April 3, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 11

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings, the Chair would like to

welcome to the galleries today eight Adult Basic Education students from the Atlantic

Construction Training Centre. They are accompanied by their instructor, Roland Lawrence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House of Assembly are

aware, the Select Committee looking into the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the issue

of wearing sidearms presented their findings to the House on Tuesday, March 31. I said

publicly at that time that government would deal with the report quickly.

I wish to inform the House today that government has examined the

report presented by the Member for Topsail and his committee, and that government will

proceed with the implementation of the recommendations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: I wish to commend the Member for Topsail, Mr. Speaker,

and his committee for the excellent work they have done.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is already an armed force. They

have provided superior service to the people of this Province for over 126 years. It has

been found by the committee that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary do require the use of

sidearms during their regular patrols, and the people of the Province will be better

served as a result.

This issue has been debated through public hearings and an in-depth

study has been completed. We are satisfied the time has come to amend the RNC firearms

policy to allow members of the RNC to wear sidearms on a constant basis when on duty,

based on the operational duties being performed.

As members of the House are aware, until now the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary have been referred to as the only unarmed police force in North America. It

is time for this Province to join with every other jurisdiction where professional and

able police officers serve to protect the public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a brief comment in response to the presentation by the Minister of

Justice.

The Minister of Justice has indicated in his Ministerial Statement that

until now the RNC has been the only unarmed police force in North America. At this time, I

would like to pay tribute to those individuals who made representations before the

committee on an aspect with respect to our culture and our traditions, and the role that

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has played.

There were quite a number of compelling arguments, those that were

along traditional and cultural lines, and I think this is an opportunity to pay tribute to

those individuals who have strong feelings in this regard. However, in essence, what the

issue has boiled down to is this: The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is an armed police

force, it has been an armed police force for a number of years, and the question that the

committee had to face was the issue of accessability to arms. It was felt unanimously that

in the interest of the public at large, and in the interest of the safety of the

individual police officer, the particular present policy ought to be amended.

But I would like to pay tribute to those individuals who contacted

committee members by telephone or in writing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - or made representations, and who made compelling

arguments and strong cultural arguments with respect to a way of life in this Province.

However, other issues were taken into account and therefore the findings were as they

were.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize again for not having a written statement available, but

because of the time during last evening and this morning it was not possible to get it

done.

I would like to apologize as well, Mr. Speaker; I spent some time last

evening actually scouring some of the shops in St. John's to see if I could find a mask

depicting Jim Carey in the movie Liar, Liar . I figured I would wear it in the House

today, but I did not have one to wear. I will try to get one at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give an update briefly with respect to the

policy that governs the licensing of private training institutions in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and provide a clarification again for members of the House and the general

public.

Mr. Speaker, the policy and legislation in the Province indicates - and

this has been the policy and the legislation for twenty years, introduced by the former

Administration when I believe Mrs. Verge was the Minister of Education - when a group, an

individual, applies to operate a private institution in Newfoundland and Labrador, the

government is compelled to check four things and four things only.

First of all, is there an approved program? Go through a process to

check and see that there is an approved program of studies.

Secondly, that there is an approved and proper physical facility. We do

admit that part of the act may need amending, because we do have the possibility in this

modern day and age of some virtual facilities where courses can be offered through the

Internet and so on; you may not actually need a physical location to bring students.

Thirdly, that there be qualified instructors.

Fourthly, that there be financial capability as determined by the

ability to post a bond in case there is a financial failure later for the institution.

Those have been, and continue to be, the rules, Mr. Speaker, for twenty

years. Whether or not the financial capability is determined is a process that is gone

through by financial institutions and banks, not by the government.

Mr. Speaker, this government does not have a policy, and is not

entertaining a policy, which would include the notion that there should be a complete

detailed personal background check on the individual's past history. Mr. Speaker, we do

not believe that whether a person has been convicted of an offence, whether it be a minor

offence, a speeding ticket or anything of that nature, or whether it be a very serious

offence, up to and including such things as serious sexual offenses or even murder, that a

person should be excluded from ever running a business in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that that is the position of the Opposition,

as quoted by their post-secondary education critic. Mr. Speaker, that is not the position

of this government with respect to any business in Newfoundland and Labrador, including

private training institutions.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing, just for clarification, is that there

seems to be some confusion, that the official Opposition seems to think and represent that

private training institutions are government agencies. Mr. Speaker, private training

colleges in Newfoundland and Labrador are no more government agencies than a corner store

is. I think that they should understand exactly what the nature of it is. If they want to

debate the merits of the policies on which these training institutions are established, we

would gladly do so in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the same as yesterday, of course, the courtesy of a copy

of what the minister was going to say was not forthcoming again today. I guess, Mr.

Speaker, he does not want us to prepare to make a response, but I do not need to prepare

to make a response to what the minister just said.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, he does not need the mask that he was

looking for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it is the position of the

government now that they have this big policy which is going to protect the students,

which is the only thing I am concerned about, a policy in this Province so that if an

institution starts up -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Would you quieten down that bunch of clowns over

there.

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

MR. SHELLEY: The only thing the minister should be concerned about,

Mr. Speaker, is that the policy be what it is today or whether he should add something to

it. If the minister is satisfied - what is really shameful is that the minister in this

House today just admitted that the policy governing corner stores is just as important as

private institutions in this Province. So go tell all those students, and all the students

who are going to come behind these students, to say that this government and this minister

are doing a great job of protecting students' interests, Mr. Speaker. It is a shameful day

in this House, Mr. Speaker, when this minister has just dug a hole so deep that he will

never crawl out. Because yesterday he stooped to a new low.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we finally have the government policy on private post-secondary

institutions. He recognizes that they are a business like any other, that they are no

different from a corner store. The reality is that this government has taken $25 million

per year out of the public post-secondary system, and for the private system they go

around advertising as government-approved, student loans available under the government

student loan program.

Post-secondary students have to have protection. They have to have a

government policy that guarantees they are going to get a quality education that is going

to be worth the money they are paying for it, and they are not going to be left hanging in

the wind by a government policy that ignores them and leaves them to the forces of the

market. It is not fair to students, and this government had better change its policy.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question this morning is for the

Premier with respect to out-migration. The statistics that just became available

demonstrated clearly that the problem of out-migration is more serious than it ever has

been in the Province. In the last quarter, 3,128 people left the Province, up by over

1,000.

The question I have for the Premier is what plans, generally, do

government have to try to curb out-migration? In view of the fact as well that about 75

per cent or 80 per cent of the number leaving are young people, young professionals, young

people with skills, the types of skills we need if this economy is going to drive forward

and be prosperous. A general question: What sorts of plans does the Premier have in place

to look at this problem, in view of the fact that it is greater than it has ever been?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the Leader

of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is right to point out that out-migration

continues to be a reality in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have gone from the highest

birth rate in the country to the lowest birth rate in the country, in good part because

most of those who are leaving are people of child-bearing age - young families, young

couples who are going elsewhere to find employment, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is

important to move quickly to get development occurring on as many fronts at once, as is

possible. That is why we pursue the policy - I believe, as the Leader of the Opposition

knows - of providing for a generic off-shore oil and gas regime. And, as a consequence, we

are seeing, Mr. Speaker, a very significant increase in the amount of activity in the

off-shore oil and gas sector.

It is why we are pursuing a policy of seeing the development of the

Churchill River system proceed, and by proceeding now, to put in place a Letter of Intent,

as soon as possible, with the Province of Quebec for development of the Churchill River

system; the investment that will flow from it and, of course, the jobs and the royalties

to the Province that will come from it.

I appreciate, by the way, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the

Opposition, following his questions on that matter last week, did take the time to go and

receive a full briefing on this proposal. I am hopeful, as a result of that briefing, and

perhaps a further briefing will be offered to all members of his party by the Minister of

Mines and Energy, that we might have the support of all sides of the House for this

project so that it can proceed as soon as possible to create jobs, to give people who are

now leaving, an option to stay and to work in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Voisey's Bay, the government's policy

remains unchanged and, as far as I can tell, it is one which is supported by all sides of

the House - perhaps with the exception of the Leader of the other party not in the House -

that is, that we cannot anymore give away the resources of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. We cannot say we are going to allow the richest nickel, copper and cobalt

deposit on the planet earth, to be turned over for quick development, for a mine

development, without the full benefit and the high-tech and high-paying jobs associated

with a smelter refinery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: This, too, Mr. Speaker, is part of our policy to

develop the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Leader of the Opposition quite

rightly asks, What other plans does the Government have? Mr. Speaker, our plans include

the further development of the manufacturing sector, a sector which is amongst the leaders

in Canada, in growth in this Province at this time.

Mr. Speaker, another area for development is the IT sector, the

Information Technology sector. This year, the city of St. John's will play host to the

largest, ever in history, IT Sector Conference in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: We are going to grow that sector. Today, we have

over half a billion dollars -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader will ask more

questions, I will give him more answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, you would think, by listening to the

Premier, that there should not be 3,125 people leave in the last three months, that there

would have been 3,125 people come into the Province in the last three months!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is that people are leaving in

record numbers. Simply put, outside of the mega-projects - to use the words in his own

Speech from the Throne - mega-projects will take care of themselves. But the reality today

is that those mega-projects which he just talked about are not providing jobs for people

in the Province today.

I will ask the question again, or I will ask it in a different way: How

are the regional economic boards - REDBs, as the minister responsible puts it - in any

tangible way impacting on life in rural Newfoundland so that people who don't want to

leave, who have the skills to participate in our economy, how are they providing the

employment opportunities for people in this Province today, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

is out-migration in the Province and indeed he is right. He says there has been an

increased level of out-migration in recent years, and indeed he is right, but if this is a

revelation for the Leader of the Opposition then I would suggest we all need to pay closer

attention to what is happening in this Province since the collapse of the fishery in 1992.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you cannot ignore these realities. Tens

of thousands of people in this Province have been left without the means of a livelihood,

and out-migration is the consequence. Mr. Speaker, if you take a look at the demographics

of the Province, it is rural Newfoundland and Labrador that has suffered the greatest loss

of population; it is rural Newfoundland and Labrador that has the greatest economic

challenge; and that is why this Administration created the first ever Department of

Economic Development and Rural Renewal!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: And yes, Mr. Speaker, we have put in place, for the

first time ever, the nineteen economic zones, the so-called REDBs. We have gone out and

held public hearings all across this Province. We have asked for the top 100 priorities of

these REDBs, and in the last period of time these boards have created over 1,000 new jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: They are doing a tremendous job and, Mr. Speaker, I

would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that if he is asking government today if

there is a magic plan to wave a wand and wish away all the problems of rural Newfoundland,

and wish away the collapse of the fishery in 1992, there is not. But I can say this: We

have to work together in this House to ensure there is an appropriate and comprehensive

follow-up to the TAGS program, there is money for economic development, there is money for

capacity reduction, and there is money for income support. And we have to make sure that

the kind of attitude seen by The Globe and Mail to wish us away, or send us a

one-way ticket to Toronto, is never accepted in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for a magic solution,

for some magic plan that government can pull out of the hat. What I am asking for, simply

put, is a recognition that for the first time in this Province the out-migration problem

is bigger than it ever has been. Forty-one per cent of graduates from post-secondary

institutions left this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I say to the Minister of Justice, I didn't just

discover it, but it is obvious that you might be just discovering it.

Forty-one per cent of graduates left this year from our post-secondary

institutions. If we are going to work together, I say to the Premier, well then, let's

begin. Every plan is just that, but the execution, the implementation of it, is what is

required.

Would the Premier consider a plan for young graduates whereby every

young person is either in a training institution, doing some form of community service, or

doing some form of apprenticeship program? Would that be a small beginning to try to keep

people who have the skills at home in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let's be straight in the House. First

of all, we have had out-migration in this Province for a very long time. By the way, if

you want to get into that game we can go back and look at even pre-collapse of the

fishery, 1992, and I believe it was an Administration of a colour with which the Leader of

the Opposition is familiar. We had out-migration then, and we had quite high numbers,

perhaps even higher - if you take out the TAGS equation, or the collapse of the fishery

equation - than we have today.

Quite frankly, that is a silly contest and a silly game to get into.

There is out-migration in Newfoundland and Labrador because we have had a catastrophic

failure of our fishery. It has nothing to do with politics or which party is in power, or

which party is in the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, I think, knows that and

would acknowledge that.

The issue is, what can we do? I say to the Leader of the Opposition, we

put in place last year - and I think it was acknowledged last year - the largest ever

youth employment program that has ever been provided for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

quickly says no, I at least ask him to check the facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: The Member for Ferryland is saying federally. I tell

him provincially as well. Mr. Speaker, in the Budget announced last week we decided as a

Cabinet to replicate in exact numbers the size of that program, and this year our total

youth employment expenditure - and the Minister of Human Resources and Employment I know

will correct me if I am wrong - is in excess of $7 million for 1998.

We are taking the kind of specific and targeted measures that are being

talked about by the Leader of the Opposition. I say this to the Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition, I believe, has been on the right wicket when he says we are

going to judge the government and its proposals on their individual merits. I say to the

Leader of the Opposition that the development of the Churchill River system is important

for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The recent agreement that we have arrived at begins the process of

re-balancing the opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador. The Leader of the Opposition

said he wanted to be briefed on it, he said he had many questions, and I ask this as a

straight question. He was briefed for some hours this week on the details. I ask the

Leader of the Opposition: Will he now put aside this tone of `we don't know whether it's a

good thing or a bad thing,' and will he tell us where he stands on the Lower Churchill

River development? Will he make up his mind?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, to conclude, every single former

president of Hydro has endorsed it, the labour unions have endorsed it, the boards of

trade have endorsed it, every thinking person in Newfoundland and Labrador has endorsed

it. Can the Leader of the Opposition make up his mind and endorse this good development

project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Praise the Lord! We are tempted to say: Praise the

Lord but hold the ammunition!

My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Education.

During debate on the amendments to Term 17, the Premier and the

minister noted in the debate that the time had come to end the practice whereby teachers

could be hired or fired for any other reason than their capacity to teach, their

competence and their professional qualifications.

I ask the Minister of Education, if he has taken steps to make sure

that all teachers currently being hired in this Province with the various school boards

are, in fact, attaining their new positions without regard to their religious

affiliations?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the entire Legislature took such steps

last fall just before Christmas, in passing the new Schools Act which is currently in

effect and basically indicates that there will be a single, school system, Mr. Speaker.

The circumstance that the Opposition critic refers to, with respect to

hiring on the basis of factors other than qualification and experience, namely, religious

affiliation, was a feature of the denominational system, in which we do have

denominational schools operating this year for the last time in the history of the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, if there are denominationally-based schools operating in

September of 1998 or beyond, they will be private schools, run for a particular group and

paid for by themselves, not by the public purse and, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no

basis under law, in the Province, as of January 1998 for a school board to hire a teacher

on any basis other than qualifications, experience and the ability to do the job.

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

supplementary.

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

I wish to bring to the minister's attention that I have several

applications for teaching positions that are being circulated to applicants from boards

and were obtained as late as this week, and in these applications it is quite clear. What

has been asked for here, with this particular application, is, religious affiliation;

another one here, where in the applications, teachers have been asked to state their

religion, which, of course, is contrary to the will of this Legislature and contrary to

the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom and the Human Rights Code. I want to tell the

minister that I have had some complaints from applicants, because they are intimidated by

it, and would he today, assure all teachers and tell all school boards in this Province,

that they should not, under the legislation of this Province, ask for or expect any

teacher applying for a job to state their religious affiliation and to assure them that it

has no impact at all on the hiring practices?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no idea why that particular question would be part of an

application. However, Mr. Speaker, it is not that the posing of the question is contrary

to anything by law, the fact of the matter is, every individual applying has a right not

to fill in that section. There is no obligation, Mr. Speaker, for anyone to fill in a

section on an application stating what his religious affiliation or denomination is.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there is no obligation by law for

anyone to fill in anything on an application suggesting what their gender is, whether they

be male or female. Those issues are irrelevant and, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question. The

major question is not whether it is on the application, it is whether or not it is

considered at all in the determination of the job being filled.

Mr. Speaker, I will take the matter up with the school boards to make

sure again that they understand fully that there is to be absolutely no reference to

factors other than qualification, experience and ability to do the job.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just draw the minister's attention to

the fact that on this particular application, it says that an application for a teaching

position and all sections must be completed for each competition, then it mentions:

excepting where it says `optional'. The only optional clause here, is where it says:

`maiden name'. Where it says religious affiliation, it clearly says that you must fill it

in. A new teacher would take this application and would read it to mean that there is not

an option. This is very intimidating to young teachers. Therefore, I bring it to the

minister's attention and I am sure that before the day is out, he will cause this to be

happening and I seek his assurance on that.

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

MR. GRIMES: Without question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the hon.

member bringing it to my attention. We will take action with the school boards today to

make sure it is completely and absolutely understood that that should be no part of this

process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

As the minister knows, many communities in this Province are

experiencing severe economic difficulties, in large part because the moratorium has

destroyed their economy. Investment and infrastructure that they made during the good

times are providing to be impossible to finance and now the times are bad and the revenue

base is gone. Difficult times, minister, deserve special considerations. How many

communities have applied to the minister's department for funding under the debt relief

fund?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: The department, Mr. Speaker, estimates that there are

approximately 100 communities that we will have to address over the next year or two. Up

to now, we have taken care of, I think when the contracts are signed in the next couple of

days, around twenty. The serious ones, in my estimation, would be up around fifty, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister provide us with up-to-date information to indicate

which communities have received relief from this fund and in what amounts?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this House and the

public of Newfoundland and Labrador want to know what communities received debt relief. I

am sure that some communities would be quite embarrassed if their names were brought up in

the House, and how much they got, but I would certainly be willing to provide the hon.

member with the list if he wanted to come to my office. I could provide that but, Mr.

Speaker, some of these communities are in, like he said, desperate financial shape and I

do not think that we should be standing in the House talking about one community compared

to another. So my answer is going to be no, I am not going to provide it to the House, Mr.

Speaker, but I will provide it to the hon. member if he would like to see it, and if he

wants to release it, then it is up to him.

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

Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Also I would like to ask the minister: What is the criteria used to

select which communities get relief, and in what amounts? Is the minister confident that

the criteria is fair, in light of today's reality?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, when the program was announced the

government, at the time, announced that we were expecting communities, especially

communities that we - and when I say we, I mean the department - considered to be probably

not charging their residents enough per year. There are communities out there, for

example, that are paying very little in regard to taxes to the community. We said at the

time that government would be willing to do its share in helping these communities but in

doing that, the communities must show us that they are willing to do a portion, to do

something that would show that they are trying to do the best they possibly can.

The criteria, basically, Mr. Speaker, we did not really set anything in

stone. We said that we thought it was a departmental and not a government decision. We

thought that a dollar-a-day for services in the community per community, a dollar-a-day,

which is $365 a year, was a reasonable amount to ask for people to pay for water and sewer

services, street lighting, recreation and all the other things. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think

I can say today that there are still large numbers of communities in this Province who are

not paying a dollar-a-day. Now, I feel quite honestly that - I suppose with my experience

in municipal politics, $300, $350, $400 a year is not very much for a person living in the

community, that are getting services, to pay for those services. So the answer, Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. member is no, there is no set criteria. We did not write it down but

we have asked communities, based on where they are and their ability to pay, to increase

taxes to certain levels.

I guess the question is originating or being stemmed from the

conversation that was had yesterday with the media in relation to a town on the Southern

Shore. I was pleased to get a call yesterday from the mayor who basically, I will say,

apologized to me for what he said openly on the radio and since that particular time, this

morning, I signed a new deal with that town that I believe they will accept. They will get

a letter from me within a matter of an hour or so and I think that they will accept. I

think that problem on the Southern Shore is rectified as of this morning. I hope it is,

because I do not want to go through that again.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question this morning is for the Minister responsible for Forest

Resources and Agrifoods.

Over the last weeks and months even, Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot

of meetings around the Province, called by loggers, to discuss concerns with the forest

industry. Of course, you see some similarities between what is happening right now with

the forestry and what happened with the fishery, the crisis we are going through in that

now.

Mr. Speaker, the comparison is that it is a renewable resource that the

people who know it best, not the scientists, but the loggers, have raised some very

serious concerns. I think all members of the House of Assembly can agree to that. Of

course, when we see the wood deficit and so on in this Province, there is reason for

concern.

My first question to the minister: I would just like to ask him if he

had people at these meetings, and how does he respond to some of the concerns brought up

by the loggers at these meetings around the Province?

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

Agrifoods.

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

question, and I welcome it. It is a sensitive issue when you have technology in an

industry, and we have technology in this industry, especially in the last decade, and in

the next few years we will probably see some more.

We are, at present, the lowest mechanized province in Canada when it

comes to the forest industry, and we are going to see some movement toward that end. We

have had meeting with both unions, in particular. The loggers' unions represented the

forestry workers for both pulp and paper companies. We discussed with them the possibility

of some way to have a transition with the workforce, an adjustment for the numbers that

are affected. We have had some discussions with the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment about the use of a labour market agreement. So we are working on those

possibilities.

We also cannot ignore the reality of technology and the fact that it is

occurring in this business. We are going to see some more of it, Mr. Speaker, but I think

we are seeing a lot of jobs created in the sawmill industry. So the forestry sector is not

losing jobs at the end of the day. We are gaining a lot of jobs in the forestry sector

through integrated sawmills. There is a lot of good work being done.

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

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

First of all, I think it is a sensitive issue. Well, I know it is

because I have been talking to loggers for years in my district. It is no different from a

lot of others around. When you stop and talk to a logger on the side of the road who has

been working, he tells you the same stories that fishermen told over the years.

I agree with the minister, by the way, of course, that there is

technology in every industry. We move on, technology moves on, and we have to keep up with

that. I have no problem with the fact that technology is going to increase in the forest

industry and we have to make provisions for that.

My next question, Mr. Speaker, I guess, is one that the minister partly

answered. I am concerned now - and I guess you have to have foresight to make sure that

that is taken care of - the people who are replaced by these harvesters, that there is

some kind of program in place, some kind of transition in place, so that they move on, if,

in fact, mechanical harvesting is going to move on in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the second part of that question, which is also very

important, is: What control does the government have, and what policies are being put in

place, so that we do not see fifty harvesters move into the Province, or a hundred, or

whatever; so that there is some control over the harvesting? I think it is a direct

question that needs to be answered. The government needs to put a specific plan in place

to control and also to offset people who will be replaced by those harvesters.

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

Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the pulp

and paper companies about their plans for the future. We are discussing with them now the

plans that they have for further mechanization. We are trying to get a handle on what they

are proposing to do.

As I said earlier, we have had meeting with both loggers' unions. In

their collective agreements there is a guarantee of work for loggers. So what the

companies have been doing is guaranteeing employment for loggers, and through attrition,

trying to ensure that no one gets displaced.

Over the next two to three years, there will be some mechanization. We

have had some discussions with the unions about meeting on the Labour Market Agreement

which is a federal-provincial agreement. We are going to have some further discussions

with them. We have had, and we are going to have more discussions with the companies about

the impact of mechanization.

At the same time, we are trying to ensure that the industry is

efficient and that it survives into the future, and also that we see a lot of jobs created

in the sawmill industry. We are seeing a lot of jobs created in a lot of regions of the

Province, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Again, with the last comment the minister made, yes that is true, the

integrated sawmill industry has great potential in this Province. There are some things

happening in my own district now. I do agree that that is the way to move, as far as the

forest industry is concerned, to more use of our industry, Mr. Speaker, more use of the

resource so that it provides more jobs.

The next question, Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask today and have the

minister to respond to, is on silviculture. I say to the Premier, we talked earlier about

job creation and helping and so on. There is nothing I can think of more, Mr. Speaker, if

we can send anybody who needs a job into the forest industry to plant and thin trees and

do silviculture work. Because it provides jobs to plant them, it provides jobs while they

are growing, and it provides jobs at the end of the day.

The question is, as far as silviculture is concerned, and I think the

minister would agree that it does provide jobs - I hope the Premier agrees with that -

that with the statements lately by Kruger, silviculture programs, in the paper, could the

minister tell us what the silviculture programs for this summer are and how he feels they

are going to progress?

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

Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the silviculture

program the Province has put together with the companies. The last number of years there

has been major reinvestment in our forestry, in regeneration, and in silviculture work.

Last year we had over 2,000 people employed, collectively, in silviculture work all over

the Province in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So this program we will see again this

summer in probably around sixty to seventy communities of the Province. We had, I think,

over 150 projects last year. We will see the silviculture effort again coming this summer.

We will have a further announcement on the amounts and so on very shortly.

We intend on keeping up the major silviculture effort with the

companies because it is paying off. Down the road, for the future of this industry, we are

going to see our forestry stands in very good shape for the sawmill industry, which is

expanding. This year we had the highest lumber production on record. We also had the

highest pulp and paper production on record. Given a limited wood supply, we are doing

very well with it.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South; time for one

quick question.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had some questions for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture but

I don't have time to carry out the questions. I will have a quick question for the

Minister of Forestry and Agrifoods.

Minister, a few months ago myself, you and your staff, visited a group

of farmers in the Lethbridge area. Since that time there have been questions asked in the

House of Assembly, there has been a private member's resolution brought forward, dealing

with the control of moose in the general farming area of the Lethbridge area. I would like

to ask the minister if he has made any decision on allowing an early hunt in this

particular area. When can the farmers know what that decision will be?

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

Agrifoods.

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

question.

Before Christmas we went down and met with farmers in the Lethbridge

area. They have identified a major problem they have been having for a number of years. We

are looking at, and will have a decision very shortly, in the next days or so, on dealing

with an early hunt in that area specifically. We may have that decision early next week,

as a matter of fact. I will be passing it on through the House to the member. We are

concerned and want to make sure farmers in that area get support.

We are also looking at a crop insurance adjustment there to allow for

that. My understanding is that we have been able to get an arrangement that I think will

be acceptable. Again, we will announce that at the same time.

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier on a point of privilege.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House there was an

exchange of words, and at one point the Speaker asked members to withdraw certain comments

that had been made. The Member for Conception Bay South withdrew a statement directed at

the Minister of Education.

I also pointed out to the Chair yesterday, and to the Speaker

yesterday, that the Member for Conception Bay South had shouted statements across the

floor quite loudly. They could be heard both on this side of the House and, quite frankly,

in the gallery, words to the effect, directed to me: How much is he into you for, Premier?

Words to that effect. I don't know if I have the exact phrase, but words to that effect.

The member denied having made such a comment and I accepted, after some

debate, that denial. This morning on CBC Radio, CBC Radio was in fact playing two things:

one, the member denying having made such a comment; and then, two, by enhancing the tape,

the member's voice actually saying exactly those words repeatedly: Premier, how much is he

into you for?

Mr. Speaker, the clear implication there is of somebody contributing

money or giving money or somebody being on the take. This is clearly unparliamentary.

These words -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: It is not foolishness, I say to the Opposition House

Leader. These are serious allegations. They are unparliamentary. I understand that things

are said in the heat of debate and discussion. I would ask the hon. member now, again

today, to do the honourable thing, to stand and withdraw these words which have now been

broadcast across the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, to the

point of privilege.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me say that I do not think CBC Radio is the official

record of this House of Assembly. I have not heard the tape, by the way, so I really do

not know what CBC have played and I really do not care what CBC have played because they

have their own way of sprucing up the news, and I think that was fairly evident last

night, but I will say this to the Premier. Like I said, I have not heard the tape - I

assume the Premier has heard the tape - but if I have offended the Premier or anybody else

on that side of the House, I certainly will redraw the remark. Things are said in the heat

of battle. I certainly did not mean to offend you. If I did that, I certainly will

withdraw that remark.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome twelve

Journalist students from Lawrence College. They are accompanied by their instructor, Mr.

William Callahan, who was a former Member of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning

Act."

Petitions

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have a petition to the House of Assembly. The

prayer of the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in

legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS many public service pensioners who spent a lifetime

contributing to their society are now slipping deeper and deeper into poverty;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to ensure public service pensioners receive a raise in their pensions whenever

public servants receive a raise in pay, and to reverse the policy of clawing back Canada

Pension Plan benefits from public servant pensioners, as in duty bound your petitioners

will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we have spoken on this issue in the House on a number of

occasions. We have presented a number of petitions on this, and we will continue to

present petitions on this particular issue, because our public service pensioners have not

received a raise in pay since 1989.

Now that the public service workers are going to be receiving a raise

in pay, we feel it is only right that the public service pensioners do as well. The cost

of living has gone up considerably since 1989, yet the public service pension has not.

Neither have the public service workers, yet they are now going to be getting a raise.

Mr. Speaker, we have also made statements in this House and on the

record saying that if indeed government are unable to give public service pensioners a

raise in pay, the least they can do is discontinue the claw-back from their pension

benefits because of the fact they are receiving Canada Pension benefits. These public

service pensioners have paid into both pensions, both the Canada Pension and their public

service pension. They are entitled to both pensions. It is completely and totally

unacceptable that this government claw back from their provincial pension benefits a

portion of their Canada Pension benefits.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is there are over 11,000 public service

pensioners out there and many of them are, in fact, receiving a pension of less than

$11,000 or $12,000 a year. Many of these people are widows or widowers and have to keep up

a home. Many of these people not only have contributed much of their lifetime working for

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as public service workers but they are now

working as volunteers on community groups, different organizations, and still contributing

to society, contributing to this Province and to the people of this Province. The least we

can do, Mr. Speaker, is discontinue the claw-back of their pension benefits because of

them receiving Canada Pension.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the petition of

my hon. colleague.

Isn't it ironic that a couple of days after the anniversary of the

inception of HST we are standing here presenting a petition on behalf of some of the

people in this Province who are living at or below the poverty line.

Now somebody on the other side, when my hon. colleague stood up to

present a petition, said there are too many petitions. I think if you look up `petition'

in the dictionary, it would mean `plea'. It is unfortunate that the people, the residents

of our Province, have to plead and beg with this government in order to be able to sustain

some decent style of living.

The HST was instituted or brought in to give people a tax break. I

would like to know how much you can spend, when your income is $11,000 a year, to be able

to justify that as a tax break. People who are in higher income brackets, who can go out

and make major purchases, certainly get to take advantage of the tax break of HST. But our

pensioners, who have given so much of their lives to the service of this Province, who are

now living at or below the poverty line, whose expenses have been increased but whose

pensions have not been increased, are certainly not getting to take advantage of this.

I think it is incumbent upon this government to have another look at

the decision they made in regard to the pensions of the public service pensioners, to have

another look at the amount, and to index it at least to the raises that the public

servants themselves receive.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege today to present a petition on behalf of the

residents along the Southern Shore. This particular one is from the community of St.

Shotts, and it is related to the Goulds bypass road. There are petitions filtering in

every single day throughout the district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank God they do not have to wait for a cardiac

bypass, I say to the Minister of Health. Thank God for that. In fact, talking about that

bypass, I am getting a lot of calls from people waiting on that too, waiting for one year.

I had one particular person call just last week.

But this particular petition deals with more of an infrastructure

nature. It is pertaining to the construction of a Goulds bypass road. It has already, as

the petition would indicate, been identified under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation

Initiative. The prayer to the petition reads:

WHEREAS the construction of the Goulds bypass road has not begun

despite repeated promises from government; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has indicated that

construction of the Goulds bypass road will not begin this year; and

WHEREAS significant opportunities for development in the region are

contingence upon completion of the Goulds bypass road; and

WHEREAS the viability of our communities and businesses is dependent

upon adequate transportation infrastructure that allows our region access to the

opportunities and markets of the capital region; and

WHEREAS the growth of our communities is closely related to the ability

of our citizens to commute to work within a reasonable time each day over highways that

are in good condition; and

WHEREAS the financial resources to begin the Goulds bypass road have

been identified under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation Initiative;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to begin construction of the Goulds bypass road this coming year, as in duty

bound your petitioners ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very necessary link. I say to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, they are filtering in every day. It is not that I am

going to present you with one every day but I do have a couple of more. I am doing them by

community where possible, and I am expecting hundreds of others.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Actually, I only have two left. Each day when I go

in, one filters in through the mail, I say to the minister. I would like to have them all

at the one time, a few thousand at one time, to present. It would be suitable.

I am going to keep reminding the minister of the importance of this

piece of road to people not only on the Southern Shore but in the Goulds area, the

Kilbride area, and people who use that area, tens of thousands of people. In fact more

people utilize this area by tourism than there are people living on the entire Southern

Shore, right from St. Shotts into Waterford Bridge Road. There are more people who utilize

that, and they have the numbers to show that. From the increase in number -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I might say to the member that the bypass road out to

Conception Bay North is very important; it is vital. I occasionally drive down that

highway, every single community and every turn there. A bypass road would be very positive

there, not just for regular traffic but for businesses in the area being able to move back

and forth to the city. It cuts down on travelling time, it cuts down on their overhead

costs, the repair of vehicles. It is more efficient use of their time and, by the way, it

cuts down on pollution in the environment, as my colleague alluded to.

If you take forty-five minutes to drive from Big Pond to the

Confederation Building when it should be done in about ten or fifteen minutes, that is

thirty minutes more polluting the environment. Certainly, the last thing we want is more

pollution in our environment. We have been fortunate to have an environment that is - a

very sparse population and not too much industry.

With a smelter refinery in Argentia that is going to be on stream in

another two years, we will be turning out refined nickel. It is important that the

benefits from infrastructure are felt in all aspects. They are felt in the environment.

Reduction of emissions into the air is one aspect. Another aspect: it helps promote

tourism and move people into an area where they can move in quickly. They don't want to

spend all day long driving to a particular historic site. They want to be able to do it in

as short a time as possible. Not only that, it cuts down on the cost of maintaining

vehicles.

Going through the Goulds area with water and sewer, roads dug up,

pavement broken, bumps, it is unbelievable. If the minister drove even a little bit

further beyond where he lives, up to the other end of the Goulds, you will see that it

even gets worse. It is in desperate need. Then that minister, to say on CBC Radio last

year - I am sure the Premier is familiar with CBC Radio.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just thirty seconds to finish up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will present another one if they will not give me

leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: To have that Government House Leader, the Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal, say on the radio in the morning -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but the current one. You cannot refer to them by

their previous one when you are addressing them now.

To say that people who want to drive the roads should get up early in

the morning. How do you tell a mother with three young kids to get on the road at 6:30

a.m. and drive into work here for an hour-and-a-half? Probably her husband is away working

in Alberta or some other part of the country. You have to understand, you have to have a

reasonable convenience for people commuting to work and raising families.

I am delighted that the minister has seen the light. He has seen the

necessity of the Goulds bypass road now. He just threw out that little (inaudible) there

on behalf of his Cabinet and government to see what their reaction would be and, I can

tell you, it was quick. It was very quick on behalf of people in the area and people in

the rest of my district, in the Kilbride district, in the district in which the Government

House Leader lives, so he sees the value of it. We just hope that the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation also sees the value.

I will have to take him up to my district but I do not want to use my

car, the roads are too bad. I would prefer to use one of those 1,100 vehicles that are

being leased or bought by the government here, the excessive number of vehicles that are

used by the government, because we -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes. Tell us about all those that were bought

last month. Tell us about those that were bought this month, before the end of the fiscal

year. Tell us about all these, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will agree to hook on my trailer and put him in the

trailer, but not in my car. When I go into that district I want him behind me, to make

sure he is not in the one vehicle. If he were a good Works, Services and Transportation

Minister, he would say it should have been done long ago; He was the minister before and

it was not done. That is part of the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) archaeological dig (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. At least we have a minister there now, even

though he has not committed yet this year, who will given me a letter saying it will be

done and it is in the plan. At least that is something this minister has done. That is

something the previous ministers have not done. At least, Mr. Speaker, we are going to see

bulldozers, we are going to see activity and employment going on. Hopefully this year when

the tenders come in and are that extra million or two under what he anticipated, we will

be able to put it there and get something moving this year.

I am looking forward to those tenders being called under the

Newfoundland Transportation Initiative, those for the Island portion, to see what money is

left, so we can have a start there, have some activity and have some hope for people

there. I am sure the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans knows what I am talking about.

There are people who have invested hundreds of thousands, almost in the

millions, in building up in Bay Bulls an opportunity. Hopefully there will be an offshore

base there that employs, if not in the hundreds, at least in the tens of people right

there in the town to help community areas that have been devastated and to have a

transition from the fishery.

It is a community that is doing quite well, and it can become really a

hub of activity on the offshore if the minister, in his wisdom, can find a couple of

million this year to get a start there so that $10 million project will be completed

before 2002, 2003. We need it now. We need it as soon as possible, and hopefully we will

see some activity this year.

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

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

The Member for Ferryland is continuously receiving petitions from

people on the Southern Shore to have the Goulds bypass road started this year. This

petition is from St. Shotts. He presented a petition the other day from the people in St.

Shotts, in the District of Placentia - St. Mary's, and he presented a petition here

yesterday from the people in Trepassey.

It is quite interesting to note that the former Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation said here this morning that this should have been started

years ago, that the Goulds bypass should have been started years ago. I would have to ask

the question: If the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation believes that,

why didn't he do something about it years ago when he was Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation?

The present Minister of Works, Services and Transportation recently put

out a press release saying that the Goulds bypass would not be started this year but maybe

next year, a $10-million project, is it $10 million?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is something that is desperately needed for the

people of the Southern Shore.

The point I made yesterday, of course, was with respect to the

environment, and spending an extra half hour in that short distance from the Goulds to St.

John's, people travelling back and forth, the pollution from the exhaust in the cars and

the hundreds, maybe thousands, of cars each morning and evening travelling over that road.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ferryland mentioned tourism on the

Southern Shore and there is -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) last year.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. SULLIVAN: In the tens of thousands, (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: In the tens of thousands, possibly 50,000 people last

year, tourists, more people than live on the Southern Shore itself, travel the Southern

Shore visiting the communities of Bay Bulls, Witless Bay, Tors Cove, Mobile, Calvert,

Fermeuse, Ferryland, the whole gamut.

MR. SULLIVAN: Walt Disney (inaudible) film up there now.

MR. J. BYRNE: There is a film being done up there, Mr. Speaker;

that is what the Member for Ferryland tells me. Hopefully there will be a film done up on

the Southern Shore. For where, Walt Disney? Go on. That is interesting. More people going

to the Southern Shore.

What do they have to drive over? A road that is in disgusting, pathetic

condition; potholes, ditches across the road, repaved where people had put in water and

sewer over the years. Aside from that, the road itself is not designed to handle the

amount of traffic on the road in the mornings and the evenings. The Goulds bypass, again,

as I mentioned here the other day, is a part of the overall plan put together by the

experts, I suppose, at the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, for the

design and the flow of traffic in and around St. John's.

I would assume this is going to be connected to the Outer Ring Road

eventually.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Ferryland confirms that. It ties into

Pitts Memorial Drive, which in actual fact will be all hooking into the Outer Ring Road

and what have you, to facilitate the flow of traffic in and around St. John's. Again, the

sooner we get the Goulds bypass started it will be to the betterment of the people of the

Province overall, but in particular certainly the people living on the Southern Shore.

As I said, with respect to tourism and the regional economic board up

there in that area, they have supported this for some time now. The municipalities on the

Southern Shore support the construction and the start of the Goulds bypass road. As I said

earlier, the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation believes this should

have been done years ago. I cannot understand why, out of the amounts of money that are

going to be spent on road construction in the Province this year, that this cannot be

started.

In the Budget Highlights 1998 it was mentioned that the provincial

government is going to put in, I think, $16 million in road construction. If you join that

with the amount of money that is coming from the feds, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation has stated here in the House that this is going to be probably the most

amount of money spent in years and years on the roads in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again

we get back to the point: Why can't we use some of this money on the Goulds bypass?

In my district there have been some designs done and land purchased for

the Torbay bypass. That is something the former Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, the present Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, put on the back burner.

I know the response. He is going say now: You are a Tory, you are not going to get any.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Tory.

MR. J. BYRNE: There it is, see, Mr. Speaker? Did you ever watch The

Muppets, the two guys up in the gallery? There is one over there. The same old foolish

answer, wearing thin, the same old stuff. The Torbay bypass is a road that is desperately

needed down our way. If the Torbay bypass is not started, maybe the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation should look at putting in a four-lane highway down through

Torbay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to take a few minutes today to enlighten the government on

the details of this Budget. Right here are my copious notes, all on one page, I say to the

minister. I am just looking for the Budget book.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have my research, but in twenty minutes you don't

need to do a big amount of research.

The first thing I am going to do is talk about a false Budget that has

been presented. I am not going to say it's not true, it's a lying Budget, I never said

that at all. I wouldn't say that; that would be too unparliamentary.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Actually, I didn't say it was false. I said I am

going to talk about the false Budget.

Overall, when you look at the Budget and aspects of it - and I

mentioned yesterday, I only had just a few minutes to get into this - there is a

significant amount of money going to need to be found in the next year or two because

there is a structural deficit built into this Budget. I just make reference to it, and I

commented on this concern a year-and-a-half ago when we were talking about HST.

For example, we took a chunk of $348 million and we said, give us that

and we will forego $150 million in revenue; actually $240 million, but the other new taxes

brought in an extra $90 million. So we are going to forego $150 million in revenue from

RST to HST for the Province per year, and we will take a chunk of money of $348 million.

Now, what happened? Last year, in the Budget, we built in $127 million

- it is called transition assistance - out of that $348 million. This year we took another

$127 million and we used it. That is $254 million. That leaves about $96 million or $98

million left for the next two years. We are going to take $64 million and then $32

million. That would be $96 million left. Sixty-four million would be factored in next

year, and then $32 million and then it is gone.

In other words, what do we have next year? We have on this HST alone -

the $127 million will go down to sixty-some million - we have a $63 million shortfall

there, and there is going to be $127 million in two years, that the economy has got to

grow and get extra revenue on that 8 per cent that we are getting under the 15 per cent.

We get 8 per cent, the feds get 7 per cent. So, you take 8 per cent just on that item

alone, take $127 million, it is very, very significant.

We would have to have retail sales that would grow by a few billion

dollars. We would have to have a 67 per cent increase in retail sales in three years, to

make up for the shortfall on the harmonization.

I agree with a single tax. It is much more convenient, it is easier,

more effective administratively, less administrative problems associated with one

collector rather than two collectors, and so on. But we took a chunk of money that was

inadequate. It was inadequate to be able to meet it. It plugged a hole for the short term.

In addition to that $127 million we are using this year in the Budget

that won't be there next year, we have also borrowed on the future too by borrowing on

Term 29. We were going to receive $8 million a year forever. Over a twenty-year period,

that is $160 million. There are positive aspects to this too, you could look at it, and

that is not the point I am harping on. You took $130 million up front. You said: We will

take $130 million over three years, instead of $160 million over twenty years, and we will

get nothing for seventeen years. So this is the last year. There is $40 million in that

Budget this year, that is under Term 29, plus the $127 million under transition

assistance. That is $167 million in this year's Budget that will not be there next year.

So, we have to find $167 million by increased growth in our economy, increased taxation or

reduced expenditures, assuming all other factors and predictions remain the same. That is

a significant amount of money.

Where is it going to come from? We are seeing some being siphoned out

of education, not all being reinvested like we were told. We are seeing health care and

much, in spite - I will get to that little later. In this Budget what we received over

last year - it was painted and glossy in the fact sheets and the back-up information -

that $20 million went in last year. Well, that $20 million went in last year. That was not

enough to meet the overruns with boards in this Province. They are in the tens of millions

of dollars running in the hole. That is right. They are running in debt. The Health Care

Corporation of St. John's will be $21.8 million in debt, $4.8 million last year. They are

going to be running in debt this year and next year. With what they have, and the other

boards, they cannot even meet their debts; they are running up debt.

We put $10 million in. Now, look at $10 million extra in boards on

several hundred million dollars. They are just getting a little over 1 per cent. A little

over 1 per cent more went into the operating budgets of health care boards around the

Province this year when the inflation, by the government's own estimate here in the

economy, has said inflation is going to be greater than 1 per cent. So, the CPI, I think,

1.2 per cent, if I remember the figure correctly. It makes reference to it here in The

Economy.

In other words, inflation is going to increase more than the amount

that went into the budgets for health care boards to operate here in the Province, and 1.2

per cent is the figure they used. In other words, Health Care Boards this year, the Health

Care Corporation in St. John's and the Central and Western, all these boards, will be in a

tighter financial situation at the end of this year. If you look at the consumer price

index and the cost - and the consumer price index, while it applies generally to basic

goods and services, is more pronounced within the Health Care Institutions. Because in the

medical field, the cost of equipment and so on, and expenses, do not rise as slowly as in

other sectors, in food and various other things. So, we are finding that they are going to

have less dollars to work with, and that is a very grave concern.

We just wrote off $25 million in debt on school boards and we said:

Here are ten new boards. You are out there debt free now. You are not going to have to

borrow, we are going to provide money from the Province to give you for school

construction. Then we turn around and say to Health Care Boards: You go out now and borrow

$130 million to build a Janeway and close the Grace. It was $100 million in June of 1996,

it is $130 million now, and it is pushed ahead from 1998 to 1999, and the longer the delay

goes on the less savings there are because you haven't the consolidation taking place.

The minister told me yesterday that we are not going to move fast. The

slower they move in doing the job, the greater the costs incurred in the process, and the

further your savings are delayed.

What do we have? We have $130 million and that will not, I say it will

not, enable us to achieve savings within our system. When you re-organize and consolidate,

it is for one of two purposes, and I support it if it meets one or both of those purposes.

An improvement in the quality of health care is one and/or an improvement in the

efficiency in the administration of those services.

We have just spent $22 million by the time the debt is paid back for

the Grace and St. Clare's, by buying back; $6.5 million for St. Clare's and we just spent,

I think, four point some million on the Grace. It came to $11 million. When it is paid

off, with the St. Clare's over twenty years - it is costing over $750,000 a year, with six

years to repay the debt on the Grace Hospital. There is still a cost of restructuring.

That comes to $1.1 million a year. It adds up, in total, to $1.9 million a year, each year

it is going out now; just to pay for the purchase of those facilities.

Add that $2 million on top of the $130 million, and if you look at the

$22 million we are going to pay overall, if you want to apply that to the cost of

restructuring on top off of the $130 million they are admitting right now, we are up to

$152 million; not counting the moving costs, the transition from closing down the

facility, not counting the equipment in the newly renovated structure or in the new

additional structure. I can tell you, we are going to be up to $200 million.

There was supposed to be a $20.5 million saving by doing this, we would

have $20.5 million extra which we could reinvest. I asked the Health Care Board, at their

first annual general meeting that they held when they were formed, how much savings are

going to be realized, and what are you going to do to finance it? They said: There are

going to be $20 million in savings when we restructure health care here in the city of St.

John's under the health care Corporation. We are going to take $10 million of that and we

are going to use it to pay on the money we are borrowing, and $10 million to reinvest in

the system. Now the costs have gone up and we do not have $10 million in savings, it is

down to $7 million; not factoring in all those other costs. The Auditor General addresses

many of these particular areas too.

So, we are going to revamp a health case system that I predict will end

up having less dollars for operation, and we are going to be paying for bricks and mortar

from the operation money that is given to Health Care Corporations. That is what is going

to happening. Now, it should not happen. Furthermore, when you look at it, we have the

lowest number of beds per capita of any Province in the country today. We have the lowest

number of acute care beds of any Province in the country today and we have a population

that is older, an aging population, which tells us something is wrong. When you have more

older people and more people needing hospital care, surgery, and you have the lowest

number of acute care beds - we have gone from 3,000 to less than 2,000 in the last seven

or eight years - it tells us that there are people out there today that need to be in

hospital that are not in hospital, that are on a waiting list. It tells us that people in

hospital today must be very acute cases, very, very acute cases.

We have a massive problem in the administration of health care in our

Province. We have problems with almost every single board being able to carry out the

duties and responsibilities entrusted to them. What are we going to do with these boards

now? We are telling them take child welfare, take family rehabilitative services, take

youth corrections; on top of boards that do no have their financial house in order.

The minister tried to say the last day, in response to a question, the

Committee on Children's Interests recommended putting child welfare with Health. I do not

have a problem with that. I don't care whether it is in Social Services, Health or Human

Resources. It is not important where it is, it is important that the structure is in place

to deliver the service that is provided. So it not a cosmetic thing. It should be a

functional, highly operational service that is provided, and it does not matter what

particular bowels of government it is placed in. It should be able to be functioning and

with the personnel to do.

We have a massive problem here within the health care of this Province

and it is crumbling down around our ears in administrative wastage at the organization

level. We do not have the systems in place. All we are seeing now is people getting

shuffled around. Chairs were shuffled around boardroom tables that did not achieve the

purpose that we wanted to achieve. We are gobbling up tens of millions of dollars, I will

not say hundreds, but we are gobbling up tens of millions of dollars in administrative

inefficiencies in our system, that should be used to pay more nurses on the front-lines

and more front line workers in other parts of the Province.

It is unbelievable that somebody cannot get a handle on the system here

to get it up and running more efficiently. It is a very, very serious problem that we are

facing that is going to become more acute in the future; more acute as we lose our young

people, as we lose the people who do not take up a big chunk of the costs of medical

services here in our Province. It is the very youngest people and the oldest people that

consume the greatest amount of services and costs in our system, particularly aging

people.

How many people in their seventies and eighties have you heard of today

that are driving away to the mainland to live? Not very many. Who are the people going

out, the 3,128 people who went out in the last quarter? At that rate, 12,500 people over a

year, about 8,000 last year. They are not people in their seventies, eighties and nineties

going out of here. The people who are staying here are the elderly people. It is their

home, they are living here. We are going to have a more pressing problem in the future if

something is not done.

To throw extra responsibilities on it and tell them they are now - and

here is another big issue - not only responsible for new things, when they have not been

able to handle administrating the ones they have, but now you go out and borrow. We are

going to not only make you responsible for taking care of the sick, we are going to make

you responsible now for the steel and mortar that is going up. We are going to make boards

responsible for that. Not elected boards, entrusted and elected by people to run it, as

the people want, but hand-picked appointed boards. Many of these boards have competent the

people. All boards, I guess, have at least a certain number of competent people, who have

experience either in the administrative end or in the medical field. It is very important

that the public who have a vested interest should have an opportunity to have the

representation on those boards. We just saw it with school boards. If we are going to

entrust the education of our children and our future to elected boards, should we not

entrust the future of our health care to elected boards and the people out in society who

have various skills and so on to bring to the particular job?

Now only that, this year, much as government likes to delay it - I

mean, we had a balanced Budget last year actually, more than a balanced Budget. We had a

surplus last year in the Budget, even though the Budget did not show it. The Budget never

showed it. What was tabled in the House last week, well we did not need this to show it.

What we wrote off in the last fiscal year, that would have been a balanced Budget. We

wrote off a $4 million, a scholarship fund, warrants that were signed on March 13, tabled

here just this past week. The scholarship fund for the next two years was paid out of last

year's Budget. That is $4 million there that we could have had. Twenty-one point eight

million, given to the new corporation for the construction of schools in the Province. It

is called The Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation. Twenty-one point

eight million for construction of schools, $4 million for scholarships; that is $25.8

million right there just on those two items alone, paid in last year's Budget but to be

spent this year and next year. So we had a surplus Budget last year.

So, we are all setting the stage for next year's Budget that will start

showing - transfer many of the costs, pay then out of this year, because we provided a

Budget last year, that I said from day one when I was finance critic and Leader, is not a

true and accurate Budget. It deliberately misrepresented true figures. Maybe I will

withdraw the word `deliberate'. It might be unparliamentary. It misrepresented the true

figures, as I said, and we would see in the final analysis.

We have the proof here when you look at it. The proof is there. They

painted the picture they wanted to paint. So when their figures came in, look, we are on

Budget, we are ahead of Budget, it is very easy to do that. It is grand to paint the

picture and then show up: We could have had a significant surplus this year but we wanted

to wait until next year. Next year will certainly be closer to an election year. It will

be three years after next February. When the next Budget comes down, you will have entered

your fourth year then and you have all these little prepaid things and goodies to show; a

nice, surplus Budget and lots of desk-thumping here. When you run out of here next year,

after the Budget and all the desk-thumping, and run out to the people: We are going to

have an election now; surplus Budget, some dollars thrown into health care and education,

all of a sudden another big charade and we have a little election next spring again.

So I am sure it is all part of the plan. It is pretty transparent,

though. You don't have to look very closely at the figures, at the results, at what is

happening to see the direction that government is taking.

There are some other areas here (inaudible) too. Some of these are the

creative accounting, I guess, setting the political directions. Some others are certainly

legitimate. Some others are direct, real expenses that occurred during the year, that were

not included in the estimates; some are. We had the Outer Battery slopes stabilization

project for which the provincial government has the responsibility. The city should not

have to bear that responsibility. I agree with that. I do not have a problem with that

one.

There are other areas: Municipal Affairs; debt financing; and there are

those on job creation for a devastated people out there who were ready to turn to social

assistance and managed to get some temporary job creation. We know it is not the long-term

solution but it is important; people who have no food to put on their tables, in a house

with an income that puts them below the level of social services, and they have to resort

to that. To maintain their dignity, at least they go out and get work for a period of time

and get a certain income, and then they would, basically, draw down on an EI fund whose

surplus is going up to $19 billion at the end of this year, and they will not do anything

about it. It is their right to utilize it, to draw on a fund that has a surplus.

We should be stronger here in that, the provincial government, in

saying that it is criminal, they should not be allowed to be running up surpluses in the

EI fund. It should have a certain amount of money there for emergencies. You should lower

the premiums or increase the payouts. It is as simple as that, if you have a surplus in

and EI fund. I can see taking out a chunk to use for job creation, for training, or in

areas where it would help people become employed. I mean, those are noble motives for an

EI fund. But not to syphon billions, throwing it into the general revenues of the country

and not utilized for the purpose for which it was given.

I mean, that is under a false pretence. That is really fraud, what is

happening. It is a fraud to take money for EI premiums from individuals and businesses and

use it for some other purpose. That is not why it was created and it should not be allowed

to happen. That is what Paul Martin did and that is wrong. That is how he helped balance

the budget, by doing that, by robbing the EI fund and cutting back health, education and

social assistance payments to provinces, down-loading. It was not an appropriate way to

go.

This government responded in a certain way, by saying to

municipalities: Now you have to take the responsibility. The feds are doing it to us, we

will do it to you.

Mr. Speaker, we have the same taxpayer - myself and everybody here is a

taxpayer, or most people, at the municipal level, at the provincial level, and at the

federal level - coming out of the same pocket, and it is being pushed down to the lowest

level where people are in the greatest degree of difficulty in trying to cope with what is

already happening with an economy that has been on a downward slope since the closing of

the fishery in 1992.

There were many instances before the closure of the fishery in 1992.

Back in the 1980s in Labrador, northeastern, further up on the northeast coast and those

areas, experienced a fishery downturn before 1992. The member for the Straits and those

areas, and Southern Labrador, and White Bay, Bonavista and those areas, Notre Dame Bay. In

those areas we have seen a pronounced decline in the fishery. It is only off the coast of

the Avalon that the fishery was very prosperous, up to the time the moratorium was

announced, and they had some of their better years. So we have seen that downturn prior to

We have looked at students in the process. Students haven't received

the appropriate assistance they need under this Budget. One of the biggest problems we

have is with the debt load of students. Just imagine a twenty-two-year-old or

twenty-three-year-old today coming out of university with a $25,000 or $30,000 debt. Some

people can afford to be able to contribute to their children's education, or have some

avenues, but most people can't. The Paul Martin millennium fund or Chrtien millennium

fund is only going to help 6 per cent to 7 per cent of people in this Province. What about

the 93 per cent that it can't help?

This scholarship fund, it is an (inaudible). While it is something, and

anything that is positive I applaud it, it is not going to help those who are burdened

with debt relief who come out of school, bright, intelligent people. What are they going

to do? They are going to leave this Province because their debt load is too high to be

able to recover and make their payments, to be able to get a car. You have to be able to

drive to get to work today. As you get a bit older you have to settle down. You can't

repay your debt by staying here and hoping to get a substitute teaching job, or whatever

the other job is, and working half a year; or getting five months' work and getting EI for

the rest of it.

What are you going to do? The bright ones are leaving. I have spent

over twenty years in the school system and I have seen it. I have seen it today. Some of

the brightest students that I have taught in school, today are working with computer

companies in Ontario. They are working with very prominent companies. Many of them are

with Northern Telecom. They are out there today, engineers in the field. There was one in

my office this week who has gone with a major oil company, right out of school and into a

major job that is paying close to six figures - right out of school into a job - because

they wanted to go somewhere where they could pay back that $30,000 or $35,000 they owe.

They can't do it by staying here and hoping to get a job.

We need to do something to keep these bright entrepreneurs, leaders,

not just of tomorrow but some of them are really becoming leaders of today, out there in

the business world. We have to do something more than throwing $1,000 at a student today

and saying: Here, that is what we are going to do for you.

What better way to take surplus in the (inaudible) fund into education

and invest it? If you are going to do something for all students, maybe we should

contribute more to Memorial to keep tuition down, or keep the tuition down in our

colleges. Students also indicated they wanted debt relief and they didn't get it. That is

what they wanted. I spoke with the Federation of Students at their AGM last year and the

year before. I addressed them and sat down with them, and I have met them in my office and

the boardroom. Students today, I can tell you, while they certainly appreciated that, and

that is part of the problem, it doesn't address the high debt loads we are facing today

that are doing two things basically.

One main thing that is happening is the high debt load is driving

students out of this Province. That is what is happening with doctors. I have spoken with

doctors; I have taught people who are doctors. I went to university and went to a pre-med

program with people who are doctors today. A doctor who moved to the States to go to work,

last May told me: I never got a call from one person in this Province recruiting a doctor

in med school. I went to med school here at the Memorial, and not one person called me and

offered me a job, to go to work here in Newfoundland and Labrador, to recruit me. He and

his wife packed up and went out of this Province. They went to the States. They called him

in May, when he was finished. He had a commitment, and they left here. That person is down

working in the United States since last May or June, whenever they went. He never got

called.

We have doctors leaving on the West Coast of this Province today,

psychiatrists leaving. We are in a crisis here in health care with children, several

hundred on a waiting list, waiting to get the necessary psychological and psychiatric care

that they need, and a place that is full because we are too wrapped up in the large

administrative structures of bricks and mortar and dollars into corporations that are

administrative nightmares.

You talk to people in the system today here in this Province, and our

health care boards by and large are an administrative nightmare. The minister admitted

herself -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he ask for leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is leave being withdrawn?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I really appreciate the five seconds of leave I did

get, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I am pleased to rise in my place today to say a few words about the

1998 Budget.

Mr. Speaker, where do I start with respect to this Budget? The first

word I would have to use to describe this Budget is `trickery'.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentlemen wants to know where he should start. I

suggest to him that he start with the cover -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - and that he look at the Coat of Arms and spend his

whole thirty minutes talking about the Coat of Arms, because he will make a lot more sense

than he is going to make when he is talking about the details of the Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The Hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker I have to speak about the Government House Leader with

respect to the Budget. That member over there, the Government House Leader, the Member for

Fogo I think it is.

MR. TULK: No, it is Bonavista North.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am sorry, Bonavista North.

The Government House Leader has been a member sitting in this House of

Assembly longer than almost anybody else here, other than a couple: the Member for Terra

Nova, the Member for Windsor - Springdale, and a couple of others maybe. How often has

that man - and he is the Premier's Government House Leader - stood in his place since I

have been here and talked about a point of order? I do not think, in maybe the fifty,

sixty or seventy times, he had a point of order yet. Obviously, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of

order.

MR. TULK: If the hon. gentlemen would like to know how many times I

have lost a point of order in this House, I will have a count done for him on Monday and

present him with the evidence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

The Government House Leader is going to give me a count of how many

times. I would like to get the percentage also. Could he provide me with the percentage,

how many times he was right?

MR. TULK: Yes, (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, get the percentages. Just let me know that,

that is all. I would say 90 per cent of the time he did not have a point of order.

MR. TULK: Maybe ninety-five.

MR. J. BYRNE: Maybe ninety-five he says, so there it goes.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is your point?

MR. J. BYRNE: My point is this: We have a Government House Leader

here who does not have a clue about what he is doing in the House of Assembly. That is the

point. And if I have to explain that and spell it out for the Member for Humber East - you

have to put everything in black and white. The level of intelligence, he just cannot

figure things out. You have to spell it out for him.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this Budget, the word I was using to

describe the Budget was `trickery'. Why do I use that word? Because they talk about a

balanced Budget by the year 1999-2000.

Mr. Speaker, last year they came down with a three-year Budget. A

three-year Budget they had planned, and the three-year Budget was something like two pages

long. Now if you look at the regular Budget, Mr. Speaker, it is usually a document like

this. Now they come out with a three-year Budget and are going to have a balanced Budget

in the year 1999-2000.

Mr. Speaker, the word `trickery' again comes to mind because last year

they announced a lot of cuts for the next three years. Now how many cuts did they announce

this year, Mr. Speaker? None, because they were all announced last year; but I am sure

they will be implemented this year, Mr. Speaker. They try to gloss things over and make

everything look hunky-dory and wonderful for the people of the Province.

As an example, when the Minister of Finance was presenting the Budget -

and I don't recall the specific item - I remember him announcing something in the range of

$500,000.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Can you? I was wondering about that.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, well -

MR. SULLIVAN: The context.

MR. J. BYRNE: There you go, there is no point. It is the context,

as usual. I am not talking about an individual, I am talking about a document, so I think

the Speaker would rule it in order. Mr. Speaker, I think you would rule it in order if it

was questioned but it is not being questioned.

Now, to get back to the point I was making, the Minister of Finance

announced a $500,000 item in the Budget. But when you size it up and look at the

Estimates, it was cut something like $100,000. The people believed out there, and putting

it forward, that they were getting $500,000. They were, but they did not tell them they

were being cut by $100,000.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that would describe you would it?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I don't need to use that word, Mr. Speaker. The

Budget is what I am talking about here now. This document, Mr. Speaker, and I went through

the -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Who was?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Finance was talking (inaudible), he

said.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of items. I only have a half hour to speak

on this topic, on the Budget, and there are so many things to address. For example, Mr.

Speaker, in the Budget I did not see anything in there that was specifically directed

towards the out-migration in this Province. The biggest, single problem facing this

Province today is out-migration, Mr. Speaker, because it has such an impact on all aspects

of the Budget, all aspects of the services for the people of this Province, out-migration.

Now StatsCan put out a release the other day saying that the Province's

population shrank by a record 3,128 in the quarter ending October 1, 1997. The previous

record for the three months was July 1, 1997, when it shrank by 2,126. Now that is over

5,000 people, and when there are 5,000 people leaving this Province the transfer payments

are cut by $10 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Ten million. If 5,000 people leave -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is what is here, according to StatsCan.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) for every person that leaves this Province,

we lose (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Directly we lose $1,700 in equalization and $500 in

CHST for each person directly. That is $2,200 -

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, according to StatsCan, from

'93-97, because of the out-migration in this Province, the Province lost $40 million in

transfer payments; $40 million from '93-97. There was nothing in this Budget that was

directed at stopping the flow of people leaving this Province.

I was saying here the other day in this House of Assembly, I was making

a comparison, how ironic it is that we have Dr. House at Memorial University putting

articles in the paper now talking about the recovery in Ireland, about the great recovery

in Ireland, how they approached it and what they should be doing, and how this Province

should be doing it. Now I find it strange -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, no, when my time is up you can get up and speak.

No, I don't have a question. I am just making a statement with respect

to how it is ironic that we have a situation in the Province today where we have the

highest out-migration ever that we know of since statistics have been kept.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: When you get your chance, get up and have your say.

Mr. Speaker, the out-migration in this Province now today is outrageous. We have a

professor at Memorial University, Dr. House, who is making the comparison with respect to

the recovery in Ireland. We had a situation in the 1800s, I think it was, when we had the

potato famine in Ireland, where they had an out-migration in Ireland. Many of those people

came to Newfoundland, down to the States, the Eastern Seaboard and what have you. What I

am saying is we are 200 years behind.

We have the Premier of the Province who got elected the last time

around - and many people on that side of the House got elected on his coat-tails the last

time around - promising a better tomorrow. Here we are, two years later, and we have the

highest out-migration ever, in the Province. We are looking at a cycle of 200 years. Maybe

we will get a recovery 200 years down the road. I hope I am wrong, I sincerely hope I am

wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: He was talking about Alberta.

MR. J. BYRNE: He may have been talking about Alberta. But, Mr.

Speaker, this Budget does nothing to resolve that situation.

It is only a couple of days ago that it was the anniversary of the HST

being implemented in this Province. Again, it was something that was pushed down our

throats. There was a lot of objection to it. We, on this side of the House, brought up a

lot of concerns with respect to the HST. The point that was made was that we were going to

drop it back from basically 19 per cent - when you combine the RST and the GST - to 15 per

cent, and it would save money for the poor people in this Province.

I would like to know if there have been any studies done in the past

year - and the government has the bucks to do whatever they want to do - as to how much

money the average family saved. I would venture to guess they did not save any money.

Because I remember the Member for Baie Verte taking a typical family, I think, of two

children, a low-income family, or someone on social assistance, and looking at their basic

needs and the amount of money they have, somewhere around $11,000 or $12,000, and they

lost $700. That is alone, just with the HST. The Member for Baie Verte did that before we

brought in the HST and did a comparison of what things would cost with the HST, and they

did not save.

Because what happened, I say to the Member for Conception Bay East

& Bell Island, was that there were more items taxed. For example, Newfoundland Power,

the electricity rates were taxed that were not taxed before, and that is a bare necessity.

How many people with that salary range or that income can go out and buy clothes every

month? They have to pay for the electricity every month. They get second-hand clothes,

hand-me-downs. That is the problem, and those are some of the points we made.

The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island is over there

trying to inject, asking me questions. I am up speaking, making the points I want to make

with respect to this Budget, and there are a lot to be made. I only have a half hour. I

would suggest that the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island get up and speak

for a half hour on the Budget, and we will see what he has to say, see if he will support

the Budget as he is saying here in his seat.

Just some of the highlights from Budget Highlights 1998 that was put

out by this Administration. It comes with the Budget each year and it is a good thing.

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Support this Budget? You will see if I support this

Budget, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. I am sure he supports the

Budget. He supports whatever the government says, Mr. Speaker. Whatever the Premier says,

he says it. He supports the government on everything, even stuff he has second thoughts

on, and I know. The Minister of Government Services and Lands should be very careful and

thankful to me, as a member over here who has asked him questions in this House of

Assembly, has been very kind and gentle with that minister, because I think he is a decent

man.

I remember being in a public meeting with that minister. He was just

new on the job, mind you, Mr. Speaker, and I had to come to his protection. I had no

problem doing that, so he should not be trying to heckle me. He should be over there

encouraging me to make my -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Could you speak up, I cannot hear you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will not get into it - I want to

address the points on this Budget. Because there are so many things I could say about the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture over there, who is trying to distract me from the

concerns of this Budget.

In the third item, Mr. Speaker, with respect to living within our

means, the Government says: that the Government continues to be prudent in its financial

management and accordingly is providing for a $30 million continency reserve again this

year - $30 million, Mr. Speaker - a contingency fund. Now, I understand, if I read the

Budget right and listened to the Minister of Finance - he talked about a $10 million

deficit this year - $10 million, I believe - and if you take this $30 million out of the

budget for the contingency fund, in actual fact, there is a $20 million surplus - $20

million this year that this government can do what they want with. Basically they can take

$30 million and come up with some hairy-fairy idea, whatever they want to do, and spend

this $30 million, without coming back to the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I have to

question that. Last year they had $30 million for the same thing, and I am sure next year

they will have another $30 million - that is $90 million - $90 million over three year for

the government to spend in whatever way they wish.

In the departmental estimates, Mr. Speaker, there is certain criteria

set down - certain allotments of money that have to be spend on certain subheads, but this

$30 million, they can do what they want with it. Maybe the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs and and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board might be able to see

fit to fund a new arena on the Northeast Avalon out of this, Mr. Speaker - $1 million is

all we are after for an arena on the Northeast Avalon, with the municipalities pumping in

$130 thousand, the committee pumping in a fund raising over $100 thousand, and private

investments of possibly up to $1 million - we had last year. That would create jobs on the

Northeast Avalon, something that is desperately needed for the people in the arena -

something they had been looking for for ten years. I thought, Mr. Speaker, we had it last

year - an arena in the Northeast Avalon or the funding for it - but, no, we seem to lose

it at the last minute. So maybe, out of that $30 million they might see fit to come up

with $1 million for the municipalities on the Northeast Avalon.

Mr. Speaker, some of the other concerns:

They talk about no tax increases in the Budget again this year. They

said the same thing last year and the same thing the year before that, but let me tell you

this, Mr. Speaker: the year before last, in the Budget, they had no tax increases, they

said, but there were three pages of licenses, fees, permits, increases doubling, tripling

and quadrupling and fees for things that have never been charged for before. But there was

no tax increase. That was the year before last - three pages listed down. Mr. Speaker,

last year there were six pages of licenses, fees, permit increases that were doubled,

tripled and quadrupled and there were fees charged for things they had never charged for

before.

MR. TULK: Do you want more?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader is asking do we want

more. My goodness!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am saying there is going to be - when I get a

chance to go through the Budget and the Estimates - I am sure-

MR. TULK: None in there.

MR. J. BYRNE: None in there - well, I hope the member is right - I

hope nothing increases. I want it to go on record, Mr. Speaker, that the Government House

Leader there today, is saying that there is no licensing -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, that goes right back to the point I

made a few minutes ago, that they announced all the bad stuff last year and implemented it

this year.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am being honest with the people. Tell them what is

coming, do not come in here and try to paint a hunky-dory beautiful picture for the

people. Tell them what is coming. But I want to put it on record, that the Government

House Leader just said, when we go through the Estimates this year, there will be no

license fee, permit, increase of any -

MR. TULK: No (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Increases I am talking about.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Ah, Mr. Speaker, now he is changing. So there you go

again, right back to the point I was making a few minutes ago. Be up front with the

people, I say, with respect to this Budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will continue. Here is one, Mr. Speaker, in the

Living Within Our Means: No new layoffs are anticipated. That is what he said in the

Budget; then, within hours, the media interview him and he says: Well, 100 people will be

going but here, it says: No new layoffs are anticipated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, there you go, Mr. Speaker, exactly confirming my

whole theme on this Budget of not being up front with the people; trying to lead them

astray and let them think that there are more benefits in this Budget than there really

are. Here is one. Now, this is a beaut, Mr. Speaker, this is a beaut: "Government has

consulted with the people and is making investments in education, health care, and the

reform of our social programs." Government has consulted.

Now, I understand that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and

maybe the Member for Conception East & Bell Island had public meetings within two or

three weeks of the Budget coming down, consulting with the people. Can he really and

honestly believe that the recommendations or any points that were made at these meetings

were actually included in the Budget? Sure, the Budget was out, being printed then. It was

all decided, and that was only a faade, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Just listen, now. Listen to what I am saying.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and the Member for

Conception Bay East & Bell Island - his assistant or whatever you call him now -

MR. SHELLEY: Tag-along.

MR. J. BYRNE: Tag-along.

- had public meetings two weeks before the Budget came down, asking for

public input and consulting the public.

Now, can he expect the people to really believe that what they were

saying was included in the Budget, when this was out being printed then? I mean, it is too

foolish to talk about, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of

order.

MR. TULK: Let me give the hon. gentleman a piece of information -

for his information - and I think this can be proven correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, it is, because the truth of the matter is that the

Budget was not put to print until I believe either the second last night or the last night

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes, sure.

MR. TULK: No, I say to the hon. gentleman quite sincerely that

there were changes made as a result of the consultations that the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board made, even up to the last evening before the Budget was brought into this

House, and I think I am absolutely correct. I am sure I am correct.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Government House

Leader was providing further clarification to hon. members of the House of Assembly.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: So there is no point of order again, and now the

percentage of you being wrong has gone up to 96 per cent. With respect to what you just

said, that the Budget was printed the day before, if it were printed the day before, two

weeks before, you were out having these public hearings, getting people's input, and you

mean to tell me that a Budget and all the Estimates that were that thick, were all changed

and adjusted within a couple of days?

Mr. Speaker, how will I put this to be within Parliamentary rules and

be diplomatic?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I cannot say - oh, no, no, I would not do that. I

will just say that I cannot accept what you are saying, I do not believe it in other

words. I just do not believe it.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You might be mistaken; you could be mistaken.

Another one, Mr. Speaker: Government will "add back" 200 of

the 425 teaching positions that would have been eliminated - Now, Mr. Speaker, I have seen

in the past that not the attitude but the tactics, I suppose, of this Administration, and

the one before them, would be: Put it out there that we are going to lay off 1,600 people,

feed it out to the people, and then lay off 1,200. Then: Oh my God, great, we only lost

1,200 instead of 1,600.

Here the same thing could be happening. I'm not saying it did happen,

but they said: We are going to lay off 425 teachers, but now they are going to keep 200.

That is something that could be considered that may have happened. I'm not saying it did,

but it is a tactic that is often used by government, Mr. Speaker.

They talk about a $4 million award for post-secondary students, which

could be 4,000 awards of up to $1,000. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that is a step in the

right direction, it really is, to help the students of this Province, but it doesn't go

far enough. It is for the University and the College of the North Atlantic, but it does

nothing for the people attending private schools within this Province. These private

schools, by the way, mushroomed during the TAGS period when the money that was allocated

for the fisherpeople of the Province - and it made millionaires out of people who started

up these schools, training people. I don't care who they were. I'm talking about rights

and wrongs.

Here is what I was saying all along - and this may be starting to be

addressed now, hopefully it will be addressed in the post-TAGS thing - that we have

somebody who is forty-five, forty-six or forty-seven years old in the fishery who doesn't

have a high school education. These people have to get their high school education and

they have to go out then to get post-secondary education. They would have been better off,

Mr. Speaker, if they had taken this money and bought these people out and got them out of

the fishery altogether. To give them these false hopes was wrong. To take the money and

make other people who had nothing to do with the fishery rich was wrong. That's from my

perspective as an individual.

I went to a number of appeals for people when the core fishery was on,

and what have you, Mr. Speaker, and it was shameful to see what these people had to go

through to be qualified to remain in the fishery. If they had done it right in the first

place we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today.

Mr. Speaker, I had a lot of notes to comment on with respect to this

Budget, but it seems like I only have a few minutes left. One thing I wanted to talk about

while I was up was this: We had a meeting the other day with Tina Fagan, with the Canadian

Sealing Association. They are now doing a wonderful job, Mr. Speaker, in promoting the

seal fishery, let me tell you, and I believe they are on the right track. They are being

very positive with respect to the approach they are taking. They have videos done. They

have centred on a family, and they are showing the requirements of the seal fishery in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the historical aspects of the sealing fishery in

the Province. They aren't directly out opposing IFAW and what have you. They are putting

forward the positive aspects of the seal fishery, how it impacts upon the families of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the income, the usage, the full utilization of the whole

carcass from the innards, we will refer to them as, to the fur outside. Possibly there can

be many jobs created in the future from this industry.

The minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture last fall made a big to-do

with respect to the seal oil capsules. It seems to be quite a positive thing in the

Province, and they are being produced. Hopefully, in due course the seal oil capsules will

be produced in Newfoundland and Labrador and we can create an industry there alone from

the seal oil capsules.

So, I just wanted to comment on that because I was really impressed

with the presentation that Tina Fagan gave to the Opposition caucus, Mr. Speaker.

Now, another point that needs to be addressed - and the Premier touched

on this last night really - is the perception of the people up along, as we refer to it,

on the mainland. The single most group, I suppose, that is having the biggest impact on

that is The Globe and Mail . Last night I watched the CBC news and I saw the Premier

in debate with Brian - who?

MR. SHELLEY: Brian II.

MR. J. BYRNE: Brian the second.

Now it was hard to tell which one was the smoothest, but I would have

to give the nod to Our Brian. He did a good job, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't expect to hear that from me to often, but in

the mean time he did and it was -

MS S. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I'm sure he is listening.

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm sure he is listening.

But in the meantime, it is something that has to be addressed, The

Globe and Mail and the issues that were brought forward by the Premier last night with

respect to the sealing industry, the TAGS, the Hibernia and there are a couple of others,

Mr. Speaker. It seems that The Globe and Mail is always negative towards this

Province. It was good to see him stand up for the Province, as he did last night. I am

sure he had all kinds of reasons for doing it, there is no doubt there. I can't impute

motives here in the House, I know that, but I'm sure he had some ulterior motives too, but

at least I thought, on a couple of occasions, the person from The Globe and Mail

was embarrassed, and rightly so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, back to the Budget. They also talked in the Budget,

under Social Reform, about bringing opportunity and independence to families. It says, the

basic rates for individuals and families receiving income support will be increased by 7

per cent over the next three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, now I'm being attacked by my own side

for complimenting the Premier. I will do that no more.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, talking about people on social assistance

basically getting a 2 per cent increase in 1998-99; 2 per cent. Now, a single individual

who is capable of working is getting, I think, something like $87.50 a week. You get 2 per

cent on that, I don't know, about $1.60 or something, is it? One dollar and sixty cents a

week: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a great, great increase for an individual to live on in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If you put that up with respect to a single

parent and a couple of children, Mr. Speaker, its negligible. Its almost an insult,

really, Mr. Speaker. Two per cent: Not nearly enough.

The people in this Province - and I have said it many, many times in

this House of Assembly, how people out there in this Province do not know where their next

loaf of bread or pound of butter is coming from, to put food on the table in this

Province, Mr. Speaker. It seems -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. members time is up.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SHELLEY: Can't deny leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: He can't deny leave.

MR. SHELLEY: And the Minister of Health and Community Services

can't deny leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to determine whether the hon. member has leave.

Does the hon. members have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member