,

but what is happening, Mr. Chairman, is that people who have been working for

twenty-eight years, thirty years, and are very close to the retirement age, the

formula that is being used, are being forced to take their money, their

severance, and pay it back to the government to buy a year or two years to

qualify for their pensions and if they don't do that, they are afraid that after

this Budget goes through, Mr. Chairman, that they will be forced out the door

anyway and won't end up with the severance and other benefits that would

normally accrue to them if they had their full time in. So, Mr. Chairman, what

is being done here is not fair.

The Leader of the Opposition has been up and spoken for two

to three hours I would imagine on the Budget and he pointed out a lot of faults,

a lot of the concerns and some of the trickery that is going on within the

Budget. I don't want to get into that because the Leader of the Opposition did a

good job on that, no doubt about it but, the Budget that is coming down the tube

this year is not as the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

make it out to be. They talked about a three-year Budget. Now, Mr. Chairman, if

you look at a Budget that normally comes down each year, you get the Budget of

course and you get something like a document called the Estimates of 260 pages

which show the revenues and the expenditures for each division within each

department.

With respect to the Budget that came down, the so-called

three-year Budget, Mr. Chairman, it is one page, printed on both sides for a

three-year Budget. Now that is pretty slippery I would say to you, Mr. Chairman,

that is pretty slippery to say that we have a three-year Budget. Now, one page

with the figures on it for a year and another page with figures on it for

another year and to say that, that is a Budget when of course we know that it is

subject to changes, major changes of course. How can they say that this is a

Budget when an actual budget requires 260 pages, so in actual fact, the Budget

should be somewhere around now 520 pages, plus the 260 will give you 780 pages,

but we have 260, Mr. Chairman, what we normally get with one year's Budget. So

what they are trying to do is, to give the people out in the Province some kind

of perception that they have long-term plans, Mr. Chairman.

Now let me tell you what their long-term plans are if, there

are any. It is not as in the Budget to make everything look hunky-dory.

Basically, Mr. Chairman, what has been going on here is that we have been

hearing since '89, that it is going to be two years and we will have prosperity,

and in '91 we have prosperity in '93; in 93 we will have prosperity in '95 and

now, it is going to be another three years down the road. So basically, in the

year 2000 we are going to have prosperity in this Province. I think personally,

that the people of this Province are getting sick and tired of hearing this

two-year thing down the road, two years, two years and two years. What they want

is something to happen now.

MR. HARRIS: Jack, you should know they are waiting for a

better tomorrow, not ready for a better tomorrow.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is a good point. The Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi said we should be calling it, `waiting for a better tomorrow',

and there is no doubt about that. We have been waiting and waiting and waiting,

certainly since 1949, so it is not happening.

I mentioned this in the House of Assembly on a number of

occasions since I came here back in 1993 - and I was fortunate enough to be

reelected in 1996, or whenever it was - that there are people in this Province,

and it seems not to be able to sink into people on that side of the House, the

decision-makers on that side of the House, because I am sure they are getting

the same type of calls that we are getting on this side of the House, and every

day they are increasing. They are going up exponentially, Mr. Chairman, the

number of calls that we are getting; because, of course, we see the social

services rolls double since 1989, from 40,000 up to 79,000 last count.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: My time is up already?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, I will get up again, I am

sure.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Chairman, why is it, when I get up to

speak, everybody just leaves me automatically?

Mr. Chairman, I want to make some comments about what has

happened to my budget in regard to municipal operating grants, and I quote Randy

Simms, a councillor who is the Deputy Mayor, I believe - I am not sure - of

Mount Pearl, on a T.V. program on Tuesday or Wednesday night of last week. He

came out and said, I quote: I agree with what the minister has done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did he say that? Be serious now.

MR. A. REID: Yes, he did.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did he say he agreed with (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes, I can get you the tapes and let you

listen to them.

I can quote the President of the Federation of Municipalities

who stated categorically that he was disappointed that there would be cuts this

year, but now is the time for government and the federation to come together to

plan the future path.

It was me who went to Gander last Friday night and went into

what I thought would be the lion's den, that turned out to be more like a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes. It turned out to be more like a used

stable, but it was me who suggested that there could be other things that the

government could look at in the next twelve months to look at the possibility of

making some changes to legislation, and doing other things that would help

municipalities in regard to their -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: My hon. friend from Bonavista South knows

full well that I have been looking after him on an individual basis for the past

couple of years. I even recommended that the government take large sums of money

out of money that was scheduled for other parts of the Province to refurbish the

stadium down there, that even his own leader had problems digesting when he

heard about it.

His friend sitting on his immediate left is looking for $3.5

million now for another stadium in his area.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am not. Be accurate, now, in what you

are saying.

MR. A. REID: More than that.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, it is not. Be accurate.

MR. A. REID: The wonderful and grand City of Mount Pearl

is looking for funding this year for some work, which I can pretty well assure

the hon. Member for Waterford - Kenmount those good people will be looked after.

The City of St. John's - and I quote Mr. Jeff Brace. After

continuously trying to agitate me for almost an hour and a half in Gander on

Friday night, when I finally told him what we were actually doing for the City

of St. John's his comment was: Art, if I had known you were going to do this I

would have kept my mouth shut.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Mr. Chairman, I'm beginning to wonder what

his colours are, you know, because I'm not sure.

Even though there is $9 million set aside in the Budget for -

well, not set aside in the Budget. It is $9 million one-time funding. We had

that money and it needs to be set aside before the last of the year. If you look

at the Estimates that $9 million is not in the Estimates for my department for

next year. It won't be found because it was new money, so that is set aside. I

have the leeway or latitude to go out with that $9 million, plus on top of that

another $1.5 million that has been given to me to assist not only municipalities

that are in financial debt but other municipalities. There are municipalities

around, I say this to my learned colleague who went through all this with me for

years, there is money there besides -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes we did. There is money there set aside

not only for communities which are in dire straits, financial problems, there is

money there that I can use to help other communities that would possibly,

because of cuts in MOGs and the increase in the debt servicing and so on, I can

go in and help them, give them a few dollars.

I admit to the House that it has been a rough, I guess, four

years for me as a one-time municipal leader to have to go in and make the

changes in my department that, yes, adversely affect a number of communities

around the Province. I admit that, I don't deny that. I don't think anyone on

this side of the House, I don't think there is anyone who doesn't realize that

it is a lot harder for me to digest as an ex-mayor and an ex-president of the

Federation than it is for a number of people sitting on both sides of the House.

It is, I know, I feel it.

But then I was faced with a problem of 150 communities out

there. Literally, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, we have communities out

there - and I don't want to stand in the House and talk about individual

communities because I've never done it, not on an individual basis, Maybe with

one exception. The hon. member points to me down there, but he forced me into

it, Mr. Chairman. He held me down on the floor with his hobnailed boots to my

throat and said: You had better name the community.

I can honestly say that I was losing a sizeable amount of

money in my budget, which we all did, and I had to find some way - it would have

detrimental, I suppose, to a large number of municipalities if I didn't get

something back. The argument and the negotiations went on for a long period of

time and I managed to succeed in not actually getting my MOG money back, but I

got $10.5 million. On top of that, there is some money this year set aside for

fire-fighting, there is some money set aside for local service districts, there

is some emergency money set aside.

You know what I'm talking about. Because when you sneak over

to me, and especially my friend for Baie Verte and he says to me: Art, have you

got $2,000 or $3,000 for a fire department or for a town?, In most cases I

accommodate him. But I always say to him: Don't let anybody know about this.

Because if my buddies behind me find out about it they are going to ask: Why

aren't you giving it to me? Right? So I do accommodate it, I take care of it,

because I respect, even though I'm on the opposite side of the fence from my

hon. colleagues, I do respect you. Especially you rural. I will say rural. Not

so much the St. John's members or the members from Mount Pearl or Corner Brook

or the major centres. But I know what the member from Bonavista Bay has to put

up with on a daily basis when it comes to looking after his constituents. I

would say the Member for Bonavista South gets more calls in a day than the hon.

Member for St. John's South gets in a month.

AN HON. MEMBER: A year!

MR. A. REID: In a year! Now, I don't want to mislead the

House and say I have more affinity and I treat the rural baymen, as we call

ourselves, better than we do our hon. friends from St. John's, Mount Pearl and

Corner Brook. But if I can say it lowly and softly, I feel quite honestly, and I

think most of my colleagues from outside the overpass feel the same way, that,

very lowly, Mr. Chairman, that the St. John'ses and the Mount Pearls and the

Corner Brooks and the larger centres in the Province have a lot better chance of

looking after themselves than some of our communities can do.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about my district?

MR. A. REID: Yes, your district is in it too.

I want to just tell you a little story about something that

happened to me. It might be - and I am going to name the community - I have to

in this case and I don't think, if the hon. member was sitting here, he would

mind me saying it. I went to Trepassey about a month ago and I met with the

council -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes. I went to Trepassey - and I say it in

all sincerity, Mr. Speaker - I went to Trepassey because I was being told by my

staff that, minister, if you want an example of a town falling apart, through no

fault of their own, Trepassey is the example. So I went down there and met with

the mayor and I met with the council and the town clerk. I had a long session

with the town clerk manager. We sat down and - I am going to be honest with you

- it tore the heart out of me when I heard what was going on in the community.

Here was the town manager and the mayor telling me; Mr. Minister, our mil rates

are 9 mils - which is one of the highest in the Province, higher than Mount

Pearl. We are collecting over $300 a year for water and sewage taxes. We don't

owe any money to NMFC. We have not asked for any money in Capital Works because

we cannot afford it and here are our books. Even though we are collecting almost

95 per cent of our taxes we are falling further and further and further every

year. I said, what have you done? They have turned off street lights. They have

laid off staff. They have contracted out as many services as they can possibly

contract. Basically the mayor said, `Minister, I am sitting on a time bomb.' I

said, `What do you mean by that?' `If anything should happen in this community,

if I get a major water break, if the motor goes in my fire truck, if anything

happens, this town will go under.'

I had my finance people with me, they sat down and we went

through everything. The conclusion was Trepassey cannot survive as it is today.

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason why it cannot survive is that there are over

700 people gone out of the community and not gone out of down in the cove. They

are not all gone out of one

section of the town. They are gone throughout the

town. You drive around the town and here are these beautiful homes, Mr. Speaker,

that if they were in St. John's they would be worth, in any man's money,

$120,000 to $150,000. I am not exaggerating, beautiful homes. The town manager

says, `Here minister, is a letter.' She passed me a letter and this was a letter

from a young fellow out in the North West Territories who owns one of these

beautiful homes. His tax bill was $800. The letter said, `Take my home. Take it,

it is not worth anything, to pay the taxes.' These homes now on an average down

in that particular community, from what I have been told and it is hearsay, it

is only just something that I have been told, the average house value has gone

down around $10,000 from the average of $40,000 and $50,000 that it was three or

four years ago.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say to you quite honestly that is an

extreme example of what is happening in a lot of our communities. My friend from

Bonavista South knows full well what is happening on the Bonavista Peninsula. I

know what is happening. Go up on the North West Coast. I was in Labrador this

last month or a month-and-a-half ago and we talked to every community member

with the member and it is happening up there on the Coast of Labrador. So what

do I do? Realistically, when you look at the options that I had, the question

was, what do I do with these communities? The only answer to it is to try to go

out with some encouragement and the encouragement will be what I will take out

of my pocket, the government will take out of its pocket and try at least to put

these communities back on an even keel so that they can survive and the word

survive is a very important word here because survive is all that they expect

right now from government.

That is all they want from government, and they would be

happy if they were in a position where they could at least at the end of the

year look at their Budgets, look at their statements, and say, boys we broke

even. That is all, we broke even. I can assure this House and my hon. colleagues

on both sides of the House that that $10.5 million will be scrutinized. We will

deal with communities on an individual basis.

MR. TULK: How would you utilize that $10 million? What

are you actually going to do with the money?

MR. A. REID: Well, a prime example is, you have a

community in your district that has been after me, and you have been after me

now for three or four years, that owes something like $500,000 to the finance

corporation. I am going to be suggesting this time that out of that $10.5

million, not to take $500,000 and pay it off, but maybe the department will make

the payments for that town for the next ten or fifteen years until it is paid

off. Okay.

Take a hypothetical situation, any community in the Province,

and let us say they owe $30,000 or $40,000 in arrears to NMFC, their ratio debt

charge is 30, 40, or 50 per cent, I am not going to go in and write a cheque for

that community and say, here that is all paid off, because if I do that next

year at this time they are going to be back in debt again. You will find that

the vast majority of communities out there that are in this financial situation,

number one, they have really low tax rates, and a lot of them have admitted to

me already that, yes, minister, if you would come in and help us get this

straightened out I am sure the people in my community would not mind, over the

next three years, gradually increasing the taxes by a small amount so that we

can contribute something to the overall plan.

There are communities out there, for example, that owe

millions of dollars to the Newfoundland Finance Corporation, and that money, as

most of us municipal politicians understand, every year you are given capital

works that is a contract you sign for that amount of money. It is not a contract

that takes in the full amount that you owe to NMFC. It is all done on the basis

of the contracts that are awarded. You have communities out there, for example,

that owe large amounts of money and we feel, after talking to the banks, private

lending institutions, and private sector investment people, as well as NMFC,

that in a lot of these cases we can take that money that they owe, the way you

and I would do if we were strapped, and go out and refinance a sizeable amount

of that long-term debt over maybe a longer period of time, which would mean that

their payments to NMFC and their debt charges each year would be lower. If you

could refinance it at a lower interest rate you would lower that, and that would

be a way then, that the town could then also contribute to the straightening out

of their financial arrangement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. A. REID: Yes. It could be two or it could be fifty.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible

MR. A. REID: No, you are wrong. It will not be taken away

from the Province. The Province has always had, regardless of what a

municipality does - and I think the hon. member knows this if he would stop to

think, regardless of what municipalities do, the Province is ultimately

responsible for it, and even through the debt may be transferred from NMFC to

the Bank of Nova Scotia, or the Bank of Montreal, we are still on the hook and

the lending institutions, the bond markets that lend us money, lend the Minister

of Finance money, he has to have a list of all the money that is owed by

municipalities, so we are still on the hook for it. It is still considered a

provincial debt, the same as the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing money is

considered a provincial debt.

MR. TULK: Will there be any municipalities who will not

need the Province's guarantee?

MR. A. REID: I think we have fourteen or fifteen

communities done now without guarantees, but even though - listen to me

carefully - even though Mount Pearl did not want a guarantee Mount Pearl's debt

still has to show up as a debt of the Province at the end of the day to our bond

market. And I tell you why, it is ultimately the responsibility of the

government of this Province to protect municipalities. The government cannot

have a municipality go bankrupt so ultimately you have the responsibility.

Someone made a comment yesterday in the House that this was a

way that NMFC could unload their debt. That is totally incorrect. Mount Pearl,

for example, renegotiated some $9 million; I do not know the exact figures, but

I will use them just to illustrate. Mount Pearl, two or three months ago,

negotiated with a private institution and refinanced $9 million. Well, that was

$9 million that NMFC had held up to that point. The Bank of Nova Scotia, or

whoever it was, wrote a cheque, and they came in and gave it to NMFC. But the

problem with that was that it wasn't a question then - NMFC could not take the

$9 million and go to New York and pay down on that debt, because when the

bonding agencies loan the Province money they loan it in lump-sum payments and

it is into fixed rates for fixed periods of time.

So what does the Newfoundland Municipal Financial Corporation

do with the $9 million that is passed back to them? They have to invest it. They

have to put it into a fund and gradually pay down a portion of it towards their

bond retirement. So it is not a question of Newfoundland Municipal Financial

Corporation having an advantage here, because they still owe the dollars.

The advantage that the Newfoundland Municipal Financial

Corporation will ultimately have will be, I suppose, the fact that large amounts

of money for these larger communities will not have to be financed through them

in the future; therefore, the amount that has to be borrowed on the bond market

will be lower, if you take the whole thing in context.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) best Minister of Municipal Affairs

that this Province ever saw. Art, do you know something? I don't now what you

are doing here. You could be out making half-a-million dollars a year as a

consultant to municipalities, with your depth of knowledge, the amount of

knowledge you have.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is sacrificing himself.

MR. TULK: You are sacrificing yourself here.

MR. A. REID: I guess I do have a few things going for me

other than the fact that I have a big mouth.

MR. TULK: Besides that, never mind that.

MR. A. REID: Besides that, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: It is getting close to Easter, and I guess I

am a little humble.

MR. TULK: Getting humble in your old age.

MR. A. REID: I am getting humble in my old age.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: The greatest pleasure that I get out of

sitting in the House.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: I will finish up.

The greatest pleasure that I get in sitting in this place is

that every year around this time it becomes the most comfortable place in the

world for me to be, and I will tell the member from Labrador why.

Every year around this time there is money announced for

capital works, and I am the minister responsible for capital works. So even

though there may be times when the Opposition would like to get up and nail me,

around this time of the year everybody is very nice to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: And it is not because (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: That is for sure, not because of my

congeniality or my personality.

AN HON. MEMBER: Everybody?

MR. A. REID: Yes, just about everybody.

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to remind my good colleague - he mentioned

getting nailed and everything else - that there are only five days between the

Passover and the Crucifixion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, by leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Here it is, look.

I want to finish up and just say to you, quite honestly, that

I understand where the criticism is coming from. I think if I was there today in

the municipal realm, the criticism would be even stronger. Coming from me, it

would be even stronger.

I want everyone in the House to understand that there is a

sizeable amount of money there. It is there to help protect and maintain rural

Newfoundland - rural Newfoundland. Remember, I have always said it, even though

there have been questions and debate and comments made around this Province that

we do not have the sympathy for rural Newfoundland that we have for -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure Mount Pearl is made up of rural

Newfoundlanders.

MR. A. REID: - but I can honestly say to you, when you

look at me, Art Reid, as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, you

are looking at a bayman. I believe quite honestly that it is not only the St.

John's and the Corner Brooks of the world that make up Newfoundland it is the

Labrador Coast that makes up Newfoundland. It is Carbonear Island, Baccalieu

Island and the Cabot legacy in Bonavista. We all make up what we would like to

believe in, what we dream about, what we know about and what most

Newfoundlanders, that are not in Newfoundland, continually think about as this

wonderful Province.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that tomorrow is Good

Friday, most of us I guess will be in church, if not tomorrow, on Sunday. I am

reading in church on Sunday, by the way Harvey. I am doing a lesson on Sunday in

church in Carbonear. I will be -

AN HON. MEMBER: And so you should (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Harvey is a United churchman and I am a

United churchman. I will say to you that I will be at the funeral tomorrow, at

his mother's funeral and I will be representing all of you, on both sides of the

House because I know a lot of you cannot get there. I will be representing all

the House.

I want to say quite honestly, that I hope you have a good

three weeks holiday. I am taking off some time, not next week but the week

after. I am going to disappear from it all and I hope and pray my hon. critic

over there is not too bad on me while I am gone. Thank you very much.

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm a quite reasonable fellow. I speak the

truth.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take a few minutes this morning to talk on

the Interim Supply motion now before the House and to say that the Budget was

only brought down a week ago and I have to say that I am awfully surprised at

how friendly the House is, only a week after the Budget.

MR. J. BYRNE: It's Holy Thursday, now you be careful what

you are saying.

MR. HARRIS: Now it has been suggested that it is Holy

Thursday and I look to my far left over here, to the Member for Cape St. Francis

and he is wagging his finger at me and is sort of making threatening gestures

over there. But I think it is awfully friendly though, only a week after a

devastating Budget, it is awfully friendly in the House. So I don't want to add

to that, Mr. Chairman, so I am going to point out some of the problems that I

see that this government has inflicted on the people of this Province as the

result of this Budget.

Now I told the Premier yesterday that I thought it was a

clever Budget. It was a clever Budget because as a public relations effort the

government to date has been reasonably successful.

MR. J. BYRNE: What? At what?

MR. HARRIS: As a public relations gesture. They even have

Jim - what's his name? The Premier's favourite broadcaster, the morning show?

AN HON. MEMBER: Jim Browne.

MR. HARRIS: Jim Browne. He said this morning on the radio

to me, `Yes terrible, 1,100 people being laid off.' I said, no, no, no, not

1,100 people. That is not even what the minister said. I mean the minister

didn't even say that but they managed to pass it off. They passed it off. Doug

Letto, Mr. inside information last night, notebook, he finally got it from

inside sources that there may actually be more than 1,100. A week later. Now,

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you something, I knew this before the minister read

the Budget Speech. Do you know why? Because I read the Budget Speech a couple of

hours before. It says on page 12, "The additional measures announced in this

Budget will eliminate up to 1,100 full time equivalent positions over the next

three years. This represents a four percent reduction in public sector

positions. This is in addition to other reductions already underway, such as

those from health care restructuring, education reform and declining student

enrolments." So what does that mean? When you add it all up, Mr. Chairman, 900

jobs from the Grace goes, 1,100 full time equivalent positions. What does that

mean?

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation has announced

the closure of parks, the privatization of parks. If you took one seasonal job

for three months, how many of them does it take to make 1,100 positions?

Forty-four hundred, Mr. Chairman. What does this mean? It means that a family

that is dependent on that seasonal job and whatever else the employee is able to

get over the rest of the year - you know, perhaps a bit of UI, or `EI, EI, O,'

as they call it now. A bit of UI, perhaps another job in the winter, a bit of a

hobble, that family can survive. Instead, that family is going to suffer.

Mr. Chairman, I am not here to criticize the media. What I am

here to do is point out that this government is pulling the wool over the eyes

of the population. I know that the Minister of Justice smiles and laughs and

chuckles. `Dr. Death.' They move him around. Did you notice that, Mr. Chairman,

that they move this man around to different portfolios? Whenever there is a job

to be done, whenever there is some harsh work to be done, they move the minister

into place and set him on it. They put the leash on only a little bit, holding

him back just a little bit and set him on whoever needs to be set upon. The

Minister of Justice, former Minister of Education, former Minister of Health.

When we look at the health care system, when we look at the

education system, and now the justice system - and I do not even think he will

be very happy with this, what I am going to tell him in a few minutes. He was

not here this morning because he did not want to hear anything about the lock-up

this morning so he avoided Question Period, I noticed - did not want to talk

about the lock-up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Maybe he will get up now and answer the

questions about the lock-up. I will ask him a few questions.

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying to hon. members and to you, is

that this government has managed to get away with a massive change in the public

sector by pretending it is only 1,100 jobs and being somewhat successful to

date, but only to date, in convincing people that is the case. To add to the

deception, they tabled the Departmental Salary Details - one hundred and

seventy-four pages with the details, how many positions, each department,

department by department. We can move the Department of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods, and what we have here is a list, a permanent staff complement from

the minister's office on down. From the minister's office on down, the permanent

staff complement is listed out going on for several pages. Four hundred and

forty-three approved positions according to the Departmental Salary Details.

However, you have to look at it a little closer - you have to

take out your magnifying glass and you have to search throughout the document

high and low, look for little footnotes, look for little tiny numbers the size

of a whisker. You will find out if you do that that they have not removed from

the salary details all the positions that have been abolished. So what is this

175 pages of trash? Trash! What this government is doing is trashing positions

in the public sector without even letting people know what is going on.

I have a copy of only one page of this. On one page - this is

in the Minister of Justice's department, the Youth Corrections division,

Whitbourne. One hundred and nineteen positions are listed on page 165, but

within a couple of days of the Budget being passed down, they said: No, this

document that was tabled by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board does not

mean that there are still 119 positions in Youth Corrections. There are at least

twenty-seven of them that do not exist anymore.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I find it passing strange that nobody

seems to be too worried about that. You know, the government publishes a

175-page book, very glossy cover, Departmental Salary Details, said to be, in

its own words, a compilation in detail of all the positions broken down in

accordance with the 1997-1998 Estimates and yet, it is actually a farce and a

fraud, Mr. Chairman, on the people of this Province and on the public-sector

workers.

So, what do we have going on out at Whitbourne? Maybe the

minister can tell us; maybe the minister knows. I am not sure even he is happy

with it, because I think he believes that youth corrections is an area which

needs a lot of support, that the individuals who get themselves involved in the

correctional system as young people, need a lot of support, need a lot of

opportunities to overcome the bad start that they have in life and not be

treated as criminals in all cases, I mean, there are obviously exceptions. There

are obviously exceptions where young people have conducted themselves in such a

way as to make themselves a danger to the public, a danger to society in a very

serious way, but these are the exceptions, Mr. Chairman, very much the

exception.

In fact, if you look at the documentation released by the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, they indicate that many young offenders - in

fact, according to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Child Abuse Fact Sheet,

almost 97 per cent of young offenders have had a history of child abuse prior to

their becoming involved in the justice system, the youth correction system. Some

of them who are in close custody end up in Whitbourne where there has been a

fairly elaborate program developed over the last number of years to provide

supports for them, to give them educational opportunities, to provide alternate

activities in conjunction with the post-secondary education system in the

Province. These young people who are confined to close custody as a result of

coming into contact with the criminal justice system under the Young Offenders

Act, have an opportunity to come out of there with a little better sense of

themselves, Mr. Chairman, with a few skills, an opportunity to work and be

productive - to work on a farm, to be involved in projects that are of use to

them in developing skills and self-esteem and overcoming through counselling

programs some of their difficulties.

So what do we see happening out there, Mr. Chairman? I am

afraid what we see happening out there - and the minister can correct me if I am

wrong - is a total dismantling of any notion of a youth correctional facility

that does anything other than incarcerate young people, and if that is what is

going to happen at Whitbourne, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Justice

should be ashamed of himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, that is quite clear when they talk

about surveillance cameras (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I think the Minister of Justice should be

ashamed of himself if that is what is going to happen out at Whitbourne. And I

cannot believe - and I have to say this, knowing the minister and the minister's

concerns for young people. He has been Minister of Education, had a career as a

school teacher, I understand, involved with young people. You have been a school

teacher?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: He never taught anybody anything.

MR. HARRIS: Alright, I take it back, he does not have

compassion for young people that I thought he would have through his experience

as a schoolteacher. He must have gotten his compassion for young people

somewhere else, I say, rather than teaching school. Anyway, he can tell us his

own career, I am not going to praise the minister - only to say that I cannot

believe that this Minister of Justice believes we should take all programming

aspects out of the Whitbourne correctional institution.

MR. DECKER: They are not coming out, and you know it. You

were told they are not coming out, and you are getting up (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, what we are being told is that

the programs are not going out, but only the people who deliver the programs are

going to disappear. That is a sleight-of-hand. The information I have is that

the people who deliver these programs are going to disappear. The programs are

going to stay, we are told by the minister, but the people who deliver the

programs will not be there to deliver them. I do not know how -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I am going to give the minister - the

minister is going to have an opportunity to get up now and tell us exactly what

is going on out there, how many positions are going to be gone, and what is

going to be left when it is all over, what kind of program we are going to have.

Maybe while he is at it, he can tell us what Dr. Inkpen

recommended when she did her report a couple of years ago. Maybe he can give us

a copy of the report. I do not know if it has been collecting dust. Maybe it is

being looked at and ignored. Maybe he can table it in the House and we will all

have a look and see exactly what is going on in the minister's department. But I

cannot believe the minister wants to see that very valuable program - which I

understand has won awards and recognition across the country for the development

of a program of great use to young people and young offenders, that that is not

going to be able to exist in this Province anymore.

Mr. Chairman, the issues that are raised out of this Budget

are massive. We have, in many departments of government right now, mass

confusion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: People are being called together in meetings

and told: Twenty-five of you are going to go but we do not know who yet. So all

of you, presumably, can get busy writing your resums. We do not know who you

are yet, we have not figured that out -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having some problems hearing the hon. member. Can we try

to keep the noise down, please?

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your interest in hearing the remarks. What we

have is, instead of what the Premier promised a month-and-a-half ago or a month

ago, when he said: We are going to do something, we are going to have a

three-year plan, people are going to know who is secure and who is not, here we

are a week after the Budget, a week after the end of the so-called program

review which has been going on for months, and we have public servants all over

the Province wondering whether they should be doing anything other than writing

their resums. I do not know if there is anything else going on in the public

service other than people busily writing their resums and trying to get them

together to see what -

MR. FITZGERALD: How much money have they put there for

resum writing?

MR. HARRIS: If they put the money there necessary for

resum writing they would have spent a lot of money on that. They would have

spent a lot more money than they wasted preparing the Departmental Salary

Details that are worth nothing but recycled paper at the moment, Mr. Chairman,

because they are not of any use to anybody.

We have serious issues and serious problems. We have the

government creating chaos in the public sector. If you go down to the Queen's

Printer, they will tell you that they are all going to laid off, they are going

to be gone. What is going on? Has this government lost its head? The government

has everybody in the public sector now concerned that the documents that the

Minister of Finance files in the House cannot be trusted, cannot be believed,

are not worth the paper on which they are printed.

There is an awful lot of skulduggery going on, of which the

public is not being made aware. The public has not been made aware of it because

the government has not been coming clean. They have not been providing the

answers; they have not been providing the details; they have not been informing

their own employees of what the circumstances are, what the situation is, and

there is chaos in the public sector.

We have the Minister of Education over there today washing

his hands of the trouble he has caused. He goes out and creates havoc.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Education. He goes out and

creates havoc amongst the parents of Newfoundland and Labrador, and then he

comes in here this morning and washes his hands of it, and says: Well, this is

what the people wanted. They wanted havoc; they wanted chaos; they wanted no

result from the whole four or five years of agony and agonizing debate over

school reform to end up exactly like this. This is what the people wanted. They

wanted chaos; they wanted havoc, and they wanted the minister to get up in the

House and say: I have no responsibility for what goes on out there in the school

boards that I have appointed and told what to do. He has no responsibility.

MR. J. BYRNE: How long have you been up now?

MR. HARRIS: Not long enough, I say to the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

The Budget that we have been asked to consider for a few days

only - four days - four days' consideration of the Budget... They are going to

shut her down today now and let the damage sink into the public sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hoping that people will forget.

MR. HARRIS: Let them forget. The House will not be open.

We will not have the Opposition hammering the government every day on the

Budget, as they have been doing the last four days. We will not have that. We

will have the public out there without any guidance, without any questions being

answered, and we will have the Minister of Finance getting away with a slippery

Budget, one that the Minister of Health thinks is so greasy that it has

fingerprints all over it. Greasy fingerprints all over the Budget, a very

slippery Budget.

MR. J. BYRNE: What do you think of Robin Hood? Do you

know who Robin Hood is?

MR. HARRIS: Who is Robin Hood?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny.

MR. J. BYRNE: Robin Hood.

MR. HARRIS: Robin Hood and the Easter Bunny all rolled

into one. Robin Hood, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus all rolled into one.

He whispered here today - he just sort of said very lowly -

that St. John's really cannot count on the provincial government to recognize

its need. What he does not say is that his government has taken $7.8 million out

of the City of St. John's budget. That is the cost. That is on a $100 million

budget. That is a fair chunk of change. That is nearly 8 per cent of the City of

St. John's budget, and the minister keeps piling responsibilities on the City of

St. John's - and his predecessors - piling responsibilities. Look at the Goulds.

It is your problem; you bring it up to standard. Make the taxpayers of St.

John's pay. We can soak them even more.

MR. J. BYRNE: They are taking $6 million out of

municipalities, (inaudible) from the city, and give them back ten (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes, he is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I

wouldn't call him Robin Hood, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis. I

wouldn't call him Robin Hood.

MR. J. BYRNE: In his mind.

MR. HARRIS: In his own mind he sees himself as a

re-distributor of wealth from what he thinks is a wealthy city, St. John's,

which it isn't. The city of St. John's is in just as serious financial straits

as other municipalities who are trying to meet tremendous demands from its

citizens with limited resources and are being forced to make very tough choices

as the result of this government's moves.

The downloading that is going on, Mr. Chairman, and I have to

say, it is not as severe as is happening in Ontario under that fellow Harris -

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't go making comparisons here.

MR. HARRIS: - under that fellow Harris. I don't know

where he got his name but he certainly does not have the same point of view of

this hon. member but -

MR. FITZGERALD: He doesn't have compassion.

MR. HARRIS: I thank the Member for Bonavista South for

that compliment.

The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has

portrayed himself as the Easter Bunny, Robin Hood, Santa Claus, all rolled into

one. He thinks he is very well liked this time of year because he is in a

position to pass out capital grants but that is not the way that government

should operate, based on a minister having the kind of discretionary power to

pass out or not pass out capital grants. I know he has to consider the needs of

each and every municipality, the needs of each and every project. There has to

be an objective process to determine what needs ought to be met and it ought not

be based on how friendly people are to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. I am sure if he were to stand again he would retract that and tell us

he was only kidding. He was only trying to have a little conviviality in the

House and talk about how his personality changes this time of year, that during

the rest of the year he is his usual self but this time of year -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to remind hon. members that it is

unparliamentary to have the chairs turned around so that the member has his back

to the Speaker.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) conviviality was an unparliamentary

word (inaudible) used very often.