May 11,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No.

The House met at 2:00 pm.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before beginning our routine proceedings, the Chair would

like to welcome to the gallery today thirty-five Grade X Democracy students from

Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts, in the District of Port de Grave, accompanied

by teachers Mr. Ed Wilding, Ms Corinne Ellsworth, and Mr. Donald Sullivan, bus

driver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling our routine proceedings,

Statements by Ministers, the Chair would like to rule on a point of order raised

by the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis on April 29 respecting comments made by

the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

The Chair did review the comments made by the hon. Minister

of Mines and Energy. The minister was speculating on an event that had taken

place some time earlier. Looking at the comments that were made, the Chair has

come to the conclusion that really what is happening here is a matter of a

difference of opinion between hon. members as to what happened in a given event

that had taken place some time earlier.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday afternoon I made reference to the Leader of the

Opposition being out of the House, in jest. I would like to withdraw that

statement and apologize for making it because I understand he has very good

reason for being out.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

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

Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today, we begin the implementation of the first phase of a

commitment we made earlier this year when we announced the formation of the

Provincial Tobacco Reduction Coalition. I am happy to see some of the Coalition

members in the audience today in the galleries.

The Tobacco Reduction Coalition includes representatives of:

the Canadian Cancer Society, Newfoundland and Labrador Division; the

Newfoundland and Labrador Lung Association; the Heart and Stroke Foundation,

Newfoundland and Labrador; the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmaceutical

Association; the Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Community Services

Association; the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association; the Department

of Education; the Department of Government Services and Lands and my own

department, the Department of Health and Community Services.

This is the first action we are taking under the Tobacco

Reduction Strategy and in due course the Minister of Justice will announce

measures which government will take in terms of legal action against tobacco

companies.

Today, we will introduce legislation to amend the Tobacco

Control Act for the licensing of wholesale and retail vendors of tobacco

products. Unfortunately, access to tobacco products by youth continues to be a

problem in spite of the current Tobacco Control Act which forbids selling or

giving tobacco to those under nineteen years of age.

With the new amendment, all tobacco vendors will be required

to have a licence to sell tobacco. The licence will be free of charge as this is

not meant to penalize responsible vendors but rather to deter those who are

selling tobacco to our youth.

If a vendor breaks the law by selling tobacco to a youth

under nineteen years of age, the license can be suspended. The suspensions can

be enforced by inspectors of the Department of Government Services, which makes

implementation of this change more efficient and effective. Additionally, since

the places where cigarettes are sold are routinely visited by inspectors for

other purposes, incorporating this action will be easily achieved.

It will reduce the burden on the provincial courts since it

is an administrative action rather than a court action. This action can happen

in a more timely manner since it does not require scheduling on a busy court

docket. Equally important, the youth will no longer be required to take

part in

the court process as a witness.

The penalties for a violation range from a first offence when

the license is suspended for two months, up to a third violation when the

license can be cancelled. In the event that a vendor continues to sell tobacco

without a license, the vendor can be charged and subjected to a fine ranging

from $500 to $20,000 with each subsequent offence.

Mr. Speaker, the Coalition has been very busy during the last

few months and will soon announce the appointment of a program manager. Details

of program plans are anticipated in the next few weeks and will include public

education initiatives which support this amendment particularly in the area of

public support for reducing access to tobacco by youth. This morning the

Coalition members met to discuss some of the education initiatives, including

the development of mandatory signage to be posted by vendors and information for

youth which will explain the role tobacco advertising plays in their decision to

smoke.

Our actions today are supportive of the provincial Strategic

Social Plan and follow our direction of prevention and early intervention as we

seek to educate our youth about the dangers of smoking and send a clear message

to vendors who sell tobacco products. It is not illegal for youth to buy tobacco

products but it is illegal for vendors to sell tobacco to youth under age

nineteen.

Mr. Speaker, we are not making criminals of our children.

Instead, we are demanding that vendors act responsibly when they sell a product

which can have a devastating impact on the youth of our Province. It is the

number one cause of preventable illness such as cancer and heart and lung

diseases. Also, it robs society of productive members and families of their

loved ones.

It was interesting yesterday to, in fact, hear a

representative of the Canadian Manufacturers Retail Association talking about

the link between health and smoking, and that smoking causes a list of diseases

as long as your arm. I think that is a very important statement to be made by

someone selling tobacco.

In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge all the members of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Tobacco Reduction Coalition for their efforts and

support. I encourage all of our citizens to help in this effort. According to

the recent drug youth survey, youth continue to smoke at an alarming rate. One

in five are daily smokers.

We know that easy access to tobacco contributes to this

problem. Youth tell us that it is easy to get cigarettes. Sometimes they buy

them singly, or buy the package from a retailer. Sometimes they buy illegal

cigarettes, and sometimes others buy cigarettes for them. If we are going to

prevent children from taking up tobacco use, we must all work together: the

community, the government, our parents and our families.

We are proud to take this step for the health and future of

the children of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly, too, welcome members from the Tobacco Reduction

Coalition here in this House today. It signifies the importance of prevention as

opposed to cure, and trying to deal with the effects that tobacco has on the

lives of people here in our Province in particular.

We fully well know, and it is very well documented, and there

is medical evidence to show, the strong link not only with cancer, as the

minister alluded to, but heart and circulatory diseases - very many lung

diseases - associated with circulatory problems are very much the leading cause

of the problems here in this country and here in our Province.

Any action to take an aggressive means to deal with it - I

have long been an advocator of prevention as opposed to cure, and having

aggressive advertising, aggressive education, right down in the earliest ages in

our school system. I think we need to be very proactive. We need to spell out to

these people, through our various health programs and through our basic science

programs, the ill effects of cigarette smoking.

Many people realize when it is too late, people in their

teens. It is good to see the Retail Manufacturers Association talk about and

particularly acknowledge the concern. It is also important that those companies

be held accountable and not go through the back door in selling their product by

paying for movie companies, production crews, certain dollar values to have

their cigarettes displayed in movies that are exposed to these children. It is

cool to drive a car, a convertible, and have a cigarette in your hand.

Back door methods are not going to solve this problem. You

have to use the total approach to it. An admission is one thing, doing it and

being up front about it is another thing. Until we see those results right

across it there, then I will say they have really done their job.

I am pleased to see that we are moving to address the cause

of these problems in having to deal with health care professionals trying to

combat the effects of tobacco on young people and old people and everybody.

Every single person here in this House, I am sure, and in this Province has gone

through the tribulations and the grief by having someone in their family

afflicted with diseases resulting from this and resulting in death. When you see

that it is usually too late to do something about it. So now we have to have an

aggressive approach.

I encourage the minister, and the Minister of Education too,

to get more aggressive within our school systems to combat this problem so we

can all have a safer, happier and healthier life that is free from tobacco and

other related products.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too rise in support of the minister's efforts in this area.

Because most young people, by the time they realize, understand and identify the

dangers that are related to smoking, are probably hooked and addicted to the

extent where they find it very difficult to throw down the use of tobacco. Any

effort that is made to restrict the use of tobacco by young people is certainly

one to be applauded.

There is also the problem of second-hand smoke which up until

a few years ago did not get much attention, but as time went on and more studies

were done, the breathing in of second-hand smoke and the dangers and health

risks associated with that resulted in it certainly getting lots of attention

these days.

I also appreciate the approach where it is illegal to sell

rather than buy. I think that is an effort and a direction that is useful to

young people.

Again, I would just like to thank the minister for her

approach. I hope that this program is very successful.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to release

CareerSearch , the most current and comprehensive report of employment

outcomes and experiences of post-secondary graduates ever produced in the

Province. The report contains the results of a telephone survey of 1996

graduates conducted approximately one year following graduation. The purpose of

the initiative is to provide educators, program planners, career counsellors,

institution administrators and, most importantly, students and the public with

current, relevant information on graduate outcomes.

This report provides information on the actual employment

success, initial earnings and satisfaction levels of graduates at the program

and institutional level. The information will enable the public to assess the

extent to which individual programs at Memorial University - including the

Marine Institute -, the College of the North Atlantic and the private colleges

generate positive outcomes for graduates.

CareerSearch consists of two documents: one for Memorial

University, which includes Sir Wilfred Grenfell College and the Marine

Institute, and the other for the College of the North Atlantic and the private

colleges in the Province. Each document contains individual program profiles

using nine graduate outcome indicators.

This report gives students unparalleled access to current

career information, enabling them to make informed decisions. Prospective

students may weigh the relative costs and benefits of a program in relation to

their own aspirations and expectations.

This compilation of evidence based research will be made

available in all high schools and post-secondary institutions across the

Province and will be available on government's Internet site. In addition, a

series of in-service sessions will be offered to school district personnel and

others involved in counselling youth on career decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I present the CareerSearch documents as

evidence of this government's continued commitment to accountability for

educational performance. It is the latest in a series of initiatives developed

by the government to improve the quality and accountability of this Province's

education system at both the post-secondary and K-XII levels.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, of course in ten minutes I did not

have an opportunity to really digest all that was there but I did scan through

it quickly. I think it is important to note satisfaction levels and what people

are finding out in the various programs offered through our private and through

our public colleges here, and our university here, in particular.

It is important that we have accountability in education.

Hopefully the research and the results here will be used to enhance and improve

programming to direct people in the areas where employment prospects are much

better and so on to channel our resources where they can be most efficiently

used and get the best result.

I did have an opportunity to notice that the most educated

people in our Province are the ones that are not staying. That is in the report

here. In fact, it makes some reference here on page 7, on Memorial University.

The people that have marine diplomas, marine advanced diplomas, bachelor

degrees, honours degrees, master's and medical doctors -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just about ten or fifteen seconds to finish

up?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: These are the people that are in the 40 per

cent range leaving our Province for work, and those that have diplomas and other

certificates, a higher percentage are staying.

The point here, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to ensure that

the best educated, the dollars we invest in the people for seven, eight and nine

years of education, does not get lost as they seek job opportunities in other

provinces. We have to be able to have the mechanism in our Province to imply our

most skilled and best people that are leaving our Province at an alarming rate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to welcome the publication of this report. Now I hope

it will available to every student who wants to pursue a course. I only wish it

was available a couple of years ago when wild promotion, lifestyle advertising

of the private colleges was going on without any evidentiary basis for the

student to compare. When we finally got the report of the previous minister,

Post-Secondary Indicators '98 , the wide divergence of incomes and outcomes

from education for a private sector versus public college information was

finally made available.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If I may, by leave. Now individuals have

access to the actual results from a particular course in a particular college. I

hope the minister has enough copies so that any prospective student who wants

one can get one.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and

Community Services. In December 1996 the St. John's Nursing Home Board was

established. It set a precedent as the only regional board set up to deal

exclusively with long-term care. The creation of a single entity was designed to

manage six long-term care facilities in the city which have evolved separately,

and that integration was supposed to have occurred.

Minister, it is two-and-a-half years since this board was

established in December 1996. The board itself has cost her $750,000 a year.

Their mandate was two-fold: to maintain and enhance long-term care and to

achieve efficiencies through integration. I ask the minister: Will she tell this

House what has been achieved after two-and-a-half years? Has an organization

analysis been completed and if so, will she release it?

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

Community Services.

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

Over the last number of years all of the various long-term

care sectors have been working together under one board. Just recently, a number

of those signed a Memorandum of Agreement. As the member opposite knows that

whenever you merge organizations, particularly with different cultures and

values, there is a certain amount of work that needs to be done.

Each of these organizations have come together under the

board and they have been trying to work through the vision and the values and

their ethos, as they would describe it, in terms of how they would like to see

the new board operate. One of the main reasons why the boards came together was

to look at a plan in terms of how you could deliver services across a city.

Because, as you know, across the rest of the Province many of our long-term care

boards are already in alignment with our community health boards, our

institutional boards, and also through a single entry system, whereby people

will be able to access nursing homes based on their need and when they appear on

the list, and not based on other factors, such as having some sort of an inside

source to a (inaudible) facility.

There were a number of various initiatives that were

identified as goals for this particular group and they have been working

together. It has been a very challenging experience because of the number of

various, as I said, cultural and value differences within the organizations, but

they continue to work to achieve those goals.

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister did not indicate an organization analysis was

complete. By the way, Minister, I have a copy of an organization analysis of the

St. John's Nursing Home Board. It has not been released publicly. The report

says that: The ownership and administrative structures of the homes remain

unchanged after two-and-a-half years and the St. John's Nursing Home Board has

budgetary responsibilities but minimal operational control. It goes on to say:

Substantial losses occurred in the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1998 and the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, and they are expecting a funding shortfall of

$1.5 million to $2 million expected in the year 1999-2000.

I ask the minister: Why are those losses occurring when those

privately operated nursing homes did not lose money before the government

appointed boards took over?

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

Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You know, Mr. Speaker, it is a really

interesting question. Because on one hand every day you hear the member opposite

standing up talking about the aging population and the demands on the system. We

live that every day. We know what the demands are on the system and so do the

people that are delivering the care. The actual control did remain with each of

the organizations, and that is why we have been working through the board with

each of the various organizations to try to reach a memorandum of agreement,

many of which have been signed. Part of the process is looking at ways to

achieve financial savings through various things, even things like snow

clearing, and doing it for the whole group as opposed to each doing their own

individual snow clearing arrangements.

There are a number of initiatives going on. Again, I have to

say that we are seeing a strain on our system right across, in all sectors. Our

institutional sector, if the member knows, is very much linked in a continuum to

the long-term care sector as well as the community health sector. Each part has

an integral part to play in how the other one functions.

We do have an aging population, but we also know that we have

a population that in more and more instances chooses to stay at home. That is

why we have one of the best home support programs in the country with respect to

twenty-four hour care. We know that other people would choose to go to a

personal care home as opposed to a nursing home, meaning Level I and Level II.

Mr. Speaker, the system is changing. There are challenges. We

know that we do have an aging population, but we are working with all the

factors and recognizing it is an integral part of the institutional as well as

the community health sector.

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, some of these sites, according

to this report, do not meet provincial standards for accommodation and space, as

the minister is well aware, outlined in the Agnew Peckham study in 1993.

This analysis here on page 13, prepared by the board, by the

way, acknowledged that resident rooms, washrooms, bathing facilities, dining,

lounge space, often limited choice, impinge on privacy, dignity and

they inhibit imagination, creativity, and vision for improving the quality of

health care in the future.

I just want to ask the minister: What does the minister

propose to do to eliminate those impediments to a proper quality of care?

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

Community Services.

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

We are very aware of the need to maintain fire and life

safety standards and also maintaining national standards. In fact, we know we

have to put in place a number of initiatives to continue - and we do it on a

continual basis - to do the types of changes we need to maintain fire and life

safety and national standards. We also are working very closely with the boards

to look at putting in place a process - over a period of time, in anticipation

of the needs of our society with an aging population -, of putting in place a

long-term strategy to look at doing a number of things. One is to upgrade our

publicly funded long-term care sector, and we are also working with the private

sector to look at achieving their role in terms of providing that kind of care.

There has been ongoing discussion about maintaining

standards. We do have in place a committee and we are also looking with all of

the boards to put in place a long-term strategy on how we can upgrade. Because

the reality is many of our nursing homes were built in a time where we had a

number of beds in a room. For example, more than three beds. We know that that

is less desirable, and we are trying to function within our financial means as

well as trying to meet the needs of the public. Together, Mr. Speaker, we are

working with the publicly funded system to address those needs, but we are also

working with the private sector so that they can help achieve some of our needs,

particularly through the personal care home sector as it relates to Level I and

Level II care.

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, you have known these things since the 1980s, since

the 1990s, in the Agnew Peckham study, in study after study, and your own

appointed board here responsible to the minister has acknowledged that it does

not meet the standards today and it has not been addressed.

The Province has been trying to transfer governance from

those private operators, private owners, to government controlled and operated

boards. Has the minister looked at attaining efficiency by coordinating such

services as financial services, the human resources, education and training, et

cetera, and those services, by coordinating these and allowing various religious

owners of those homes to continue providing service and resident care? Has that

been an option that has been looked at?

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

Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows

that. What do you think the boards are? Is this another attack on the boards?

Are you gearing up to attack another board? Is this what this is all about?

Because, I just got through saying and explaining that we did

not purchase, outright, the various facilities. We try on this side of the House

to work with people to achieve some consensus around how we do things. When you

bring together a group of individual organizations with different cultures,

different values and different ethos, it takes time. The whole purpose, if the

member listened to my previous answer, of doing this was to achieve financial

savings, to bring together administrative savings in the best possible way.

I am not going to say we have been shoving it down their

throats. We have been trying to work with them as best we can. I know they

prefer to do things differently - get rid of the boards, get rid of the CEOs,

get rid of everyone, as far as I know - but we try to work with the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is how we have been working all

along. I will say again, the board has been working. We have being working with

a number of organizations from different cultural, religious and value sets, who

have been delivering care, quality care, in our Province for a long time. We

will continue to work with them to try to continue to deliver that care in the

best way, but everyone who sits around that table is committed to achieving

savings both financially and through the administrative structure. That is what

they are doing there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I hit a nerve with the

minister. She knows that she is the impediment to this deal taking place. People

will tell you that.

Every nursing home in this Province, I say to the minister,

outside St. John's, is under the operation of the respective regional health

boards -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had a job to hear myself, with the Premier...

Every nursing home in this Province, outside the City of St.

John's, is under the respective health boards, with one exception - the

Pentecostal Home in Clarke's Beach. I want to ask the minister: Why is every

other home outside the city, in this Province, put under the health boards and

not this one?

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

Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, you can call it what you

like but the board is together under one board to deliver health services.

The member opposite says: I have hit a nerve with the

minister. You know something? There are all kinds of phobias out there. There is

fear of open spaces, agoraphobia, but I do not know what the fear of the

Minister of Health is called - something phobia - because, when you answer a

questions and give the information, he has no other response but to come back

and say: I have hit a nerve.

The facts are the facts. We are working with this board to

achieve the care in the city; and, because we have chosen to do it somewhat

differently in St. John's, does that mean that it isn't right, it isn't

appropriate? Does that mean we should have shoved another approach at this

board?

Mr. Speaker, each board and each community has a way of

working. In some situations the boards have worked together under one

collaborative group, like here in the city. In other ways they have aligned

themselves with other boards. But the bottom line is the delivery of care, and

that is what is happening at that board as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, you cannot have it on one hand in the City of St.

John's and apply another standard outside to a certain area.

Nursing homes are not funded in this city by government on

the level of care, but they are funded on historical reasons. Why, Minister, are

you allowing the government owned Hoyles-Escasoni to receive 46 per cent of the

funding when it contains less than 38 per cent of the beds - and many

unoccupied, I might add. Are you deliberately forcing those privately run

nursing homes now, since the boards started, to show a loss for the first time

to justify taking control of them?

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

Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, talk about talking out of

both sides of your mouth. On one hand he is standing up asking me one day to put

a dialysis unit somewhere where there are probably three patients because of the

specific needs of that particular area, and then he tells me on the other hand

that you have to treat everyone the same. One size does not fit all, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) maiden question (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, it just got a maiden minister, I say

to the Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Development

and Rural Renewal. The minister knows that rural Newfoundland is hurting today,

like never before. The minister knows, I venture to say, that there are more

boarded-up houses in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today than at any time

since Confederation.

Those who can afford to move out of the rural parts of this

Province have gone. Those who cannot afford to move are looking at their next

move. Now the Premier can toot away; that is the fact and that is the reality

out there. Those who cannot afford to move are looking at their next move,

whether or not that is a move to the welfare lines.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Development and

Rural Renewal is this: For some time, the people out in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador have been told that there is post-TAGS funding coming from both levels

of government. I want to ask the minister today whether or not he can tell the

House if that funding is in place - the second phase. Is it in place? How much

is it going to be, and who is going to control it?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. gentlemen

for his question. Yes, we are aware of most of the facts that the hon. gentlemen

laid out, that there have been some difficulties in rural Newfoundland. There

have been some difficulties caused by a groundfish moratorium which saw some

40,000 people get out of work in this Province, but that happened in 1992.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was in office?

MR. TULK: I think it was a federal government that was in

office. I could say, I suppose, if I wanted to stand up - I am tempted to say

what caused that problem.

Mr. Speaker, rural Newfoundland has had two real problems. It

has had a groundfish moratorium, but let me say to the hon. gentlemen that there

is a bigger problem throughout this Province entirely, and that was the

inefficient and the wasteful spending of past governments, including the one

that he was in.

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

Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the next lot of people in rural

Newfoundland that join the U-Haul brigade out of Port aux Basques will be

delighted with the minister's answer.

I want to ask the minister this: With this new lot of

post-TAGS funding - the minister did not answer the question: Is it in place,

and when is it coming? But let us assume it is coming; everybody says there is a

certain pot of money out there in post- TAGS - can the minister tell this House

what economic strategy is going to be deployed to utilize that funding, and to

what areas of the economy is the funding going to be directed?

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

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

let me be completely realistic with him. This side of the House does not portray

the negative side of what is happening in this Province, that the hon. gentlemen

does. We are not down in the mouth. There are some good things happening in

Newfoundland.

Let me say to the hon. gentlemen, let me answer his question

about TAGS. The people we will consult with, whom we have been consulting with

on TAGS, that the federal government has been consulting with - both the

provincial Liberal government and the federal Liberal government - are the

people who we have said: Alright, we want you to be partners with us in

developing rural Newfoundland, namely the Regional Economic Development Boards

and the municipalities in this Province.

Who is going to control it? Let me say to him, there are four

levels. There is a federal level, a provincial level, a municipal level and a

developmental level. All four are involved as partners in the use of this $81

million, which we are proud to have put in place in rural Newfoundland to help

develop rural Newfoundland. We are targeting those funds at rural Newfoundland.

I want to say to the hon. gentlemen that I hope we do not

waste it like some of the past governments in this Province have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, to the people out there in

rural Newfoundland today who are waiting to hear announcements on this funding,

will the minister tell the House what time frame is anticipated for the release

of this funding, for the approval of projects, and for work to get under way in

rural Newfoundland today for people who are facing welfare lines? They are

phoning every day. What is the minister and the government going to tell them?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I find this line of questioning

from the hon. gentlemen incredible in that he stands up and asks what we are

doing, when I have just laid out to him what we are doing.

Let me say to him that the post-TAGS job creation program -

what have we done? We have been advised, for example, by HRDC that they

allocated some $40 million in 1998-1999 and that there is already some $6

million in the current fiscal year allocated under the post-TAGS program; that

there are some 673 projects which were approved in 1998-1999 employing some

7,421 people.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many people are working now?

(Inaudible).

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman, if he would sit back and

listen I will tell him.

Mr. Speaker, the division between the $6 million budget for

the job creation program and the $13 million set aside for labour adjustment

markets have been - let me say to the hon. gentleman, that kind of practice and

the kind of work carried on by this government has led to the highest GDP growth

in this country. It has led to the drop in unemployment, seasonally adjusted

like we have not seen in a number of years. We are projected to lead -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Total jobs went up. Labour participation

also went up.

MR. TULK: The total jobs went up. The total labour

participation, which is a sign - I say to the hon. gentleman, labour

participation is a sign of a recovering economy, of a growing economy, and that

is what is happening in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are working with the federal government

to get those projects in place and, let me say to the hon. gentleman, that soon

will be better than it is today.

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

for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the minister

this, on behalf of the people out there in rural Newfoundland who are waiting to

hear: How many jobs will be created this spring as a result of this latest

funding? Will those jobs be EI insurable?

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

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

gentleman that how many jobs will be created this spring is a matter of what we

can get in place as fast as we can, and it is a matter of work that has to be

carried on between the federal and provincial governments. Let me assure the

hon. gentleman that we will spend the money wisely. There will be no

middle-distance fleets built out of it. There will be no middle-distance fleets

that will cost this Province $24 million built out of it - on which we are still

paying $4.5 million a year in interest. There will be none of that, let me tell

the hon. gentleman. There will be none of that from this side of the House.

There will be none of that waste of money which has led to the kind of situation

that we find ourselves in today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. In April, 1997, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation entered into an

agreement to consolidate the management and administration of social housing

programs previously administered by both corporations. We now see less money in

provincial grants to the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and

properties are being sold off by the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation. Therefore, there are less revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing to spend on the social housing program.

What impact, I ask the minister, will these actions have on

the rental rates in the short term and in particular the long term for

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing clients? In fact, won't the minister admit

that increases are in the not-too-distant future?

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

Provincial Affairs.

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

Yes, it is true that we did take over about 4,000 units from

the federal agency, Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation. We have integrated them

into our NLHC management system. We have responsibility for them, but along with

that came a substantial stream of federal money commencing with the devolution

and going forward, I think, into the year 2038.

So we are in no circumstance or in no way in a cash crunch as

a result of taking over the housing stock. As a matter of fact, what it has done

for us, it has given us greater flexibility to do things in a more

cost-efficient way and deliver more programs and services to people out there.

As an example, in the provincial home repair program,

whereas once we were

constrained by some federal regulations as to how we could deliver that program,

today it is solely ours to deliver and we do it in a more efficient, a more

cost-effective manner, and we deliver actually more services for less money to

more people as a result of the devolution that we have gotten involved in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

I say to the minister, that is not the answer I got yesterday

when you admitted to increases in the not-too-distant future in the Estimate

Committee meetings.

With respect to agreement signed in April of 1997, with

Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, there were two options: to maintain

the status quo or accept the new agreement. I ask the same question as the

Auditor General was asking in her report this past winter. Why did government

and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing accept this new agreement with a projected

deficiency of $6.9 million to $26.9 million, and why was a proper and adequate

analysis not done of the two options before they signed the agreement?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member either has a serious lapse of memory or he

does not know the questions he asked in Committee yesterday morning. He did not

ask me any questions with respect to rental increases, and I did not indicate

that there were any rental increases in the offing. The rental increases that

were put in place a year or more ago are there, they have been announced, they

are in place and everybody is aware of them. I frankly have no recollection of a

question yesterday morning in Committee with respect to rate increases. You did

say that you had some questions that you were going to ask in the House for

greater clarity, and I suppose for greater exposure in terms of your -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I would be happy, I say, to do so.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the more substantive part of his

question, as to why we got involved in the devolution of social housing from

Central Mortgage and Housing to the Province to manage, simply put, with great

respect for the questions being raised by the Auditor General, we did it because

we believed it was the right thing to do in the interest of the clients that we

serve and in the interest of the stock that we manage. We believe that

management can be executed better by one agency as opposed to two.

While the federal government had 4,000 units and we had about

8,000 units, now we have the works. We do a better job in administering it, I

say quite modestly, than was being done heretofore, we are getting greater value

for our dollar, and we think it is a good experience. We think we have done the

right thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

I ask the minister: Why was the final agreement signed with

no provision for the $6.6 million required for modernization and improvements

identified by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation staff prior to the

official signing? Why were the over 4,000 houses not inspected prior to the

signing? Won't this affect the rate for the clients for Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing in the future? That was pointed out by the Auditor General, by

the way.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the best way I can answer that question is to offer

the hon. member an opportunity to come over and talk to the people at the

Housing Corporation and in my department and have a fuller explanation as to the

nuances of the devolution process.

The devolution process took place after a lot of discussion.

There are a lot of issues involved in it. At the end of the day, let me say

that, with great respect to the Auditor General who raised those questions, I

would assume quite appropriately in her judgement, at the end of the day the

devolution of the CMHC federal housing stock to the Province, laid against the

revenue stream that we have achieved as a result of taking over that

responsibility, was an appropriate thing to do. It was a good move on behalf of

the social service and other clients that we manage and provide good shelter for

in the Province.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are also for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation regarding the Gulf ferry service in this Province.

There has been an ongoing debate in recent years, but the truth is that it goes

back since Confederation. Here we are in the fiftieth year of this Province

talking about our link to our country. Some people refer to it as our

Trans-Canada.

I would like to ask the minister: What representations have

you made with your department to your federal counterparts on the upgrading of

this service in recent times?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we have made a lot of

representation to the federal government with respect to issues surrounding the

gulf ferry service. The Gulf ferry service, as you know, is managed by Marine

Atlantic, the federal agency which today have responsibility for that. We have

continuous dialogue with them, and on occasion directly with the minister. As a

matter of fact, I can share with the hon. member that I met with the chairperson

of Marine Atlantic just two weeks ago to discuss some issues. I have a meeting

in Ottawa on Friday morning with the federal minister to address some issues

that we are discussing as between Marine Atlantic and ourselves with respect to

that service.

So our representation is ongoing. We are making best efforts

to ensure a couple of things. Number one, that that service is continuously

upgraded to a level that will be acceptable generally to the travelling public,

and that it would be provided at a cost that is not prohibitive in the bigger

picture to both commercial traffic and individuals who want to travel; and,

number two, that the service will be provided with the best possible and highest

quality level of boats and crews.

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

Baie Verte.

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

I am glad to hear the minister is off to Ottawa again to keep

in touch with his federal counterparts on this. I will be specific in the next

one.

The Atlantic Freighter , which is some twenty or

twenty-one years old - the minister can confirm what age it is exactly - but I

was told even if it was new it would not be adequate. We have had concerns

raised by truckers, tourist groups and people in general in this Province. I

would like to ask the minister: Has that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, it has. As a matter of fact, the

Premier is exactly right. Tourism is up. Therefore if the ferry service was

inadequate before it is certainly going to be inadequate now if we have the

increased numbers.

My question to the minister, specifically on the Atlantic

Freighter , is: What representation has been made on the Atlantic

Freighter and a replacement for that inadequate vessel?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the question, because it gives us an

opportunity to say what has been said by many of us on this side of the House at

every opportunity we get. That is, contrary to what the hon. member would like

to pontificate with respect to the economy of the Province, there is an

increased demand for service on the Gulf.

We are maxed out in terms of particularly commercial traffic,

the road traffic. The trucking traffic that comes into the Province, as a result

of economic activity in the Province, has increased substantially. As a result

of that, you are right, the Atlantic Freighter is outdated,

substantially. It has a short shelf life left, or ocean life left, whatever they

call it in the business, water life left, and sails life left. We have been in

discussion, as has the board of directors of Marine Atlantic, with the federal

minister with respect to a replacement for that boat.

I mentioned that I met with the Chair of Marine Atlantic a

couple of weeks ago. We very specifically talked about a replacement for the

Atlantic Freighter . They have some ideas at Marine Atlantic as to what they

would like to see done. I do not want to get into their business plans at this

point, but they have some very good ideas as to what they think should be done

to replace that vessel, and in the process increase the capacity of the service

to address the traffic needs currently, and we anticipate will continue to

increase.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As directed by

Section 56(1) of the Automobile Insurance Act,

I table in the House today the annual report of the Board of Commissioners of

Public Utilities for the period April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999.

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, entitled "An Act Respecting

Municipalities," Bill 14.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has

been Given.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I wonder

if we might to revert to Notices of Motion?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is asking for leave to revert to Notices of

Motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House

resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain

resolutions for the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty for the fiscal

year 1998-1999.

Thank you.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition. The petition reads:

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

in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland:

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been

upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago, and;

WHEREAS this

section of Route 235 is in such a terrible

condition that vehicles are being damaged, including the school buses serving

schools in the area, and schoolchildren are finding their daily trips over the

road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the 5 kilometres of Route 235 from

Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, this is a different petition. It is brought

forward here every day. Petitions are arriving in my office every day, I say to

the Speaker, as well as letters. I think the acting Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation will confirm that his office is receiving letters on a daily

basis, receiving faxes on a daily basis, from people who live in the area of

Birchy Cove, Newmans Cove, Upper, Middle and Lower Amherst Cove.

Many of those letters are coming from students. Many of those

letters are being sent by students who have to travel over this five kilometres

of road every day to go to school in Bonavista, to attend Discovery Collegiate

and Matthew Elementary. The schoolchildren themselves have taken the lead on

those petitions. They have taken the lead on trying to get their road upgraded

and recapped to a degree of satisfaction where their parents can travel over the

road to do their business in Bonavista, to visit the health centres in

Bonavista, and so they themselves can get aboard the school bus and travel the

five kilometres from Birchy Cove to Bonavista with some degree of comfort.

Mr. Speaker, there have been several meetings held in this

particular area talking about the need and addressing the need to get this

section of roadway upgraded and recapped. They have looked at all kinds of

different things that they could do in order to bring government's attention to

the need to have this five kilometres of roadway upgraded and paved. They talked

about blocking the road. They talked about a letter-writing campaign, and they

talked about petitions. They all agreed - each and every one of them,

unanimously - at the three meetings that I attended, that they would not do

anything to obstruct traffic travelling over the roadway. They thought it was

irresponsible.

They agreed that they would not deprive schoolchildren the

right to go to school. They said, we have to be responsible about this. As bad

as we need the road upgraded, we have to be responsible. What we will do, Mr.

Member, is send you petitions. We will write the minister. We will stand on the

highway in its worst place and hand out letters and ask if people travelling the

roadway would be kind enough to put them in the mail and send them to the

minister's attention. This is the kind of protest that they have decided to

carry out.

They are not asking for a two-lane highway, a double-lane

highway. They are not asking that they put a concrete medium through their town,

as they have done in other places. All they are asking is that the present

existing roadway be upgraded enough to accommodate the traffic that is

travelling on this road on a daily basis, to be able to travel with some degree

of comfort and safety. Not too much to expect, I say to members opposite, not

too much to expect in the year 1999, for one of the main roadways leading into

the Town of Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, there are many roads in the same area that I am

talking about, that are probably even in worse condition than the road that I am

referring to here, but they are not as busy. The people living in those

communities going out to Upper Amherst Cove, Lower Amherst Cove, Birchy Cove,

have said: We realize there is not a lot of money; we realize the government has

only brought forward $16 million for capital works this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: What we will do is, we will put our own

roads to one side and concentrate our efforts into trying to get this

section of

roadway upgraded and paved.

In fact, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave to present a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have it

noted that the Member for Bellevue withdrew leave from the students in Matthew

Elementary and Discovery Collegiate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. FITZGERALD: - for presenting their petition in the

House of Assembly.

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

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

I say to the Member for Bellevue, if you have something to

say, stand on your feet and say it.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to stand in my place and

present a petition on behalf of a number of individuals from the Town of Pouch

Cove - seniors, I would think, most of them. I have run this petition by the

Clerk and the Government House Leader. It is certainly in acceptable language

and acceptable format.

Just to read the petition:

WHEREAS the average wage of pensioners in Newfoundland and

Labrador is barely $11,400, considerably below the poverty line; and

WHEREAS pensioners have not had an increase to their pensions

since 1989; and

WHEREAS the cost of living continues to increase, further

eroding the purchasing power of the pensioners' pension in excess of 20 per

cent; and

WHEREAS the pensioners have done their share in helping to

reduce the provincial and federal deficits; and

WHEREAS previous governments have traditionally granted

pensioners increases to their pensions consistent with increases to wages of

other government employees, both direct and indirect;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, do implore

government to carry out the fair, just and compensate act of implementing the

following immediately: That pensioners' pensions be indexed annually according

to the cost of living and/or that pensioners receive the same increase to their

pensions as that provided in the collective agreement of public service workers.

I certainly support this petition. I have signed the

petition, of course, as we are supposed to do when you present a petition in the

House of Assembly. I support the petition.

The pensioners who have signed this petition make a very good

case. Prior to 1989, as far as I understand, when the civil servants within the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador received an increase it was traditionally

given to the pensioners. Rightly so. Since 1989, they have not had an increase.

Last fall we saw demonstrations here at Confederation

Building with many, many pensioners coming forward and trying to, I suppose,

convince the government to give them an increase because since ten years they

have not had an increase.

We have seen the cost of living go up quite an amount over

the past ten years. We have seen the electricity rates increasing over the past

ten years, of course. We have not seen that go down. We have seen food costs

increase, fuel increase, and what have you.

The spending power of the pensioners over the past ten years

has decreased by a large amount. I believe, and I think members on this side of

the House believe, that the pensioners deserve an increase in their pensions.

They have paid their dues. Of anybody in this Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the pensioners have paid their dues.

From what I understand when the information was floating

around, many, many pensioners are at the borderline, I suppose, poverty level

and below. Some pensioners are getting -

AN HON. MEMBER: Below.

MR. J. BYRNE: Below, well below the poverty line. Of

anyone in the Province, I suppose, it is a disgrace to see our seniors having to

live below the poverty line and scrape for every cent they can get to put bread

and butter on the table. I brought this up many times in the House of Assembly,

the situation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador where there are

people out there who do not know where their next loaf of bread or pound of

butter is coming from, and they are pretty basic necessities. We see seniors who

have lived their lives, who have supported the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, who have supported the people, who reared their children here, and it

is too bad that many of their children have to leave now, today, since 1989.

Again, I think the pensioners in this Province deserve an

increase. I think that we have spoken many times in this House of Assembly, as I

said, last fall, trying to support the pensioners. Not only that; members on

this side of the House have been on this issue for a number of years now but

they do not seem to be getting too much sympathy from the government side of the

House.

I just want to be on record and say again that I support the

petition, have supported them in the past, will continue to support them, as I

am sure members on this side of the House will continue to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to support this petition. I have supported similar

petitions in this House on a number of occasions. This situation is not isolated

to the area from which the petitioners have signed. This situation is throughout

the entire Province. We have seen pensioners on the West Coast rally to try to

gain support from government. We have seen petitioners come to our own

Confederation Building and rally to try to get a sympathetic ear from

government.

This is perhaps the first time, at least in recent history

for certain, that the public service pensioners have not received the same

increase that the public service have.

The public service pensioners - many of them living below the

poverty line, many of them barely surviving, some of them looking for

alternative sources of income to supplement their public service pension, in

order to survive - many of the public service pensioners are living in

conditions that neither you nor I would want to live in because of the very,

very inadequate amount that they are forced to survive on and live on.

While the cost of living has increased substantially in this

Province, taxes have increased. The HST is now put on light and heating fuels

and so on, so the public service pensioners are forced to pay an ever increasing

amount out of their income in order to supply the daily needs, the staples of

life, and yet they are not receiving the same increase that the public service

are.

We, in this House, have increased our own incomes when the

public service have received their increase in pay. On this side of the House

both the Official Opposition and the NDP have supported an increase for public

service pensioners, but the government side of the House in this Legislature

have refused to give the increase to public service pensioners. Unfortunately, I

find that appalling. The Members of the House of Assembly on this side of the

House find it appalling and, unfortunately for government, many of the people in

the Province find it appalling.

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

petition that was put forward by my colleague from Cape St. Francis, and the

words of the petitioners.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call, if I could,

Motions 6, 7, and 10.

Motion 6 is Bill 4, "An Act To Amend The Financial

Administration Act". Motion 7 is Bill 10, "An Act To Amend the Denturists Act".

Motion 10 is Bill 11, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act".

I would like to call first reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Bills 4, 10 and 11.

Motion, the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act

To Amend The Financial Administration Act", carried. (Bill 4)

Motion, the Minister of Health and Community Services to

introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act". (Bill 11)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Denturists Act". (Bill 10)

On motion, Bills 4, 10 and 11 read a first time, ordered read

a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1, the Budget Speech. Who

was up on that yesterday?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sheila (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Sheila adjourned, but she is out.

MR. FITZGERALD: Can I use her ten minutes?

MR. TULK: Can you what?

MR. FITZGERALD: She had ten minutes left.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague wants to know if he can borrow the ten minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue keeps

telling me I am rusty. At least I will heave it out; I won't have to read it

out, I say to the hon. member. I will heave it out; I won't have to read it out.

Anyway, I want to take a few minutes this afternoon to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: If the member is going to interrupt me,

perhaps he should go back to his own seat. That would be out of order, but at

least he would be using a little bit of protocol.

I want to take an opportunity this afternoon -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I have to try to get some cotton wool and

put in my ears. They are coming at me from all sides here, Mr. Speaker, front

and behind, on both ends, and it is going everywhere.

Anyway, I wanted to take the opportunity today to have a few

remarks on the Budget debate. In particular, I want to talk about conditions in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is a serious matter that is facing the people of the rural

parts of this Province today, a very serious matter. It is a matter that goes

beyond partisan politics, I say to the House. It is a matter that somehow or

another we all have to try to wrap our minds around and propose solutions. There

is something happening fundamental in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today. I

cannot speak, obviously, before Confederation, but I have not seen the likes of

it since Confederation.

I lived, grew up, and have been active in rural Newfoundland

and Labrador for the better part of my life, and there is something happening in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador today that I have never seen before. There is an

attitude, there is a feeling in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today, that we

are seeing the end of an age, that we are seeing the end for dozens and hundreds

of communities. It has not being forced by resettlement, it is not being forced

by government programs, it is being forced by economic reality. That is the kind

of talk that you hear in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today: What am I going

to do tomorrow? What is it that I face tomorrow? How am I going to hang on? How

am I going to survive? These are the questions that people are asking.

I am more familiar, I suppose, with the Northeast Coast than

I am with other rural parts of the Province, but what I see out there today,

particularly along the Northeast Coast, is very few regions of the Province that

are fortunate enough to have a fish plant that produces something other than

groundfish - shellfish, basically, of some sort, crab or shrimp principally. I

suppose they might even be some producing some pelagics a little later down the

road, but generally speaking there are a number of areas along the Northeast

Coast where you have fish plants that have remained viable because they have had

the wherewithal and the licensing to be able to take advantage of new markets

for new species - not always new species, but some like shrimp is new to a lot

of those plants. Crab has been there for some time.

I think about Comfort Cove, Newstead, for example, in my

constituency. Those communities are remaining relatively stable. Valleyfield, in

Bonavista North, is another example, I guess. Those communities have remained

relatively stable. But, you take all along the Northeast Coast, in between those

areas -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I accept that. The point I am trying to make

is that there are some bright spots along the Northeast Coast of this Province,

based on fish plants that are still operating, or based on an economy related to

fish plants that are still operating, that are operating on species other than

the traditional species.

In between that we have a wasteland. We have one community

after another that has no hope. In between those areas of prosperity, the odd

Comfort Cove and the odd Wesleyville and the odd few other places along the

Northeast Coast, there is economic devastation. There is an economic wasteland

out there.

The people are looking to government politicians, they are

looking to their leaders, for some direction. Many of them, in numbers that we

have not seen in recent memory, have left. As I said today, I suspect those who

could afford to leave have gone. Those who got a lump sum settlement out of the

package, many of them are gone.

I understand there are still some of them who have children

in school, waiting for school to close. The numbers had declined in this

quarter, by the way - the numbers of out-migration had declined in this quarter

- but the numbers, I suspect, are going to pick up again after school closes.

I have been told, for example, that there are thirty families

in Burgeo that are waiting to leave Burgeo when school closes. Now, thirty on

top of what has gone. I am sure the member knows and he can tell us what kind of

effect that is going to have on that rural part of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In other communities, not on the South Coast but on the

Northeast Coast, it is just about devastated now. The Baie Verte Peninsula,

represented by my friend, the Member for Baie Verte, community after community

is virtually depopulated. They have gone. I saw an

article on CBC the other day;

Ming's Bight has had a tremendous devastation. It used to be a vibrant,

prosperous community.

The only community left on the Baie Verte Peninsula now that

has some kind of growth or is maintaining its own, is a little community of Wild

Cove. Everything else on the Baie Verte Peninsula is economic devastation. The

same it goes along the Northeast Coast, except for those few areas where there

is a fish plant operating, and that is not enough to cut it any more in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

People are grasping with this fundamental question: What am I

going to do? Where do I turn next? What are the answers? Should I stay or should

I try to leave now while there is an opportunity and perhaps a few dollars

coming?

You know, all of those people out there who worked on

projects in January, February and March, the projects are now over. The economic

statistics that the Minister of Human Resources quotes to show an improvement in

employment numbers, those projects are now done. They are behind us. A lot of

those projects, I understand, were not EI insurable, for example. Most of those

projects were not EI insurable, so it did not give the people who worked on them

for eight, ten, fifteen or twenty weeks, whatever it was, another cushion. It

did not increase or enhance their ability to survive and stay alive in their own

communities, so those people are now at crunch time. They are calling every day,

wanting to know when the next lot of post-TAGS money is coming through, because

they have nothing else to look forward to. There is no other way. They have

nowhere else to turn. Unfortunately, this mentality - to them, now, a job

creation project is reality. It is a part of their life and they are willing -

unfortunately or fortunately - to accept it and try to make the best they can

out of it.

I suspect what you are going to see when school closes is an

increase in people moving with their feet from rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The U-Haul brigade will continue once again. It will be increased over what it

was before, and that is devastation to our Province.

You know, there comes a point in time when the piper who is

paying the bills - and in this case it is the government. It costs just as much

to keep a kilometre of road open to Port Albert for one family as it does for

100 families. There is no difference in the cost to government. There are

certain basic services that, if there is one family or 100 left in the

community, it costs the government a certain amount to provide that service. It

costs a certain amount to provide a basic core education service. It costs a

certain amount to provide basic health services.

What is happening in the rural parts of the Province is that

there are fewer people to pay the bills. All of this is rolled into one

fundamental concept. That is why you are seeing more and more municipalities in

rural Newfoundland in trouble. The only bit of a tax base that they have had has

disappeared. If it was related to a fish plant or a woods operation or something

of that nature, it has disappeared. It is gone. Then they have this debilitating

affect of those horrendous out-migration numbers.

So the people left to keep the power on to the water and

sewer plant, to keep the waterlines running, the people left to do that are

faced with an ever increasing tax burden because there are fewer of them to pay

the costs. There are fewer of them to pay the dollars that are required to keep

the basic service going. There are fewer of them to contribute to an emergency

repair to the water pump when that gives out. There are fewer people to spread

over and keep the community alive. Those municipalities have increased their tax

burden to the point where they are now facing diminishing returns. They cannot

collect the money because it is not there to collect. You can't get blood out of

a turnip, as the old saying goes.

When a person is only earning enough to keep body and soul

together, barely, then something has to go by the wayside. One of the first

things to go by the wayside is the municipal tax bill, because that can be put

off. That is not going to starve the family to death. That is not going to keep

a lunch out of the lunch box of the student that is going to school. So that

will be the first thing to be put off. The devastating results for the

community, for the municipality that is there choking to death, economically, is

just as important as any other aspect of our life.

All of this comes back to the fundamental problem of the

depopulation of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been happening at a

rate, over the last three or four years, that we have never seen before in our

history. Thirty-five thousand people have gone out of the rural parts of this

Province in three years. These are not the Opposition's figures, these are not

political `conjurations' that we have dreamed up. These are figures that have

been supplied by Statistics Canada and other reputable agencies at both levels

of government. Thirty-five thousand people have moved out of rural Newfoundland

and Labrador over the last three years.

Can you imagine in your mind's eye what would happen if the

whole population of Mount Pearl took off over night? What would happen to the

Avalon region if the whole population of Mount Pearl were to disappear over a

summer? What would happen to the West Coast region if the whole population of

Corner Brook was to be uprooted and spread itself out across Canada over the

course of two or three months, over the course of three years, as has happened

to these 35,000 people? Do you know what would happen? There would be cries from

one end of this Province to the other, there would be howls that would be heard

from one end of this country to the other.

Let me go a little further. What would happen if 35,000

people were to be uprooted and moved out of Sarnia, for example, one of the

great industrial parts of Ontario. If 35,000 people were to lose their jobs and

be forced to migrate out of industrial Ontario in a three-year span, what would

happen do you think, Mr. Speaker? There would be howls from one end of this

country to the other. CBC Newsworld would be in there like you wouldn't

believe. There would be a special parliamentary committee wondering what is

happening to the industrial heart of Canada. Yet if you take ten people out of

Port Albert, fifty people of out Ming's Bight, one hundred people out of

Pacquet, seventy-five people out of Brown's Arm, one hundred people out of

Twillingate, seventy-five people out of Little Harbour Deep, and 200 out of St.

Anthony, when you do that nobody gives a damn.

Because it is not big enough. It is devastating for those

communities affected, but it is not big enough to catch the big picture, to

catch the focus of Canada, to catch the attention of those power brokers,

big enough. You will get the odd roving reporter who will come along and do a

story on fifteen or twenty people moving out of Ming's Bight. You will get the

odd local reporter out of Corner Brook who will come along and do a story on the

U-Haul brigade out of Pacquet, but you are not getting the real picture. You are

not getting the picture of 35,000 people uprooted, moving and leaving over a

three-year period. You are not getting the tragedy of the picture, you are not

getting the scope of the picture.

If those 35,000 people were to be taken out of one community,

one town, whether it be in this Province or some other part of Canada, then the

affect of it, the sheer tragedy of it, would have an impact, and it would be an

impact that would be focused on by the media and the power brokers of this

country. Because it is happening in dribs and drabs, one little drop of blood at

a time, another little bit of the lifeline that kept rural Newfoundland and

Labrador alive, it means nothing.

Eighty-one million dollars is going to be spent, I

understand, over the next three or four years in another program. Eighty-one

million dollars is important. People out there who do not have a job today are

calling us every day wondering when funding is going to start to flow through

that particular program. They are desperate, their EI has run out, they are

staring welfare in the face, and all we can do is be coy about it and try to

make political hay about it.

There is a tragedy unfolding out in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. I believe that every member of this House is aware of it, no matter

what side they sit on. It doesn't matter what side of the House they sit on, I

believe that every member is aware of what is happening out there. What I find

most tragic about it is that if this was happening in some other part of the

country to the extent that it is happening here, it would be a national

emergency. It would have a national focus, a national spin on it. Losing ten or

a dozen today, or fifteen or twenty next month, and another one hundred next

month, in hundreds of little communities, those hundreds add up to the

thousands. Losing those every few days, every few weeks, every few months, is

just not catching the imagination of the country. It is not catching the

imagination of the national government. I do not know if this government is

really making it a priority in dealing with the national government or not, but

this would be a tragedy that would be dealt with in short order, I say to the

members of this House, if it were happening in Central Canada. Perhaps that is

the way the powers that be want it to unfold.

I have detected for some time that the tolerance and the, I

suppose for want of a better word, admiration and respect that was in Central

Canada for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over the first thirty-five or forty

years of Confederation have quickly dissipated. They are not there anymore. The

respect and admiration for what was the heart and soul of rural Newfoundland and

Labrador is not in the corridors of power in this country anymore.

I spent three years recently outside this Province going to

university, as everybody knows. The attitude among Central Canadians toward

Newfoundlanders I found frightening. They do not want to hear tell of a crisis

in the fishery any more. Every time you bring up Newfoundland they talk about

the basket case again. The Minster of Intergovernmental Affairs has probably run

into it. They say: Here is Newfoundland coming with another billion dollar

problem, we cannot ship the money down there fast enough to keep them going.

They are not the crowd to get up at 4:00 or 4:30 in the morning and drive two or

three hours to go to work, and then drive a couple of hours back in the evening

like we have to do up here. We do not want to hear of it any more. We do not

want to hear tell of this welfare mentality up here any more. Make it on your

own. If you cannot make it on your own, close down rural Newfoundland, forget

about reviving the fishery, forget about trying to rebuild any semblance of

lifestyle in rural Newfoundland, if it is going to cost us money. We do not want

to hear tell of it anymore. We have been fifty years shipping money by the barge

load, train load, plane load, and boat load down to Newfoundland and Labrador

and we are sick of it.

That is the attitude I have run into in Central Canada. That

is the attitude that I have noticed that has changed in this country over my

time.

There was a time when that was not the case. There was a time

when there was this sharing, when there was this admiration for the work ethic

in this Province that other parts of Canada wanted to be part of and wanted a

share of. I find that has changed. That attitude permeates the power sources of

this country. When an all party committee of this Legislature goes to Ottawa on

an issue as important to rural Newfoundland and Labrador as the seal population

and six members, I believe, of the government party choose to show up, I think

that speaks of the attitude I am talking about. I think they have tuned us out.

They have had enough of the moaning, as they call it. They do not want to hear

tell of us any more, and consequently they are going to do precious little, in

my view, to lead to the revitalization of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have in this Province the Department of Development and

Rural Renewal whose only reason for existence, in my view, is rural Newfoundland

and Labrador. I cannot see any other reason for that department to exist.

Hopefully there is some hope. Hopefully the minister and the government will be

able to stem and turn around and challenge this attitude towards rural

Newfoundland and Labrador that is out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: We can. What is going to happen, Mr.

Speaker? Did anybody ever stop to consider what is going to happen if we have a

revitalization of the groundfish fishery in this Province? What kind of fishery

is it going to be? Is it going to be dedicated to a few hundred individuals or

even a few thousand, 1,000 or 2,000 individuals, or is it going to be utilized

to rebuild and revitalize rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Because the only

reason there was in existence hundreds of small rural communities had to do with

the groundfish fishery. There was no other reason.

For what other reason would you live in La Scie? For what

other reason would you live in Harbour Deep or Twillingate or Port Albert or

some of those places along the northeast coast? There are a couple of reasons,

and the main one was the fishery. If that is revitalized and built back, but yet

all of this out-migration has taken place, all of those licences have been

bought back and retired, you have effectively made sure there will never be a

rural Newfoundland revived.

That is what you have done. You have cut off the rebuilding

and the revitalizing of rural Newfoundland and Labrador by allowing the

out-migration to take place, by buying back the licences from the older people

as a means of getting them out of it, putting them on an early pension. They can

stay home now, they will be there till they die. The young people, the young

blood that would have been there to move into that fishery after revitalization,

is now gone. They are in British Columbia, they are in Alberta. They are doing

other things. They have made commitments, they have invested in homes, they have

settled down. They are not coming back. Some of them, the odd one, maybe.

What are they coming back to? They cannot get a fishing

licence. That has been cut off. You will never get another, unless you get into

this professionalization and move up through the ranks. You have been

effectively shut out of the means of making a living in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, even if the scientific advice were tomorrow that we had better be

careful of the funks because there are enough fish around to devour the rocks.

If that were the case tomorrow we still would not be able to

revitalize the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador based on the fishery

because it has been cut off. That was the master plan from the beginning. I

remember - not as part of government, but I was a member of the Legislature and

a member of the Opposition - when the moratorium started. From the beginning the

plan was to make sure that the fishery as it existed in Newfoundland and

Labrador for 500 years was dead and would never be revived and revitalized

again. Because the mentality was: It was inefficient. There was not enough in it

for the people who were in it to make a decent living, so the best thing we

could do would be to get people out of it. Of course, the moratorium was a great

way to get people out of it. You get them out. You buy them out. You get them

out by taking back licenses. Once you get them out, they are gone. Once you get

them out, the government will never let up on that lever again.

When I look at it in that context, the master plan has

worked. If the master plan was to get rid of this old, ineffective, romantic

attachment to an industry that could not support the number of people that it

was supposed to support, if that was the plan, then it has worked. If that was

the plan, they have been successful.

Today, the 35,000 people who have gone out of this Province -

not all of them from rural Newfoundland but certainly the vast majority of them

- have contributed to making sure the plan succeeds; because back they will not

be. What are they going to come back to? There are going to be no new fishing

licenses. Therefore, the rural Newfoundland and Labrador that we knew is not

going to make it.

That was bad enough - that devastated the rural roots of this

Province; it was really devastating to the rural roots of this Province - but,

on top of that, you had those new developments in the forest industry.

It has been economic devastation to a lot of communities in

Central Newfoundland and the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland, in my

constituency, in Windsor-Springdale, in Baie Verte. It has been economic

devastation, the introduction of mechanical harvesters.

I am the first one to admit that we cannot take the bucksaw

mentality. We cannot say you cannot use power saws, you have to stick to the

bucksaw, but there has to be some way to bridge this development from

devastation and manage it so that the rural parts of this Province are not

depopulated once again.

There are some communities in my constituency - Stoneville,

Baytona, Horwood, for example - where there is nothing else. The only employer,

the only economy activity, was forestry. Every one of those harvesters takes

away twenty-five jobs, I believe. Every one of them. None of those harvesters -

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-four.

MR. RIDEOUT: Twenty four. None of those harvesters talked

back to their boss. None of them want down time. None of them require an

insurance plan. None of them have to have overtime. No holidays. No vacation

pay. As long as you keep the hydraulic fuel in them, the fuel in them, and a

skilled operator, they will continue to work and perform for you. But they do

not turn one thing into Stoneville where there are twenty-five or thirty houses

boarded up. Imagine where they are gone. A lot of those people are gone to PEI

to work in the forest industry.

If somebody had told me that ten years ago, I would have

laughed at them; leaving rural Newfoundland, where we thought we had all kinds

of resource in terms of the forest industry, gone off to little PEI where I did

not know there were enough trees to make a bough whiffen, but they are up there.

They are gone up there in tens -

AN HON. MEMBER: The bough whiffen.

MR. RIDEOUT: The bough whiffen.

They are gone up there, tens and dozens, hundreds of them up

there making their living. That is great; it is great they have a place to go.

The thing is, is it not possible to manage the resource here in a way such that

you do not have another wave of depopulation overnight? I know we cannot stand

in the way of progress - I am not suggesting it - but certainly, heavens, we

must be able to manage it.

I have to say that the union representing the workers,

Abitibi Consolidated, we met with those people several weeks ago and I really

believe that they were going to draw a line in the sand, that they were going to

take this issue and fight it to a standstill. They were going to make sure that

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, they were not going to stand in the way

of progress but they were going to make sure that any further utilization of

that particular equipment would be managed. It would not just be allowed to come

in ad hoc.

I have to say that I was grossly disappointed when the latest

contract was signed and it appears as if the companies got exactly what they

wanted. Therefore, it leaves the Province without hardly a leg to stand on,

really. If the unions had stood firm, the Province, perhaps, and the minister,

could have stood firm or at least given the impression that they were going to

do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: He got a million dollars, he said, boy.

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just in concluding, then, I think that we somehow have to

move the envelope along here. The people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador are

looking to us. They are out there waiting. They want to hear some indication

that the few of them who are left perhaps have some reason to stay and some

reason to hope, and at the moment they do not have either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted today to have an opportunity to speak on this

Budget. As my colleague from Lewisporte was saying, rural Newfoundland is in bad

need of major surgery. It is not the type of surgery that cuts the guts out of

rural Newfoundland; it needs an infusion of new opportunities.

He talked about boarded-up houses. Where in this Province can

you find a place - take Trepassey for example, 1480 people in the 1991 census.

As I went around on a campaign, sixty to seventy houses boarded up. The

population now, I am being told by the town, is between 700 and 800. Just take a

town that you grew up in and lived in - especially 1,500 people in a town - and

take half of them away. It has to be devastating.

What about in terms of trying to collect taxes from people

who cannot even afford to pay the basic taxes? What do they do? They have sold

their houses - $45,000 bungalows for $3,000, for $6,000. It is unbelievable.

Anybody who wants a place to retire can get a house for

$3,000 to $6,000 in Trepassey. You can get a house in Trepassey now. They had a

prosperous fish plant, everybody employed, 800 people over two shifts, a full

water system, sewer system for the community. It had everything in terms of a

bank - which is still there - a supermarket. It had the conveniences not found

in most rural outports but found in certain ones that were prosperous in those

days; similar to ones we see in other centres around the Province like the Baie

Vertes, the Springdales, the Lewisportes, and those areas all over the Province,

and Port aux Basques. Some of these still have some activity.

Trepassey has struggled. It has three businesses that have

grown up there and they are coming along fairly well, but they are not employing

800 people. One is in the twenty-five, thirty range of consistent employment,

produces marine lighting - Mariteam - I am sure you have heard of that.

MR. J. BYRNE: My brother started it. Glamox (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Cape St. Francis informs me

that his brother was involved in the starting up of that. It was called Glamox,

but I guess the new name is Mariteam Lighting. It is worth your while to go to

the structure there and see what is happening. They are fighting to be able to

get some industry into Trepassey.

I met with a group on Friday morning there, the management

committee, the development corporation in the town, to discuss certain proposals

and initiatives. On an ongoing basis people are trying to come to grips with the

devastation that has hit them with the close of the fish plant.

In fact, Fishery Products moved out of there. It received

$200 to $300 million of money to restructure. The one in Trepassey was destined.

The license is now gone, the plant is now gone, and a place that was built on

to revive the community. Like most rural parts of this Province, most industries

would have to come from the ocean.

It is interesting that people say today, in this modern age

of technology, you can do business anywhere. You can do it in your home, in a

rural Newfoundland outport. I can tell you, that is not the case. After 6:00

p.m., start dialling Trepassey - a number in the phone book - and see if you can

get through in an hour-and-a-half. See if you can get a household in Trepassey

under the 438 exchange in an hour-and-a-half. I have to make calls in Trepassey

before 6:00 p.m. Emerald Sod Producers Inc. in St. Shott's, Placentia-St.

Mary's, a business, tells me they are handicapped. They have a business of prime

quality sod. They cannot get through to the people who want to do be able to do

business with them and call them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is in other parts of the Province. I say

to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, we had meetings with the company. The

company, I must say, sent up a VP and other people in the company. I spoke with

the president of the company and sat down with people in the area only a little

over a week ago, and with the Regional Economic Development Board there, the

Irish Loop Board, and other interested businesses and towns to try to address

the concerns, to deal with it and to encourage investment there.

You cannot get through and it is around the Province. If you

tell somebody down in (inaudible), probably the same thing may be in

Terrenceville or St. Bernard's or Grand Le Pierre, and you try to business from

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is frustrating. When we get out of here

in the evening many of us have an armful of phone calls. One night I spent over

three hours trying to get through to a guy in Trepassey. It is a little bit

easier now, and it is a more costly method. What you have to do now to get

through is dial your zero plus the area code plus the number and then punch in

your card. You can access it quicker because they have made some accommodations.

There are various things we have addressed to try to deal with the frustrations.

There are trucking companies, there are construction companies in Trepassey and

that area.

Up in my district, farther north in my district, closer to

St. John's, the same frustrations occur right up even from the Cape

Broyle-Ferryland area. I mean, there is a growing tourism area there in

Fermeuse, the marine centre, the three public wharves there under the Port

Authority, a fish plant and a wharf there, and hundreds of boats. That is the

main tie-up port, marine service centre, in the area and you cannot even get

through on a telephone from people from their cell phones and everything. It is

downright frustrating, I might add, for people trying to do business.

Then they tell us in rural Newfoundland you can do business.

You cannot do business in rural Newfoundland today until a proper communications

system and transportation system is put in place to enable us to do that. I must

give some credit to the company. I discussed it with them, we sat down with the

people. We are hopeful there will be an acceleration of their plans on capital

expenditure, because other long distance companies are coming in at cutthroat

rates and so on and the competition has driven this to unprecedented levels.

I threw out even a proposal. I said: Maybe if we had that

cheap dialling after 8:00 p.m. it might allow some businesses to get that extra

hour, hour-and-a-half. At least, we will negate the time change if we are

getting hold of somebody in Ontario. At least it would help. Because at 6:00

p.m. when they close in Ontario, or 7:30 p.m. here, we might allow a gap.

These are some of the proposals we put forward, and they

agreed to look at encouraging people not to be staying on their phone for two

and three hours. It is difficult. People who live in rural areas and deal with

rural ridings never have to experience the frustrations of representing rural

Newfoundland and the demands on a rural MHA. All of the communities there have

major concerns, I can tell you.

Now, every community is not as devastated as Trepassey, I

admit it. You cannot get a house in Ferryland to buy or rent and things are

going fairly well, there are lots of activities there. There is the colony of

Avalon. The Southern Shore Folk Arts Council is developing older buildings

there. There is a beautiful area for people to go out and visit and the tourism

is going up in record numbers. There are boat tours, and it is closer to a city.

Bay Bulls and Witless Bay are as not as affected by it. They have a major fish

plant, which employs almost 400 people in Witless Bay. In Bay Bulls the

proximity to St. John's and so on makes working in this area - it is sort of

becoming a bedroom community, in a sense, for many people, to St. John's.

We need industry and activity, we need a proper road

structure. I'm pleased to see this year we are getting at least up to fifteen

kilometres of the road paved on the main highway. It is in bad shape,

desperately in need of repair. Hopefully, over the next couple of years again

another $3 million will come out of John Crosbie's agreement that he delivered

to us. Thank God for that, all this money we delivered on roads in this

Province. All those divided highways you see makes driving so much easier across

the Province. Out in the West Coast of the Province we have seen some affects,

although I am not so sure - it sort of puts you away from the Corner Brook area,

and it was a beautiful drive through there. Now you see nothing. Still, I am

sure accommodations could be made in certain areas that can deal with those

particular concerns.

Investment into infrastructure, into roads, transportation,

is an investment in the future. On the Outer Ring road many people have said:

What a waste of money, $70 million and $80 million. People in rural Newfoundland

and Labrador cannot understand why you put $70 million and $80 million in that

when you have seven, eight or ten dirt roads in the District of Baie Verte.

People wonder.

It is out of a pot of money, I know, under federal money, and

the biggest concern with, probably, Baie Verte is that the Province has almost

eliminated their provincial roads agreement. There used to be $50 million and

now it is $14 million or $15 million. It was only $8 million the year before

last. Those is some of the reasons we are hearing. The roads are in desperate

shape in many areas of this Province.

Take the Outer Ring road, for example. I think it is

important. It opens up the east end of St. John's for development, for housing,

for companies to be able to move freely around the area. It does not frustrate

business and transportation. People who are depending on a mode of

transportation around this city do not want to be lining up at street lights and

so on and waiting for twenty minutes to get a delivery across St. John's. It is

not productive for business. Lost time is lost money. Wages and other measures

have to be taken to try to be able to work under trying times. So the

transportation system is integral to a growing economy. You cannot grow without

it.

There are many concerns in rural Newfoundland. Thee Minister

of Education just tabled in the House today a report. I did not get a chance,

and I will over the next little while get a chance, to run through some of these

things. It is kind of alarming when the highest skilled people in our Province,

almost half the medical doctors here, migrate outside the Province. This is up

to last year, I would assume. It is tabled this year but I think it takes in up

to 1996 graduates, so I mean this is a little older.

Just look at what is out-migrating now. It is alarming. While

I am on that topic, we have some of the best Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

graduated, they are specialists in their field, here in this city and around

this Province. They are medical specialists who took a pride in this Province.

They came back here and practised in this Province. They are the main

specialists here in many categories. Now we find that some of these people

today, that were the backbone, really, of medicine in this Province, are taking

up roots and going.

It is devastating to find that people who are here twelve and

fifteen years - medical specialists who are the key in their area, and they were

born in Newfoundland and Labrador - saying: We are going to have to go out of

this Province. They are saying if they go to Ontario they can put $15,000 extra

in their pocket just on provincial income tax alone, not counting the higher

salaries and other costs. They have families. They are reaching an age. They do

not have a pension to draw. What they make they have to invest in their future

and their retirement.

People get concerned as they get up into middle age and close

to it. They start to realize they want to have that security there in the long

term. We don't have those fears. If we are lucky enough to get elected twice or

a few more times we don't have to worry about that end of it. You are going to

survive. These people, professionals, invested heavily in their education, took

a pride in this Province, and they are going.

That is the biggest fear today and it is not only those

doctors. Take the nurses. Forty-seven or forty-eight is the average age of a

nurse. We are finding that it is a bit frightening. When young people graduated

and left this Province, you said: Well, it will come back to the point where the

pendulum will swing back. The pendulum has not swung just away from this

Province. It has swung right across the world. There is a Canadian shortage of

nurses. We are finding people that are fifteen and twenty years practising, that

are the experienced people now and with young families. I spoke with one who

said to me, and I was shocked: I have two kids. I am really seriously taking a

position in this particular specialist field in nursing that they are doing here

in Ontario. I said: What? You are the last I expected to say that. She said:

Look what I can be paid extra, look at the extra advantages, the opportunities

here. Here we have waited, and what happened?

It is the same with the Memorandum of Understanding. It did

not deliver. Doctors are starting to see it is not happening. There is unrest

all over the place. A doctor came to see me yesterday, sent a note in, so

frustrated. A rural Newfoundland physician, so frustrated. I left here and went

out and sat down for twenty minutes just to hear some of the concerns yesterday,

and got back again in the House before it closed. It is so desperate now that

they are turning to anybody and everybody to try to be heard, and nothing is

getting done to address it.

We have a major problem. A lot of it, I might add, is not

just more dollars. The minister stood and said: More money for this, more money

for that. I am saying that before you determine what additional money you need,

start seeing that the money you have is spent and is accountable. Maclean's

Magazine said 40 per cent of the dollars in health care, of the $70 million,

in this country is inefficiently spent - $30 million inefficiently spent in this

country. If you looked at that ratio here in this Province, you would be talking

about $300 million to $400 million. Let us say it is only one-quarter of that;

let us say $100 million. One hundred million can solve a lot of the ills, I can

tell you. It can solve a helluva lot of the problems here in this Province.

We have numerous concerns, and one of the greatest concerns,

really, is rural Newfoundland. What are we seeing? We have seen, in other parts

of Canada, an urbanization of Canada. We have seen Winnipeg, which now has

almost 60 per cent of the population of Manitoba. It has over 600,000 out of a

population of over a million. We have Edmonton and Calgary with about 40 per

cent of the population of Alberta, and we are seeing it all over the place.

In this Province, we are not getting urbanization because of

everybody moving to an urban area here. We are getting urbanization here because

we are having a loss of rural Newfoundlanders to other parts of the country.

That is what is causing the urbanization of this Province.

While we all realize that every single community cannot have

a fish plant, every single community cannot have another thriving business, we

need businesses in integral points within areas where people can commute and be

able to stay in their communities.

Many industries are up and down, and if we do not look after

them and care for them - like happened with the fishery - and do not manage it

correctly, we will get problems. It is no different.

In our health care system, there are millions and millions of

dollars inefficiently spent. I know dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of

gross inefficiencies that are happening in the system today, and I have made

reference to these. I made reference to several a couple of weeks ago in a media

interview. I pointed out several examples of inefficiencies.

What is happening? We have driven this Province; each of the

boards now have been fighting with each other.

I said to the former Minister of Health here in this House:

You are spending more money out in locums by having people go all over the

place. Why don't you increase their salary and you would not have the problem?

A year after, he gets up in the House and says: We now

realize the money we were spending on locums could be used to increase salaries,

and it would not cost any extra money. I said: Whoop-de-do! Go back to Hansard a

year earlier.

Those types of things - you cannot have boards competing

against each other. Boards are out competing against each other in this Province

now for recruitment of physicians. One is offering this and one is offering

that. They are offering locums to people in Ontario.

I am sure the Government House Leader is fully aware of that,

all about rural Newfoundland. Every area is not booming like a certain part of

his district.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: I said that every area of the Province is

not booming like a certain part of your district. It is having, I must say, good

times, because a part of his district is dependent on crab and other species. It

is on an upswing. The shrimp is growing in numbers and we will go through cycles

in the fishing industry. We will see downturns and we will see it swing up

again, but what we have to be able to do is to buffer those down times in order

to be able to sustain a level of services in rural Newfoundland.

We have to try to maintain the integrity of rural

Newfoundland and more has to be done. It seems we are not concerted enough in

our efforts to be able to get a result, and to be able to get things done, and

to be able to get the result we want.

Even in the House today, on a health matter, I asked the

minister a question on nursing homes boards here in this city. Here in this

city, the different religious organizations or churches that have been working

here to deliver long-term care have done a tremendous job. The Anglican Church,

the Sisters of Mercy, the Salvation Army at Glenbrook and Saint Luke's and all

over have done commendable jobs with a certain mission statement, a certain

sense of values in delivering care here in our Province.

The minister pushes to collapse everything into one. If it is

the best thing and if they are in an agreement with it, what is wrong with it,

provided we do not do it for the sake of syphoning and saving money out of the

system.

She did not apply the same standards to one under the

Trinity-Conception Board, allow it to continue, to operate and contain

(inaudible) and try a different standard here. There has to be cooperation.

You can combine. I am sure the will is there. She said there

is a Memorandum of Understanding signed with some. If the will is there to

combine human resources, combine their financial end, combine all of those

non-patient care areas, let's consolidate. Let's get efficient. You do not need

five accountants if you can get by with one. You do not need management offices

in all locations if it can be better utilized in other things. Those

efficiencies and so on have to be looked at here. We have to look at patient

care.

Their own report says - their own board tells us that we

still have not done anything, basically, about care for people. When people go

into those nursing homes - and anybody who has to put a family member or a

parent in there understands it very well - that is their home. That is their

residence. That is where they are going to spend the rest of their life, and you

want an opportunity to have them cared for in some comfort, some dignity, ample

space for dining, washroom facilities, time to be able to sit down with family

when they come to visit, and make life a little more tolerable for these people

in the latter stages of their life. These are the types of things we have to

look at. They are not stalls to put people in like cattle. They are rooms and

facilities to allow people to be able to live the rest of their life with a

degree of dignity. That is what these homes are.

The problem is not getting addressed in health care in this

Province. We see too much hypocrisy in health care in the Province. We see too

much politics in health care, making statements one day.

This government in 1997 - no bones about it, in fact I have

it here in Hansard to show; I have the information here in Hansard - in the

midst of a federal election, stood in this House, one minister after another,

and said: I am delighted the federal government is now going to put $66 million

back into health care in this Province.

That is what they said when they were going to cut the floor

under Canada Health and Social Transfer down to $11 billion. They decided, we

are going to stop it at $12.5 billion, where it is now; we are not going to put

it down to $11 billion. We are going to stop it where it is now. So, where is

the $66 new million? They did not cut it by $66 million, it is not $66 new

million. They sold that and pushed it during the federal election in 1997 to try

to save some seats for them. They lost three, hung on by the skin of their teeth

in another one or two, and barely survived it.

Then, a few months later, on March 11, 1998, just months

after, the Minister of Health had the audacity to write the hon. Allan Rock,

Minister of Health, and say to him the following, "I am writing to express my

concern about comments attributed to some of your colleagues..."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Health, the hon. Joan Marie

Aylward, the Member for St. John's Centre, wrote the hon. Allan Rock on March

11, 1998, and here is what she said to the hon. Allan Rock. Can you imagine the

federal election the previous May and they made Ministerial Statements - the

Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health got up and made Ministerial

Statement after Ministerial Statement - to say there was $66 new million for

health care. There was no new million. They were not going to cut the floor down

to where they were planning on cutting it. They were going to keep it the same.

Here is what she said. I said to them at that time in the

House: Oh, we are not getting the whole truth. They are not going to cut it any

further. We have no new dollars, not one extra. What did she say to them then?

It is laughable:

"I am writing to express my concern about comments attributed

to some of your colleagues implying that Provinces have been provided with more

funding for health services. By maintaining the CHST cash floor at the $12.5

billion level, as opposed to the $11 billion, Provinces will not be required to

make further devastating cuts to their health care systems that the lower cash

floor would have dictated."

In very strong language she went on. "It is unfortunate if

this is projected to the public as new funding for health care. ...the message

they are transmitting to Canadian places provincial Ministers in a situation

where we have no choice but to publicly refute the comments...".

The same thing they sold to us nine months earlier, and she

got up and said: We are going to have to tell you it is not true. In other

words, you are not telling the truth to the people of Canada when you say that -

she said to Allan Rock.

I said the same to the Minister of Health in previous months:

You are not telling the truth to the people of the Province when you say that -

and she came back and accused Allan Rock of the same thing because it was

convenient during an election to say that.

That is the type of hypocrisy we see in health care today and

it is shameful. You take something and you spin it the way you want, where it

can get the best spin at the convenient time.

Right here, another area in health care, and this is a very

damning article, the passing of Newfoundland's EMS; that is the emergency

medical service we are talking about: The current minister, Ms Joan-Marie

Aylward and her predecessor, have been remiss in failing to take the time and

make the effort to see the problem and to stand firm in this resolution.

He goes right after the provincial minister and talks about:

We are the only jurisdiction in the industrial world to remain without an EMS

legislation. The Newfoundland Government, in their own medical ignorance and

with the advice of apparently medical incompetent bureaucrats, has taken

virtually every ill-formed step imaginable to avoid accepting or exercising

responsibility for their citizens in pre-hospital medical emergencies. This is

an

article in a national magazine, saying that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said it?

MR. SULLIVAN: A well-informed health individual -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, don't worry. I raised it. It was in the

media back earlier. Don't get excited.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will table a copy

of this. I will even table a copy of this for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Who? What about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We could not afford one. We could not

afford one when I grew up. There were only certain people. We used to have to go

down the road to take a look at it.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to move, seconded by the

Member for St. John's South, the following amendment:

That all of the words after the word "that" be struck and

replaced with the following: This House acknowledge and condemn the government's

failure to manage competently the Province's finances; its failure to live up

its duty or its promise to provide adequate direction and funding for social

programs such as health and social services; its failure to secure the future of

our Province by investing appropriately in education and in students; and its

failure to discharge effectively its responsibility to plan for and invest in

economic recovery and employment growth in the Province, and particularly in

rural areas so desperately in need of development and jobs.

It is my pleasure to move this amendment, seconded by my

colleague for St. John's South, and take this government to task especially for

standing up on Budget day and proclaiming the best budget in the history of our

Province, and then turn around the day after and say: We cannot afford to give

you any increases. Going down to the business community the day after: What a

robust economy, increased growth in our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Would you like to check the amendment to

see if it is in order?

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: I think the hon. gentleman just moved -

MR. SULLIVAN: I did, and (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Let me finish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Let me finish.

MR. SULLIVAN: No one said it was out of order, so I kept

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have been recognized. I wonder,

would the hon. gentleman sit down and cool off?

I think he just moved that motion of non-confidence that is

traditionally moved -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you did.

MR. TULK: I believe that he did. Was that what you moved,

a motion of non-confidence? I think that is what he said he moved. Mr. Speaker,

I wonder if you would take a look at it and see if it is in order. While you are

taking a look at it, maybe the hon. gentleman will just cool down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is in order. It is the standard motion that has

been introduced on a number of occasions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted that it is in order, a non-confidence motion

of this government. It is always in order, I say, the way they have been

governing this Province, I might add.

AN HON. MEMBER: You get an hour?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, don't worry. I will entertain you as

long as I possibly can. I heard we have got to be out of here by 5:00 p,.m.

There is a committee meeting in here, isn't there?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, indeed I won't. I'm telling you, if the

minister would listen to me we would have a nice, good, strong health care

system.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much would it cost you, Loyola?

MR. SULLIVAN: First, I have said, if you will listen -

AN HON. MEMBER: How much would it cost (Inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you going to listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, what did you add up?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Give us a copy of where you added it up.

What item is the biggest? What is the highest item you have added up on what I

said? Tell me what it is. You cannot substantiate it? He cannot substantiate

what he said. Talk is cheap, I would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are living proof of that, that talk

is cheap.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is it, and nobody knows that

better I say, Mr. Speaker, than the Minister of Mines and Energy. He is an

expert in that. The man who wept on the steps of Confederation Building on

behalf of teachers, and then they came in and they crucified them. He did a

disservice, he disowned them. That is why talk is cheap, I would say. If there

is ever living proof, I would say, it is the member sitting right there now with

the smile knowing he is guilty. He has the look of it, I will say. He is it. He

even has the look. The proof is in the pudding.

Ask all his former colleagues around the Province who thought

they were sending a saviour into the government. They found out quite quickly he

was not a saviour; it was the person who led the crucifixion who they sent in

there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I only got to the first page of about 500

pages. I keep getting carried away.

I will tell the Member for Twillingate and Fogo, yes, in

health care. I have told -

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am getting to it. Just listen. Do not get

excited, just relax and listen. Does sitting in that chair get people roused up?

I have mentioned one example in health already. I said this

to the minister two years ago, in health, when they were ta