May 27,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 15

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

This afternoon I asked the House members if we could, at the

beginning of our session take a moment to reflect on one of our officers of the

House who is having his birthday today. It just happens that the Sergeant At

Arms, Mr. Cyril Kirby, celebrates his 80th birthday today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: It is indeed a rare occasion that we have

an officer of the House who has the honour of serving the House on his 80th

birthday. Mr. Kirby joined the House in 1979 as the understudy to the late Mr.

Bert Hemmens and he became the Sergeant At Arms in 1981, and he served the House

in an exemplary and dedicated manner.

I should point out that Mr. Kirby is a Second World War

veteran having served in the 166 Royal Artillery in North Africa and in Italy

from 1940 to 1945. He is married to Thelma whom he met while he was overseas,

and who comes from, I think, Australia. They have two daughters and a son. I

want to point out as well that Mr. Kirby and I share a little bit of commonalty

in that he was born and raised on the Burin Peninsula in the beautiful town of

Lamaline. I am sure that the minister would be delighted to know that. She

already knew it, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House if they would

today offer their congratulations and wish Mr. Kirby many, many more years of

service to the House and good health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would

like, of course, to be associated with wishing the Sergeant At Arms many happy

returns on this 80th year, eighty years young. He does not look eighty years old

down there, he looks eighty years young.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kirby has served this House since 1979 when

he apprenticed under the late Mr. Hemmens, and I am sure he would agree with me,

that you could not have a better teacher than the late Bert Hemmens was. He also

served, of course, with the 166 Royal Artillery in the Second World War and

distinguished himself there as he has in this House for the past seventeen years

so it is with great pleasure that we, on this side of the House join with the

Opposition House Leader, and I am sure every member of the House and every

person in Newfoundland, to wish him many happy returns and indeed, many more

years in serving this House in the exemplary fashion that he has done.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to do this today. Thank

you.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would, of course, want to be associated with the remarks of

the Member for Waterford Valley and the Government House Leader in

congratulating Mr. Kirby on attaining the age of eighty and thanking him

publicly and recognizing his many years of service to the House. Outside of the

House of course, Mr. Kirby has been very active in the 166th Regimental

Association and I have had the occasion to join with them in celebrating their

annual remembrance and activity service on a couple of occasions. So I would

join in acknowledging that service and thank him for his service and I expect

continuing services in this House for years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KIRBY: I appreciate what you have said and

(inaudible). Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before getting into the routine proceedings,

I would like to welcome to the gallery sixteen Level 1 students from Queen

Elizabeth High School from the District of Conception Bay South and the District

of Topsail. They are accompanied by their teachers Miss Jeanine House and Miss

Shirley Squires.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to acknowledge the presence

of Mr. George Fizzard, Mayor of Grand Le Pierre from the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: I wish to clarify some of the misleading and

misinformed information which has been generated through the media within the

last few days in response to government's new market value pricing policy to

Crown lands.

First, let me state that the new policy only applies to

commercial, residential and recreational cottage leaseholders and it is a

positive move forward in that people will be granted outright ownership to the

property, rather than continuing a leasing arrangement.

Government has initiated this new policy for a number of

reasons, namely: 1) We want to continue government's objective of reducing

regulations and red tape and making it easier for the public to deal with

government, by implementing a lease/purchase agreement whereby people will own

their land after 5 years. This will in fact be an interest free loan. 2) The new

system will ensure a consistent policy framework throughout the Province.

(3) We

want to replace the old arbitrary pricing system with one which is based on

market values prevalent in local areas.

(4) Government needs to assure itself

that it is receiving fair value for the land resource base of the Province and

for the people of the Province generally.

Let me be clear, the new policy does not apply to people or

organizations who have been issued leases under

Section 9 of the Lands Act, for

example, churches, schools, cemeteries, municipal buildings or municipal parks.

Quite a bit of confusion has arisen over the cost to current

leaseholders. I wish to correct some of this misinformation. 1) Government is

moving to a lease purchase option. 2) People with cottage leases issued prior to

October 31, 1991 will be given the opportunity to convert their leases to

grants. For cottages this will be on the basis of $2,500 less the rentals

already paid, for example a person with a cottage lease issued in 1985 will get

credit for the 10 years paid and in effect will be paying $1,750 to receive an

outright grant (i.e. $2,500 less $750 for lease rental payments). 3) For people

with residential leases issued prior to October 31, 1991 the rate is set at

$1,500 less rentals paid. I would like to point out that existing residential

leases are locked in at $50 per year and should the lessee choose he can

continue to lease for the remainder of the 50 year lease term. On the negative

side should they apply for a grant after the deadline date the value for the

land will be set at market value and there will be no credit for rent that is

paid. 4) For individuals with leases issued after October 31, 1991 they will be

given the opportunity to convert grants on or before their five year anniversary

date if they have met the conditions of their lease. Usually this means the

individual has constructed a cottage or dwelling within the five-year

development term.

Mr. Speaker, if individuals don't take advantage of this

option or fail to meet the terms of these leases, then cottage owners will face

an annual rent increase and the new pricing policy will apply. That means their

annual rent will increase in accordance with the new policy of 20 per cent of

the assessed value.

The new market value policy will be based on leased-purchase

option and on assessed value. As I just said, the leaseholder will be required

to pay 20 per cent of the assessed value for five years, after which a grant

will be issued.

In the case of residences in municipalities with assessments,

government will consider issuing the grant at the assessed value or $1,500,

whichever is more advantageous to the leaseholder. In most cases, the new policy

will result in less of a financial drain on home-owners.

It should be made clear that fees for most remote cottages,

agriculture, aquaculture and resource-based cabins will remain the same.

To combat the problem of illegal occupation, government is

currently considering a new policy which will make it quite costly for people to

continue to occupy land illegally. Let me say that government is quite committed

to dealing with this problem and we will implement this new policy vigorously.

I would like to inform the public that within a short period

of time each leaseholder will be contacted by my department to fully explain the

options and they can then choose the option that is most advantageous to them.

In the interim my officials are available to answer any questions that any

leaseholder may have.

I will conclude by stating that land ownership is a privilege

and it should not be abused. We are trying extremely hard to be as fair as we

possibly can to everyone in the Province to allow leasers the opportunity to

take advantage of the old fees.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

First, I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his

statement. I received it only about three or four minutes before the House

opened. It is quite lengthy, and to respond properly I would like to have more

time to review it. But anyway, a few comments.

The minister said he wished to clarify some of the

misinformation which has been generated through the media. That begs the

question: Whose fault is that, other than the departments? Also, the policy

applies only to "commercial, residential and recreational cottage leaseholders

and it is a positive move forward...." I would have to say: In whose opinion?

Certainly not in the opinion of the leaseholders, I would think.

The minister talks about making it easier for the public to

deal with government, "by implementing a lease/purchase arrangement whereby

people will own their land after five years." This leaves the impression that it

is to the public's benefit. If he is changing the policy as much as this, it has

to be to the benefit of the government, I would assume, in taking in another

$6.2 million of revenue. Basically, I would say, this new policy is nothing less

than a tax grab, or a money grab, on the cabin-owners and property-owners within

the Province.

The minister says: We want to replace the old, arbitrary

pricing system. At least with the old system the people knew what they were

getting before they applied for their Crown land, and they knew how much they

would have to pay. With this new system it is up in the air because of the 20

per cent appraised/assessed value.

The minister goes on to say that people with cottage leases

issued prior to October 1, 1991, will be given the opportunity to convert their

leases to grants, an opportunity they have right at this present point in time.

This is just trying to cloud the issue.

On the negative side, the minister said, should they apply

for a grant after the deadline date the value of the land will be set at market

value. We have people now who, when they apply for the Crown grants, or apply

for the lease, they may have spent $10,000 or $15,000 to put a cabin on the

land; and now they have conditions that purchase to convert to a grant changed

midstream.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: To combat the problem of illegal

occupation, he is going to bring in a new policy. I am very curious to see what

the new policy will be and when it will be implemented. I am wondering: Are we

getting to the point now where we are going to start - according to this

document, and the announced policy on Crown land cottage developments, and

getting the leases converted to grants, I am wondering if down the road the

policy on occupying illegal land is going to be as hard on the public as this.

Are we now going to start stringing people up for occupying Crown land?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

I ask the minister: Why did he not appeal to either the

federal Transport Minister, David Anderson, or the President of Marine Atlantic,

Rod Morrison, prior to the close of bids on Thursday, to allow the Newfoundland

Dockyard to submit what would have been a winning bid on the Coastguard vessel,

Henry Larsen? Why, when he was supposed to be closely monitoring the Dockyard,

did he let those 80 to 100 jobs go to Halifax, whose bid was $40,000 more than

the one prepared by the Newfoundland Dockyard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how the hon.

member twists this now to become the Minister of Industry's problem for a

federal Crown corporation. I will say this to him that the negotiations were to

proceed along a parallel track with respect to an employee takeover. While that

was underway and information sessions were being held a committee of union

officials was struck to be a steering committee to look at how best to make the

transition from a federal Crown corporation to a privately held and owned

corporation by the union. This involved a whole raft of decisions dealing with

things such as share structure, how the corporation would be set up, how the

assets would be transferred, what the capitalization would be, what the pension

plans would be, all those kind of things.

Now, with respect to the hon. members question as to why I

did not intervene, a letter from the President of Marine Atlantic clearly

states, to the dockyard senior management, that they clearly had permission and

authority to proceed with a range of bids, including and specifically the

Larson which was a repair bid which easily could have been won by the

dockyard.

Now, if the hon. member thinks that I somehow have ESP or

that I can prophesies the future, who could tell that within one hour and forty

minutes of the bid being submitted a FAX was sent down by the President of

Marine Atlantic to withdraw that bid. I could only go from the letter I saw

which is dated May 26 which clearly points out that the bidding process was

allowed. In fact they identify a number of them. I think in that process they

also identify the Iroquois and one or two other vessels. I just cannot remember

right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. FUREY: The point I am trying to make is that there

was a withdrawal by Marine Atlantic some hour and forty-five minutes before the

actual bid went through. I find that despicable and I said so publicly.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If he found it despicable he should have done something about

it because Mr. Morrison sent a letter to the dockyard telling them they are not

permitted to bid over $500,000 unless it gets approval from the board. That is

my understanding of the letter that went. They are aware of that, the minister

is aware of that, and he is aware of those conditions.

Now, when asked a year ago in this House, on May 29, 1995,

how aggressively he was pressuring Ottawa to allow Newfoundland Dockyard to

remain competitive, the Premier said at that time: 'This is not a one person

government. There are thirteen other ministers in the government and they are in

touch on a constant basis.' Now, will the minister confirm that as of Friday

afternoon when the contracts had been awarded he was just then attempting to

contact the federal Transport Minister about the decision to prevent the

dockyard from bidding on the Henry Larsen contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, of course. You can only react as

you are told and as the evidence is provided to you. Now, I was told that within

an hour and forty-five minutes of the bid being submitted that the President of

Marine Atlantic, under his signature, Mr. Morrison's signature, withdrew the

bid. Now, am I supposed to be able, through ESP, to foresee this? Of course not,

and of course we are aggressively pursuing it.

I have met with the facilitator on a number of occasions, Mr.

Baker, who is doing a superb job bringing all of the factions together,

management and unions, and the federal government, et cetera. The only thing I

can say to you, Mr. Speaker, is that I have written to the federal minister. I

will be speaking with him, either later today or tomorrow morning. I met with

the Chairperson of Marine Atlantic this morning. His own caucus colleague from

St. John's South attended the meeting for a period of time. I met with the

unions. I find this outrageous. I find it a slight to the yard, to the

workforce, and to the people of the Province, and I still say it is a despicable

and treacherous act.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is right, he closed the barn door too late, like he did

on the Marystown bids and other bids, by not having a hands-on approach to what

is happening in this Province, and it is costing Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians hundreds of jobs. Now, when prior to Friday, I asked the minister,

had you been in contact with Rod Morrison about the dockyard? When prior to

Friday? Will you confirm that we could have won this contract and brought eighty

to one hundred jobs to Newfoundland if you had been on top of things and talked

to Mr. Morrison prior to the close of bids and the decision to pull the

Dockyard's bid?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the

Opposition's simulated outrage doesn't change the facts. The facts are very

clear. I've met on a number of occasions with Mr. Baker who is facilitating this

orderly transfer and takeover from Marine Atlantic to the unions as an employee

takeover. I can't predict what people are going to do. I certainly can't predict

what they are going to do within two hours of a bid being submitted.

I can confirm for you that some six days previous to that Mr.

Morrison had written to senior management, had authorized that bidding could be

allowed in a number of areas, including the repair and refit of the Larson .

I can confirm to you that it could have been done for $40,000 cheaper than the

shipyards at Halifax. I can confirm for you that eighty jobs could have been put

in place, and I can confirm for you that it is an outrage to the Province, it is

an insult to the Dockyard, and we aren't afraid to take the gloves off, even

with our cousins in Ottawa. I have done that and I intend to keep that up.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Baker is not

facilitating the tendering process and the jobs on the bidding process. That is

not part of his mandate, I understand. The gloves should have come off earlier

in the process to monitor it.

I understand that any decision that the Dockyard bids that is

in excess of $500,000 must be approved by the Marine Atlantic board of

directors. But board chairperson Moya Cahill said this morning she had received

no contact from either Mr. Morrison or from you as minister. Will the minister

confirm that had he been on top of things he would have appealed Mr. Morrison's

decision to the Marine Atlantic board of directors and gained eighty to 100 jobs

here for Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the

Opposition's question is totally ridiculous. I mean, to say that somebody could

foresee that a bid would be prepared and within an hour or two of it yanked out

from underneath the management of the Yard, I mean, who in this House could have

foreseen that? It is an absolutely absurd and stupid question.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows

well the bidding process doesn't happen in a minute. It is a long process of

getting quotes and putting together a bid. They know if it is under or over

$500,000. They know if it is $2 million or $2. That is a very inexcusable answer

the minister gave.

The minister indicated Friday that he understands that Marine

Atlantic has also prevented the Dockyard from bidding on some work to be done on

the Sir Humphrey Gilbert . I ask the minister: Why is he not being

aggressive in contacting Marine Atlantic's board of directors and the federal

minister, and what did you do before now to try to get those eighty to 100 jobs

that could be upcoming on the Sir Humphrey Gilbert bid?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, look, I would love nothing better

than to see the Dockyard recapitalized, see the workforce take possession of

these assets, see the marketplace be chased in an aggressive manner, and to see

all kinds of work created down there. But I don't have a magic wand. Nor is this

Dockyard fully in the control of the Province. We are in control only in this

regard, that we have an indirect debt that is liable to be paid back to the

Province in the order of some $8 million. I'm quite prepared to look at any

business case that will show that this can be sustained. The Province has said,

and we have gone on the record, that we will look at any way to creatively

finance and help the Dockyard get up on its feet, and we are prepared to look at

any balance of debt that is owing to the Yard.

Once again, let me point out and say for the record that the

federal government was quite clear in its Budget last year. The end year for the

Dockyard was December of last year. It was announced that it would be closed.

The then-Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the current Premier, intervened

personally, asked for an extension, got a second extension, and got a third

extension. Why? Because we wanted to put in place a reasonable and fair

opportunity for the employees of the St. John's Dockyard to take it over, to

manage it in an orderly way, to create a proper transition, and to give it a

fair shot at building a new future for themselves.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister is

trying to facilitate and help the federal government in putting the last nail in

the coffin and sealing the fate of the Dockyard here in St. John's by taking a

laissez faire attitude toward it.

I ask the minister: What if anything has he done to ensure

the Dockyard will be allowed to bid on the Sir Humphrey Gilbert as I just

mentioned or importantly, on the Iroquois - the Canadian Navy Boat on

which there is an anticipated $2 million-worth of work needed to be done? Will

he ensure and press upon Marine Atlantic to ensure that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians - that this Dockyard can bid on those two very important projects

that could employ up to 400 Newfoundlanders?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, here we are some nearly six

months later when Ottawa has placed before the workforce a time frame and they

have asked on a number of occasions for a firm expression of interest. The

workers told me this morning that they are just about ready with their legal

advice and with their consultants Coopers and Lybrand, to present the parameters

of a business case that would sustain the Dockyard well into the future. That

will be brought by the facilitator, Mr. Baker, to Ottawa perhaps next Thursday.

I have placed a call to Mr. Anderson; I want to talk to him as the minister who

is directly responsible for this Crown corporation to intervene with respect to

those two bids, the Sir Humphrey Gilbert and the Iroquois . Their

problem is they are not prepared to enter into long-distance contracts that

could create further debt and aggravate the situation at the Dockyard. What

makes this particular bid so scathing and unpalatable is that it was a

thirty-day contract which was within the time frame of the negotiations for an

employee takeover and it certainly could have created jobs, and that is why it

is despicable, unacceptable and treacherous.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Government Services and

Lands.

Mr. Minister, on May 16 you announced a new pricing policy

for Crown land based on provincial assessment and fair market value appraisals.

The Budget indicates additional revenues to your department under this new

policy of $6.2 million. The lease rental will be 20 per cent of the market value

of the land and the lease can be converted to a grant at market value price.

Since he had to come out today with a Ministerial Statement to try to straighten

out a few points, can the minister indicate to the House what the increased

average cost would be for a residential grant and/or a cottage grant, also the

increased costs to lease residential and cottage lands?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not be able to

answer his question right away. I would be willing to take the question back to

my officials and have them develop the information that is required to answer

that question.

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, with this new Budget, applications for Crown

land has gone from $50 up to $100, we know that; documentation preparation from

$150 to $200; residential lease from $50 a year to 20 per cent of the market

value which obviously the minister and people in his department do not know at

this point in time; recreational cottages, from $75 a year to 20 per cent of the

market value.

A new cost to the applicant may be the appraisal. The Budget

estimates indicate an increase in salary allotment for Crown lands at $390,700;

that looks to be ten people at approximately $39,000 per year. Mr. Minister,

will the applicant be responsible to contract the appraiser, as is now the case

for land surveyors, or will the department be hiring assessors which will offset

the estimated revenues? And will the cost of assessment be passed on to the

applicant?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, in areas where assessments are

going to be required, the department will be using assessors from the Department

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. There are a number of situations that arise

- there are areas of the Province where no assessments are being done, and in

these cases, the grants will be issued and the leases will be issued on areas

based on $2,500 rather than assessments. In other areas as well, in the remote

cabin areas, this will be based on basically a $75 fee up to $150 fee depending

on the size of the cabins on those lots.

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

My last question, which I would like the minister to address

when he gets on his feet, is with respect to the $390,700 for those ten people,

who they may be and what they will be doing. This new policy forces the existing

leaseholders to apply for a grant by October 31, 1996. These leaseholders are

seeing conditions of their lease changed mid-stream and may not be able to

afford the dramatic increases as announced.

Mr. Minister, what process are you putting in place to

collect these increased rates from those who possibly cannot afford to pay and,

will we actually see eviction notices or cabins being taken to satisfy this

money grab?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, we certainly will be in a

position and we are dealing with the issue of having to pay all the money before

October 31, 1996. There may be areas where we can deal with extenuating

circumstances, and in response to the other areas, we will not be taking cabins

away from people who currently hold them if they are unable to meet the deadline

of October 31, 1996.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.

There has been a tremendous outcry from students, teachers

and parents this weekend about the government's ad hoc approach to the

evaluation of students, which is a fundamental aspect of our educational system

in this Province.

Will the minister own up to a succession of errors and today,

reinstate, in this Province, both the Public Exams and the Public Exam Marking

Board, at least for this current year of 1996, so a sense of order and sanity

can be returned to the last several weeks of this present school year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is complete sense and order.

The Roman Catholic School Board for St. John's today

exercised its authority under the Education Act to allow for the option for

students who want to write a final exam, to do so. For those who are comfortable

with having their year evaluated on their work to date, they are allowing that

option as well, and for the department, we will accept the evaluation from the

professional staff at all of the schools in Newfoundland and Labrador at Level

III and the university in Newfoundland and Labrador, the colleges in

Newfoundland and Labrador and universities elsewhere will all accept those.

There is no reason for any confusion or concern by the students other than,

people for political reasons, might try to create, Mr. Speaker.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know

that the 1992 Royal Commission report wanted the government to move in a

direction of consistency and higher standards.

Will the minister acknowledge that any decision as

fundamental as the way students are evaluated - a concern raised by parents,

teachers and students repeatedly in the last several days over all this

Province, and not in an ad hoc fashion, not at the eleventh hour, not with money

as its primary focus - that any decision should be made thoughtfully and

carefully, to ensure maximum consistency and standardization?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If there is any concern that I have sensed in monitoring the

situation over the last few days, it is because some people in their

professional capacities as leaders of school boards, superintendents otherwise,

some teachers at the school level, have been suggesting, inappropriately, Mr.

Speaker, that students should be concerned about the status of their evaluation

because their marks and their grades and evaluations may not be acceptable for

post-secondary entrance requirements. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. It has

been verified not to be the case and it is a non-issue at this point in time.

There will be no reinstatement. It does not need reinstatement, and all we have

to do is, get the rest of the school boards to follow the lead of the Roman

Catholic School Board for St. John's today, let their students know exactly

whether or not they will be writing a final examination so that they can

continue their studies for their year-end evaluations.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, hasn't the minister been

listening? Has he not been listening to the public outcry in this Province since

this announcement was made last week?

Why doesn't this minister listen, Mr. Speaker, and what is so

fundamentally wrong or so intrinsically wrong with altering a decision,

reversing a decision, a decision which affects so many people in this Province

and when it is clear that this is what the people in this Province want? What is

so terribly wrong with reversing a decision?

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

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing

wrong with reversing any decision that deserves or requires reversing.

The two issues that were raised consistently since last week

were, whether or not marks may be accepted, it is a non-issue, no need to

reverse a decision about a non-issue. Every mark submitted to the department

through the evaluation of schools will be accepted by post-secondary

institutions in the Province and across the country.

The other issue that has been raised is whether or not there

are appropriate standards in place. We trust the professional teachers of the

Province to make every evaluation decision from Kindergarten through to junior

high school in all the courses in Level I, in all the courses in Level II, in

all the courses in Level III - some eighty of them - except for eighteen. We are

willing to trust the teachers of the Province to evaluate all of them based on

their professionalism and the fact that we will accept the marks, the

post-secondary institutions will accept the marks that other provinces don't do

a public examination, that it is not required to guarantee standards. There is a

provincially-based curriculum that every professionally trained teacher teaches

and makes an evaluation on that basis. We are totally confident that the

evaluations will accurately reflect the ability of the students to master the

concepts that are in the courses they have studied. They will be accepted at the

post-secondary level, and there is no need for anyone to be concerned, and no

need for any reversal of the decision.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Education and has to

do with the cancellation of first-year university programs in rural

Newfoundland.

During the election campaign, the Premier told the people of

this Province that the government could, if need be, borrow up to $50 million,

$60 million, or $70 million to meet the deficit shortfall. Will the minister now

admit, following our Budget and the commitment to borrow only $14.8 million,

that, in fact, for budgetary reasons there was no reason to cancel the

first-year education programs outside of St. John's and Corner Brook, and Lab

City, and that this decision was made, in fact, for other reasons to do with the

minister's agenda or the government's agenda?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has no particular agenda. The government has a

particular agenda in education, that is, to provide the best quality of

affordable education in the maximum number of areas and sites that we can.

With respect to first-year Memorial, we have eliminated the

options. They are now polling through the Central Regional College and through

the Eastern Regional College the prospective students themselves, to see whether

or not they want to continue on with a first-year option to the point that they

are willing to pay an enhanced registration fee, or whether or not they will

have a slightly different model of first year than they had in the last years.

The government has decided that we are slightly overextended on the

post-secondary side. One of the areas where we are overextended is in the area

of first-year university and, as a matter of policy, we would not offer

first-year university in those locations into the future, but if they,

themselves, can come forward with some other model that is cost-efficient and

effective, then we are certainly willing to look at their proposals.

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

Vidi, on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, at least the minister has acknowledged that it is not

being done totally for budgetary reasons but rather policy reasons. Is he also

prepared to acknowledge that the further you get away from St. John's, the less

access a student will have to post-secondary education at the university level,

and the cost will increase? Is he not prepared to admit that his government's

decision, which was not made for financial reasons because of the deficit, that

that decision will have the effect of increasing the cost of first-year

university to students outside of St. John's and Corner Brook - either

increasing that cost - or diminishing the access that high school graduates will

have to first-year university in this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just so the record shows, I did not indicate, as the hon.

member suggests, that these are not made for fiscal reasons, all of these

decisions were made in the context of developing a complete Budget which was

presented by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, a week-and-a-half ago, in

this Legislature.

The Minister of Finance pointed out at that time that since

the position of the Province had changed, even from the time of his public

consultation, the advice of the lending agencies and of our bond raters was that

we borrow the least amount possible. As a matter of fact, zero borrowing would

have been preferable, not even $15 million. So it is incorrect for anyone to

suggest that I am saying this was not done as part of a budgetary reason.

The whole issue of whether you are further from a particular

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, is one that has some merit but is not the main

criterion for students making their decision.

In Central Newfoundland as an example with respect to

first-year university, last year in the group from high-school graduates who

looked at Memorial University and other universities as a first-year option, 15

per cent of the students in that range chose first-year in the three sites in

Central, 16.5 per cent chose St. John's, even though there was an opportunity

available in Central Newfoundland, and another 4 per cent chose mainland

universities, despite the fact there were opportunities available in three

centres in Central Newfoundland.

So it isn't a matter of it being accessible and that dealing

with the opportunity for students. Students themselves make their own choices in

many events based upon the programming and the institution that they want to

attend.

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

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just one final

supplementary: Would the minister tell the House which portion of the $8 million

that the government proposes to save by cutting out these programs comes from

the first-year university program? I know the announcement was made at the same

time as the announcement to make administrative changes to the college structure

and system, but I don't think that the minister broke down the $8 million into

the two parts. How much does the minister plan to save by removing the

first-year university program to rural Newfoundland?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point of the

question, I will get to it very briefly, in looking at a specific amount for

first-year university in six locations where the government decided not to offer

the option again, is one issue. It is nice to try to identify a particular

amount for one particular action. The reality is that the government in a budget

read by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board ten days or so indicated

where we made $290 million worth of adjustments in all program areas within the

government, and one of those was in Education.

With respect to post-secondary education we talked about $3.5

million to be saved because of the reorganization in the college system from

five colleges and five boards to one college and one board and one headquarters.

Another $2.5 million is attributed to savings that will be attributed in this

particular process to the fact that we will not be putting additional funding

into the system to offer first-year university at six campus locations in

Central and Eastern regions of the Island of Newfoundland.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is also

for the Minister of Education. St. John's is not getting school bus services

when most municipalities are, even the larger ones. This doesn't seem fair to

parents and students in St. John's. Metrobus schedules do not always coincide

with school hours. Many St. John's area parents cannot afford to pay Metrobus

fares of $10 a week per child. Many parents do not have the luxury of taking

school children in private vehicles, and many students, especially younger ones,

cannot walk the great distances in rain, snow and shine across busy roadways.

Shouldn't the government at the very least, in order to

provide everybody with their full and fair share, provide funding for the

Metrobus services in St. John's to lower the cost of Metrobus fares to

school-aged children in St. John's and area as other municipalities are being

funded for school busing?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

question, but I believe the hon. member knows that the actions taken with

respect to busing in the limits and the boundaries of the City of St. John's

were taken to reduce money from the Budget, not to put money into the Budget for

busing. The idea of paying for bus passes for students in St. John's would

increase the busing cost for students in the City by several million dollars.

What we have done instead is treat every student in every

neighbourhood within the boundaries of the City of St. John's the same. That is,

in the City of St. John's which is the only municipality in the Province where

there is a fully scheduled bus service that can handle the needs of the

students, that they go to and from the school - the question was: Why should

five or six neighbourhoods in St. John's have a school bus service when all the

rest of the neighbourhoods in St. John's were paying for the Metrobus to go back

and forth to school, or making their own arrangements? Within the City of St.

John's there is a totally consistent application as of this decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

I would like to advise hon. members that we have, in the

lobby, a photographer who is available to take some pictures. If hon. members

would like to avail of the opportunity to have a picture taken with the Sergeant

at Arms, you can do so over the next little while.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present the annual

report of Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation for the years 1994 and 1995.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I herewith table four special warrants as follows relating to

expenditures of last year, the hon. members will be pleased to note: First of

all, the special warrant of $1,700,000 to provide funds to allow the electoral

office to hold a general election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Fortunately, the Opposition does not get to

vote on these, Your Honour.

A special warrant of $300,000 to provide funds to allow the

electoral office to prepare for a general election - that was in last year's

Estimates, and one is not anticipated this year - a special warrant of

$3,300,000 to provide additional funds in support of the persons with the

disabilities component of the Home Support Services program in social services;

and, finally, in the Department of Health a special warrant of $800,000 to

provide additional funds for the drug subsidization costs for indigents and

senior citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS Inco has acquired Diamond Field Resources and the

huge nickel, cobalt and copper discovery at Voisey's Bay; and

WHEREAS the Voisey's Bay nickel resource will be the lowest

cost nickel resource in the world; and

WHEREAS the investment in employment opportunities flowing

from this new mining opportunity is a major step in the economic future of this

Province, and the region of Labrador in particular;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED, given that Inco has committed to

the construction of the mine, the mine mill, the smelter, and the refinery, that

this honourable House strongly endorses a policy of directing Inco to fully

assess the economics of any and all smelter and refinery sites in the region of

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

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

I wish today to rise and present a petition on behalf of a

great numbers of students in the St. John's region, in particular students

representing Mount Pearl Senior High School, and also on behalf of the students

who are located in the following schools: Prince of Wales Collegiate, Brother

Rice High School, Holy Heart of Mary Regional High School, Gonzaga Regional High

School, Queen Elizabeth Regional High School, Booth Memorial Regional High,

Mount Pearl Senior High, Beaconsfield High School, Holy Spirit High School, and

Holy Trinity High School.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is that the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular the Minister of

Education, would listen to the students before they start making decisions

relative to public examinations. These students have formed themselves into a

student education alliance. They want to have their voices heard, and they are

demanding of the minister that the minister pay attention to their concerns.

They are concerned that with the cancellation of public examinations, and the

elimination of the provincial marking board from the provincial Budget, that

this is going to have implications for the standard of education, and have the

result of de-standardizing the educational evaluation process in the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister met with some of these

students on Friday afternoon, and we saw the results of that in the public

media. These students have said loud and clear that they think that this

particular decision of the government was made in some great haste, and they are

asking the minister today to reinstate the Public Examination Marking Board and

the Public Examination method of evaluation and they believe that that is in

their best interests. They believe that is being fair, that that is what they

had planned on doing it at this time of the year. They knew in September, they

were told that was the evaluation process and now, at the eleventh hour, the

minister says: No, no, we are not going to do it that way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how can we expect the students of this

Province to have faith in the governmental system if they find that at the

eleventh hour the whole structure of their evaluation process has been

dramatically changed? This note which was written by the Student Education

Alliance reminds the minister, and I quote from it: in the Liberal Red Book, on

page 67, it says: A new Liberal Government is committed to dialogue and

discussion on all elements of implementing educational reform before decisions

are made.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what happened to page 67? Wasn't that page

in the minister's Red Book? It certainly was in other people's Red Book. Then in

this particular situation, the students of this region are saying to the

minister, they want you to engage in a dialogue, don't implement these major

reforms until they have had a chance to have a dialogue with you. It is their

education, it is their future and they want to be part of any decisions that are

affecting them, and while we as adults or as seniors or as teachers or as

parents might say that we might not always want to dialogue with youth, in this

particular case we should hear the voices of youth. They are saying: Listen to

us. We want to be part of any decisions that you make.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have concerns about valid assessments;

we have concerns about predictability of evaluation, we have concerns about

standardization; we have concerns that the young people of this Province are

losing faith in the method of evaluation, so I ask the minister today, on behalf

of the students from all those schools that I have mentioned, if he would listen

to what they are saying and be prepared to act on it and be fair and reasonable

with the students of Newfoundland and Labrador who are in their third year of

the high school program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today in support of the petition that has been

presented to the House by my colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the people in this Province

have spoken. All one has to do is listen to the public airways, read the

articles and letters to the editor in the various print media throughout the

Province, and I am sure the Minister of Education has received numerous phone

calls and letters and faxes by concerned parents, students and teachers on this

particular issue.

I mean, Mr. Speaker, before me, I just had a joint release by

the Western Avalon R. C. School Board and the Avalon North Integrated School

Board registering their disapproval and disgust with the decision that has been

made by this particular government. I have a news release by the Newfoundland

and Labrador Teachers Association dated May 23, registering its disgust with

respect to the cancelling of professional marking of any public exams and this

of course, was prior to, Mr. Speaker, the decision made on Friday past, with

respect to the cancellation of Public Examinations.

I have a letter here as well, a press release from students

from Prince of Wales Collegiate, who are deeply upset with the fact that there

is cancellation of public exams, that even prior to that decision, Mr. Speaker,

there was no satisfactory system put in place with respect to marking, and

disapproves as well, Mr. Speaker, with the fact that there was no consultation,

no discussion, no attempt, Mr. Speaker, to have all appropriate parties meet and

try and resolve this very important issue which the minister has indicated.

Mr. Speaker, the Student Education Alliance appears to be a

growing movement. My colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley listed the

schools: Prince of Wales, Brother Rice, Holy Heart, Gonzaga, Queen Elizabeth,

Booth, Mount Pearl Senior High, Beaconsfield, Holy Spirit, Holy Trinity,

representation from practically all schools within the immediate region. This

Student Education Alliance is an important movement, it is a growing movement,

and I understand that within the next several days, their force and effect will

be heard.

I certainly support the petition that has been brought

forward by my colleague and I call upon the minister to once again, at least

listen, and hopefully give serious and strong consideration to a reversal of

decisions which have been made, decisions which I submit have not been in the

best interest of students, decisions that have been made within the last few

days which do not reflect clearly what is in their interest as students and as

future and meaningful members of our society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of comments with respect to the alleged

petition; I will not call into question the format. I certainly appreciate the

opportunity to make a few comments, so I am assuming the petition is in good

shape.

There are several points I would like to make, Mr. Speaker.

Having received a notice from the Student Education Alliance just prior to

coming to the House of Assembly today, and having looked at it, they did talk

about -

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, when the minister rises he

uses words like an `alleged petition'. I rise on a point of order to ask the

minister if he can prove that the petition is out of order? He is carrying on as

if the petition was not in order and that there was some movement on this side

of the House for us to circumvent normal procedures. I want to assure the hon.

minister that this is not an alleged petition but a petition sent to the hon.

the House of Assembly. This is the alleged minister, this is the nebulous

minister, if you will recall. He is talking about nebulous language, one of the

words he used a little while ago. I say to the minister, he should refrain from

casting negative aspirations on the intent of the petitioners.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. There is really no

point of order, but all hon. members should accept the word of other hon.

members. If a petition is presented here, then it is assumed that the petition

is in order, and unless it is proven otherwise we have to accept it.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My humble apology if I suggested that I did anything other

than accept the word of the hon. members.

The issues raised in the note to me from the Student

Education Alliance with respect to de-standardizing the education evaluation

process, and their concerns about that: As I pointed out earlier in Question

Period, there is no reason for students to be concerned. As a matter of fact,

the Roman Catholic School Board of St. John's today provide an opportunity for

their students, if they want to write a final examination to supposedly enhance

and improve their total evaluation for the year; they have the option to do so.

It will be interesting to see how many students actually sign up to write the

exam.

All ratings done for students to date, right up to, and

including this point in their careers, have been totally done by the teachers

and totally acceptable to the students and their parents, and I find it a little

bit surprising now that people are suggesting that in the final few days and the

final few courses, after a thirteen and fourteen-year school career, they are

suggesting the same teachers whose evaluations they were more than willing to

accept for years are now no good and should be called into question.

With respect to consultation, Mr. Speaker, in this very

document, the student group themselves make this comment. They say: `Though we

recognize the fact that no formal student group existed in the past to be

consulted,' they suggest I should have consulted with them. But it is kind of

difficult to consult with 100,000 students in the high schools of Newfoundland

and Labrador when there are no student representatives to dialogue with.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in presenting the

petition and supporting it, talked about page 67 of the Red Book. The reference

on page 67 of the Red Book has nothing to do with examinations. It says: `The

new Liberal Government is committed to dialogue and discussion on all elements

of implementing educational reform.' Everybody, Mr. Speaker, knows that that has

to do with Term 17, and the visit that we are going to make tomorrow to Ottawa.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with public examinations, first-year university,

the closure of campus or any of those issues. It has to deal specifically with

education reform, the constitutional amendment, nothing else, Mr. Speaker. So it

is a nice try by the Opposition to try to ride something that they think is a

little bit of a pony; but the pony has stopped, the school boards are making

their decisions, there is no pony to ride. My advice to the students is study

for your exams. If you want to write them, exercise the option given by the

school board. Get your final evaluation, it will be accepted. The standards are

just fine, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to be concerned. It is a non-issue.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition. I apologize that I did

not send it over to the Minister of Education to get it approved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: To get it corrected, I say to the member,

or approved but, Mr. Speaker, I think it is in order. There have been many

presented here before. I will not read the full prayer of the petition; I will

just read part of it. Petition to the House of Assembly. To the hon. the House

of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened. The petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, that:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates - and, Mr. Speaker, it goes on

to state several more whereases and therefores.

It is a feeling being expressed by some people in the

district of Bonavista South and Trinity North with the fear of their electricity

rates being increased by 4.9 per cent with the applications now before the

Public Utilities Board and about to be heard in the next couple of months.

Mr. Speaker, it is unheard of that we would consider allowing

a utility today, with a monopoly on supplying a service, to come forward and

look for another 4.9 per cent rate in electricity fees, considering that this

same company, this same utility, made a profit of some $28 million last year.

When you consider the people who are going to be hurt most because of this rate

increase and when you consider another increase about to be bestowed on them by

the Minister of Finance with the harmonization of the GST/PST of another 8 per

cent on top of their utility bill, you are seeing the people of this Province

paying an extra 13 per cent to 14 per cent on their utility bill, a cost which

relates into approximately $60 to $70 a month with somebody using electric heat

today.

Mr. Speaker, it must be wonderful to have a business where

you can go out and advertise and do all the things that you need to do in order

to promote your business and get the jump on the oil companies, the only other

competition out there for heat, and just throw it right back at the consumers of

the Province to recoup your costs, recoup your losses and continue your profit

margin to $28 million to $30 million annually.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon the House to intervene. It was

brought up at the Estimates Committee meeting with the Minister of Mines and

Energy a few nights ago and he indicated that he was not about to intervene on

behalf of the taxpayers and the residents of this Province. He was going to

allow the Consumer Advocate, Mr. Browne, to carry the load and whatever it was

that they decided to do after he made his submission, it was okay with them. Mr.

Speaker, I do not accept that. I think we were all elected here to look after

our constituents, and one way of looking after them is to protect them from the

giant companies like Newfoundland Power and other utilities that are out there

today providing, not only - well, it is an essential service but it is a service

of great necessity. It is not something where you have a choice to do other

things. The people who did make a choice to go out and cut firewood to provide

for their heating needs, now all of a sudden are being penalized as well by this

utility, and the people who use less electricity are going to be faced with a

higher percentage of increase.

Mr. Speaker, this is totally unfair, totally unacceptable. I

call on the government of the day to speak out, and the Government House Leader

to speak out for his constituents, and allow the poor people out there today who

just received a hit from the government Budget, just received a hit from the

Department of Social Services in having their emergency funding taken away from

them - Mr. Speaker, I had a call this morning from somebody who had depended on

that $61 in order to be able to buy some extra food and to take their son to the

graduation on Friday night. She called this morning when she had visited her

social worker and was told that that $61 for food was not there anymore. As a

result, the few dollars that she had tucked away and saved to take her son to

graduation would now have to be spent, and he would be deprived of going out and

graduating with his fellow students.

This government have not shown much compassion in the past

and I am not surprised that they are not showing it now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on the

government to make fair representation and to intervene and say enough is

enough. I think this company will continue to provide a service. We are not in

fear of them pulling out the next day. Allow the people of this Province to

continue to go out and supply food and shelter for their families.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am pleased today to rise in my place and speak on behalf of

the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South, and to support the

petition of course. That is one petition presented today of many petitions that

have been presented in this House of Assembly over the past little while. I

expect there will be many more to be presented in the coming days and weeks and

months as long as Newfoundland Power is persistent on getting a rate increase.

There has been a request from this side of the House and from

other people to the Minister of Mines and Energy to make a presentation to the

Public Utilities Board, and let the Public Utilities Board know the government's

position with respect to a rate increase for Newfoundland Power. The government

members opposite will say that they should not interfere with the process, but

they did not mind interfering with the process when there was a commission in

place to go around this Province with respect to the electoral boundaries. At

that point in the time they made a presentation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Another day, another dollar.

MR. J. BYRNE: Another day, another dollar. They made a

presentation to the commission with respect to the electoral boundary changes,

Mr. Speaker.

Now, I have made a note to the Public Utilities Board that I

wanted to make a presentation to them with respect to the rate increase proposed

by Newfoundland Power. Since that time, I have received from the Consumer

Advocate and the PUB a mound of information. It is probably a foot-and-a-half

high now up on my desk. Information is coming in all the time. Basically, I have

notified them that the information we have is plenty for me to make a case that

Newfoundland Power should not get a rate increase. The bottom line is, of

course, that it is just morally wrong. Newfoundland Power received profits last

year of $27 million. I think that is quite sufficient in these hard times that

the Province is going through. Of course, the government of the day, in the past

few years, has certainly contributed to that problem.

Also, the tax harmonization that is being proposed will have

an impact upon the amount of money that people will pay in the Province for

power - 7 per cent. I noticed the brochure that was sent around by the

government saying that the electric bill of a person who now pays $75 and who

now pays $7.58 tax, that will go up to $10.96. That is roughly 50 per cent of

the taxes that are paid now for - well, $10.96 up from $7.58 is $3.40, somewhere

around there. So, in actual fact, if we have a rate increase plus the tax

harmonization rate increase next year we will probably see more people in the

Province getting threats from Newfoundland Power about having their electricity

cut off because they cannot afford to pay it.

I know of an individual recently who had Newfoundland Power

come to his house and read his meter. What they do now, of course, is often

times they will do estimates. They won't come to the house at all; then they

will do estimates. One house that I know of they estimated, I think, from $65 up

to $150 per month. If Newfoundland Power is looking to get more money in their

coffers type of thing, I am certainly sure that this is taken advantage of

pretty often. If they can come in and estimate a rate increase of 100 per cent

for sure on certain houses in the run of a month, if you take in 20,000 or

30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 houses in the Province, that can add up pretty

quickly.

Of course Newfoundland Power, when they first started, looked

for a rate increase of 4.9 per cent, and when the consumer advocate got involved

they dropped it down to 3.9 per cent, and now it has dropped even further. So

basically what I believe is that it calls into, for Newfoundland Power, a

question of credibility; how well did they do their studies beforehand, to say

that they needed this 4.9 per cent increase? We have seen representatives of

Newfoundland Power in the media saying that basically - from my perspective the

bottom line is that they did not do a proper study, a proper analysis of their

costs in supplying the power to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I

said before, to me that alone should give the Public Utilities Board reason

enough to refuse Newfoundland Power's rate increase this year. This has been

going on for some time now, and possibly if this continues to go any further it

will be next year before we see a rate increase anyway.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the people

involved, the Public Utilities Board, and possibly the Minister of Mines and

Energy, to make a presentation, and just let them know that we are not really

satisfied with the process that Newfoundland Power has put in place and has

followed over recent days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to rise in this hon. House today to present

a petition on behalf of the residents of Lush's Road in the community of

Marysvale in my district. The petition reads as follows:

WHEREAS Lush's Road, in the District of Harbour Main -

Whitbourne, is in great need of extensive upgrading and paving; and

WHEREAS the above mentioned road is used as a bus route for

transporting children to and from school; and

WHEREAS the people of this area of the Province feel that

safe passage of the children cannot be granted due to the poor condition of the

Lush's Road;

THEREFORE this House of Assembly should call upon the

provincial government to fund the repair and pavement of the Lush's Road in the

Town of Marysvale, District of Harbour Main, and as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite familiar with the road in question. I

have been down there -

AN HON. MEMBER: Been down that road many times.

MR. WHELAN: Yes, I have been down that road many times.

The condition of the road in the wintertime is atrocious,

practically impassable, one of the very few gravel roads left in the Province,

and I believe the prudent and economical thing to do with this particular road

would be to pave it. I am sure that within the matter of only a few years they

would not only save the cost of paving it but they would provide a very valued

and a very essential service, a very basic service, to the children and the

residents in general of the Lush's Road in Marysvale.

I call upon the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to take a hard look at this with a view to resolving the problem

of the people on Lush's Road to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise in support of the petition presented by my hon.

colleague opposite. It is one of many roads in the Province that are certainly

in need of paving and upgrading, and anywhere where children have to travel I

think is where we should be giving consideration first and foremost.

I would certainly be negligent if I did not support this

particular petition. We had a great crowd out the other night for a meeting

there.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. FRENCH: Oh, I don't know; there was just a numerous

crowd.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty?

MR. FRENCH: Oh, no, more than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and fifty.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, and probably more than that again.

We have many of these roads throughout the Province, in my

own district and, of course, in the hon. gentleman's district - I am sure there

are many more - so I would like to rise and offer our support to this particular

petition. As I said earlier, anywhere where children have to travel on the

school bus I think first and foremost we should be giving priority.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to present a petition by the residents of Shea Heights

on the school busing issue, and the prayer will read as follows:

We, the residents of Shea Heights, wish to petition the House

of Assembly to oppose the discontinuation of the school-bus service to the

community of Shea Heights. The cost of the Metrobus service can be burdensome on

a family already trying to live within a very financial, limited means. There

will be very little cost to the Province to have the school bus stop in the

community of Shea Heights on its way to or from the community of Blackhead. The

Metrobus schedule, in some cases does not coincide with school hours as I may

point out is the case in Shea Heights; it stops every hour on the hour. The

students would have to make a stop on Water Street to get a transfer and take a

second bus under the Metrobus system in order to get to school. So I ask the

House to accept this petition by the residents of Shea Heights.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to rise and support the petition from

residents of Shea Heights presented by the Member for St. John's South on the

issue of school busing. It is one of those issues that I have presented a number

of times to this House, Mr. Speaker, and has to do with the reverse of the kind

of thing that most people in this House talk about how this government treats

rural Newfoundland and discriminates against rural Newfoundland.

We have here, Mr. Speaker, a very good example of how the

government in this Province discriminates against young people and students who

live in the City of St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Port de

Grave, the mouth from Port de Grave, doesn't want to hear about the

discrimination against students from St. John's who have to pay their way on the

school bus while residents of his district travel to school for free on school

buses provided by the Minister of Education, so it is time, Mr. Speaker, that

this issued is aired publicly, that the students in St. John's are being

discriminated against by this government in the manner of school busing.

They are required to pay, or their parents are required to

pay the cost of the Metrobus in travelling to and from school

whereas, students

in Mount Pearl or Conception Bay South or Port de Grave or Twillingate and Fogo,

travel to and from the schools - and Bonavista North too, Twillingate and Fogo -

The former Member for Fogo represents these people as well, and in these

districts, Mr. Speaker, school busing is provided by the Department of Education

at no direct cost at least to the students involved, and that, is a system of

discrimination that has gone on year in and year out in this Province without so

much as a comment by the government.

Now we have had a few occasions, Mr. Speaker, when particular

situations have arisen which we have raised in this House, students from Quidi

Vidi and Quidi Vidi Village having been denied access to the school bus because

a Metrobus happened to change its route and go down there to the Quidi Vidi

Village, and that caused problems for students because they couldn't afford to

get on this bus and ended up having to walk a mile or a mile-and-a-half to

school regardless of the weather because they couldn't afford to be on the bus.

This is the kind of example of how students in St. John's are

treated differently from students outside of St. John's because only students

who could afford to travel the buses in St. John's could get on a bus to school,

whereas outside of St. John's school buses are provided by government without

regard to a person's ability to pay and I think that is unfair and that ought to

change and there are some very straightforward and simple solutions offered by

the Member for St. John's South and I support the residents who have signed the

petition and I support the prayer of the petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of comments with respect to the petition,

particularly the comments made by the hon. Member for Signal Hill -Quidi Vidi.

He has made the point repeatedly in the House, Mr. Speaker,

and at least he should be given absolute marks for consistency in the point of

view that he presents with respect to school busing in the City of St. John's

versus elsewhere in the Province. He has been consistent since I have had the

experience of sharing a seat in the Legislature with him, Mr. Speaker. I would

suggest however that the deputy mayor of the City of St. John's would have a

completely different story to tell and a tune to sing if in fact the Province

ever were to institute school busing in St. John's and the revenues that the

City of St. John's depends upon for the metro bus service from students in all

other areas were to disappear you would hear a completely opposite

representation then being made to the provincial government from the City of St.

John's if we were to provide yellow school busing in the city and the revenues

that they currently get, Mr. Speaker, were to disappear.

With respect to the Shea Heights issue and Blackhead, I think

the real answer, as everybody in this Legislature knows with respect to Shea

Heights and Blackhead, is not to be busing students down in a metro bus or

otherwise from Shea Heights into other schools down in the other part of the

City of St. John's. I am surprised that the residents of Shea Heights and

Blackhead are not petitioning the government to have them all go to the one

school in Shea Heights, St. John Bosco, Mr. Speaker, which has exemplified

itself in the last couple of years as a school of superior quality. They have

been recognized in a number of different polls and a number of different

criteria referencing as an exceptional school in the Province, Mr. Speaker, in

the city. The real answer, with respect to busing for Blackhead and Shea

Heights, is not to be busing people past a marvellous facility in Shea Heights

to other schools in the city but to use it as a neighbourhood school - that

everybody here says they support - and everybody in Shea Heights and Blackhead

could go to the school in Shea Heights rather than have to worry about whether a

school bus or a metro bus is taking some of the students from Shea Heights down

into other schools in other parts of the City of St. John's.

So when we get through the education reform agenda, Mr.

Speaker, I am sure you will see a whole different scenario with respect to

busing in the City of St. John's, busing with respect to Blackhead and Shea

Heights and neighbourhood schools. The parents will have their say, Mr. Speaker,

as to whether or not they want to put their children on a metro bus and go

somewhere else in the city, pay for it themselves or go to St. John Bosco in

Shea Heights which is one of the top quality schools anywhere in the city.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could move motions

8 to 14 inclusive for first reading.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Portability of Pensions Act". (Bill

No. 13)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act And The Education Act". (Bill No. 8)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act".

(Bill No. 7)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands to introduce bills, "An Act To Provide For The Safety Of The Public With

Respect To The Use And Operation Of Elevating Devices, Amusement Rides, Pressure

And Electrical Systems". (Bill No. 10)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Accountancy Act". (Bill

No. 11)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act". (Bill No. 12)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Establish The Professional Fish Harvesters

Certification Board And To Provide For The Certification Of Professional Fish

Harvesters". (Bill No. 9)

On motion, Bill Nos. 7 to 13 read a first time, ordered read

a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to address a few particular points today regarding

this alleged Budget of no taxes that we have seen coming out every single day

and what the real Budget is all about. We will get an opportunity now. Today the

minister had to get up and try to clarify some public concerns on this new

taxation policy, $6.2 million in tax hikes on people who have cabins, residences

and other types of cottages scattered around Newfoundland and Labrador. We were

told there was going to be no particular taxes in this Budget. We have seen a

$6.2 million tax that comes under a heading of a new market value pricing

policy. People entered into long term agreements. They have put considerable

money into their cottages, thousands of dollars and now they have changed the

rules in mid-stream. It is only fair that people who have entered into

agreements and have been occupying these cottages should be given the

opportunity to continue into an arrangement, whether it is five, fifteen, or

fifty years, and not have the rules change in midstream, causing undue hardship

on people, who probably since they occupied the cabin, lost their jobs and are

receiving an unemployment cheque, maybe a TAGS cheque, or other forms of income.

It is very exorbitant to have to pay $3000 out now to buy a cottage into which

somebody, just two weeks ago, has invested maybe $2000 and they do not have the

available resources to do it. It is not playing ball, it is not fair game,

especially for people who are in their fifth year of this lease, their last

year, who have no extra time left and have to exercise that by October 31 this

year. It is not fair to these people, it is unfair taxation. You can call it

what you like, it is a taxation on people who have residence on Crown lands,

people who have cottages and so on, that they built as part of their leisure

time and put considerable investment into it, in many, many instances. The

minister indicated no taxation.

The minister, today, in his Ministerial Statement, said that

the new policy only applies to commercial, residential and recreation cottage

leaseholders. I am wondering what other leaseholders are out there, if they are

not commercial, not residential, and not recreation cottages? How many other

categories are there that it would apply to? I do not know of any others. Maybe

the minister could let us know when he gets an opportunity to speak in the

Budget debate.

Mr. Speaker, we have a Budget deficit now, a structural

deficit of $87 million that was only improved by $3 million in this Budget. Last

year, if I remember correctly, there was a $90 million structural deficit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you complaining (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not complain, I say to the minister.

I indicated at that time that any new people who wish to acquire Crown land, or

new cottages, are going in under a set of conditions that they know so they have

the option to avail of it or not. What I am complaining about to the minister is

changing the rules after the game has started. They are not playing ball with

the people out there. All through the Red Book they were promised a new era of

consultation in this Province. They were going to consult with teachers,

students, and parents when they cancelled public exams. They were going to

consult with holders of property in this Province but on March 16 they announced

a whole new set of rules in a game that people had been playing for the past

twenty years. A new tax has to be built in - that is the type of consultation.

Consultation on heath care. The minister stood in the House

here last week, the Minister of Health, after what the Minister of Finance said

in the Budget, that there would be $903.3 million put into health care, and the

Minister of Health has stated now in this House, that out of that $903.3 we are

going to take money for the expansion or the restructuring of health care here

in the City of St. John's. He indicated it is going to come out of that, the

operational monies we have here in the Province.

That is not what people were led to believe. They were led to

believe it was going to be a capital expenditure over and above the current

account expenditures under the particular department, so people are being told

one thing and government is delivering on something entirely different. We have

borrowed certainly on our future and we have not made wise decisions by not

consulting people out there on those decisions.

It is important, I think, to put some faith in the people who

are in the education system, and in the health care system, by consulting on

what avenues you should go. Maybe to eliminate public exams is an appropriate

decision at this point in time, but that is not the question here, the question

is to announce on May 16 when students now, at this time of the year, some of

them are very distraught with the announcement they are finding through the

grapevine. Teachers did not know the situation and were unable to explain it to

them, or to the parents, last minute, ad hoc decisions, that have not been well

thought out, and in all probability maybe very poor decisions. They have not

taken the time to consult with people and get real solutions to real problems

that are out there.

This government must plan for the future and not simply hope

for the future. That seems to be the trademark of this government, to sit out

and hope for the future and not plan to accomplish. It is like making a promise

with no intention of keeping that promise. It is time we put some integrity back

into the process and not try to sell people on one idea to get elected and then

try to deliver something else a little later.

This year, we have seen in our Budget a forty-two (inaudible)

advanced borrowing under Term 29. We are seeing $45 million current account and

capital total deficit this year in the Budget, bringing us to $87 million before

we even start next year. Next year we are going to receive $60 million less

under the Canada Health and Social Transfer. That brings the amount up to a $147

million shortfall, not factoring in other sources of revenue. For instance,

personal income tax would be expected to decline next year. This year they are

showing an increase in personal income tax because it is revenue from two years

ago when we went through a very rapid period of growth and job creation at

Hibernia. The effects are being felt this year in personal income tax. Last

year's performance will reflect next year, and this year's, the year after, if

we look at a two-year lag in applying the appropriate totals to our personal

income tax.

So we cannot expect better times ahead, we can expect more

tough times ahead. We have to face those realities out there today and tell the

people, not try to sell the people a bill of goods and raise false hopes out

there when things are not going to be rosy, and we are going to be facing a

tremendous shortfall next year, even before we start the budgetary process.

I was delighted to hear this past week some good news for

this year that wasn't revealed here in the Budget, in the economic forecast. In

fact, the economic forecast indicated here that there would be a substantial

decline in housing starts of 8 per cent, down to 1,575 from 1,712. I was very

pleased to hear last week their announcement that there is going to be an

improvement in housing. There are going to be more housing starts, up to

approximately 1,800, which us roughly, I think, close to a 6 per cent increase

in housing starts, which would be positive. And hopefully, the spin-off effects

from that will show some positive effects on the economy this year. We want to

see prosperity out there, we want to see development out there, we want to see

new housing, new taxes to government. We do not want to see more debt, of

course, but we want to see wise use of government dollars that have not been

spent with any planning process at all.

Sometimes when you do not plan, the money is directed in the

worst possible fashion. Very seldom is money wisely spent when there is no

planning attached to it. Ninety-nine per cent of the time it is a poor decision

that has to be revisited again. We have had to revisit decisions that this

government made in the past. We have had to come back and do it right, or try to

do it right the second time, when the effects and the damage were so great that

we never got the real benefits that could have been accrued by spending it

wisely in the first place.

There are numerous areas in this Budget - and there is

reference made that it is costing us a considerable amount of money through bad

decisions by this government. One particular one I will refer to here, in the

Consolidated Revenue Fund, is 1.2.01. There is a $77,200 payment every single

year now to a fund for Trans City, to buy back those leases that we give out to

the highest bidder - not to the lowest bidder, the ones we give out to a higher

bidder. Now, this Province is going to be putting aside every year for thirty

years - it is costing us between $30 million and $40 million more; 50 per cent

more than Sprung, this Trans City deal has cost us. Churchill Falls is costing

us $800 million ever year, a poor deal, equivalent to thirty Sprungs, almost,

every single year. There is just a whole array of bad decisions for which we are

paying the price.

We do not want to see any more. That can only be done when

the government come to this House, put forth their initiatives or legislation

and allow it to be debated properly, pointing out flaws. I say again, we did not

have an opportunity in the past to debate Term 17 here in this House. I made

reference to that last week. We did not have an opportunity. If we are going to

debate any particular thing, regardless of how we feel on it, this House, that

is duly elected, should have an opportunity to be able to stand and debate the

wording of a resolution, as the people in Quebec give their people in a National

Assembly to debate the resolution on separating from this country.

The education of our people is one of the most valued,

particular resources and areas that we should be concerned with. It is of the

highest priority. It is important to ensure that we have dollars that are spent

wisely to ensure and secure the future for our children. Not having an

opportunity to come here to this House and put forth those particular points is

totally unacceptable.

The minister, today, with reference to Public Examinations

again - it is an issue of concern to students in particular. Governments always

say, and I have heard the minister and the Premier of the Province say, it is

the students that we should be concerned about. When he is debating Education

reform, it is the students, and still, he announces something that has left the

students bewildered and very upset with the elimination of public exams at a

very crucial time, when they are under a fair amount of stress as it is, late in

the school year and worried about their academic standing, wondering whether

they will be admitted to a college or university and going through this turmoil

now that is unnecessary, unplanned and should not have happened.

We have seen in this Budget, a whole array of licensing fees

and tremendous increases in taxation. In addition to the $6.2-million tax on

land here in this Province, we are seeing another $12-million increase in

various fees that this government have established. That is an indirect form of

taxation. No new taxes, they have indicated in the Budget, when at the very

minimum, there is a tremendous new number and list of licenses and fees. In

addition to the two major, direct tax measures that were implemented, there was

the high income surtax, which is an area in which we can realize some extra

revenues and the financial corporation capital tax. There is a whole array of

other taxes, other fees and other licences that have been inflicted on people in

this Province who are not in a position to be able to cope with many of them.

In fact, many of these increases in fees and licences are

going to be counterproductive, and talking about being counterproductive, I

think we just need to look at our total revenues and look at the Budget items

listed, and our sources of revenue, to see where we have reached in tax being

counterproductive. Let us look at retail sales tax - and this is an important

thing on harmonization also - retail sales tax, we are going to take in $24.4

million less this year than last year. We are to the point where the economy has

slowed, where there are less retail sales - and this is even without

harmonization - we are going to be down $24.4 million less because of a

contraction in the economy and less sales. So we have reached a point of maximum

taxation in that area.

Personal income tax, in this Budget, has listed up by over

$29 million because - and I understood it is relegated to two years ago - there

is a two-year lag in applying the specifics on personal income tax; that is why

that tax is up, not down. When you look at the increase in the price of gas and

gasoline tax in this Province, we are going to take in less revenue than last

year. Corporate income tax, $12.3 million less than last year and that tells us

that companies are struggling, they have lower bottom lines, they do not have as

high taxable income and that is a drastic decline from sixty-two down to fifty;

that is almost a 20 per cent decline in taxes from companies this particular

year. Maybe a lot of that is coming from the EDGE legislation, that is possible,

but I think a lot of it is coming because EDGE companies are ones that did not

pay taxes the previous years anyway, they are new companies, new ventures. A

decline of 20 per cent in corporate income tax is an indication of the

performance of our economy and we have reached the taxation levels also where we

are getting negative results.

Tobacco tax, $1.6 million, again we are down in revenues from

tobacco tax. The only tax we see that has increased are the mining tax, and the

royalties, and they went up by a very nominal amount and when the minister

tables his new legislation in the future we hope to inflict prosperity on

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I would say. We will inflict prosperity.

MR. TULK: That is Mulroney Government.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and I could add, Mr. Chrtien is not

inflicting prosperity on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If we look at what is

happening with this EI legislation, we can see this EI legislation is not

inflicting prosperity, that laisser-faire agenda to shut down the Newfoundland

Dockyard is not inflicting prosperity, not allowing them to bid on contracts

that are important, not allowing them to be able to bid and to be able to employ

people that would make it more viable as an employee takeover if it is up and

running and creating a lot of work, it is much more enticing. Who wants to take

over a dockyard that has no work, that is not allowed to bid, that has to get

start-up costs and is not operating at a particular capacity?

We see the payroll tax is down another $6 million again this

year. When you look at our areas of taxation, look at our revenues, the only tax

we see that is basically increased - and that is not a real figure because there

is a two-year lag on personal income tax, and that is the only one that is up,

over $29 million. The affects of income tax - in two years' time we will that.

In other words, in reality, almost every single level of taxation in this

Province is down.

Add to that next year - or subtract from that, I would say,

on the expenditure side - the $60 million less we are going to get in the Canada

Health and Social Transfer next year. Add the $87 million structural deficit we

have to combat, and add the down side of harmonization next year where we are

going to have to make up millions more. In later years of the program we are

going to have to make up in excess of $100 million shortfall in taxation. We are

not in for a bright future unless the economy really moves forward within the

next period of time.

We do hear from forecasters now that in 1998 and beyond, we

can hope to have, I think, a 6 per cent growth in the economy. That is very

positive, a 6 per cent growth and a 7.5 per cent growth, I think, in 1999 and

beyond. Those are positive signs. We certainly hope that this will make up some

of the shortfall we are seeing here built into a structural deficit and reduced

levels of taxation, but it will not make up all the difference. That is why it

is so important that we need to look ahead a little further. We need to have a

four-year to five-year plan.

I say to government ministers, there should be a plan to deal

with the economy. There should be a long-term plan giving realistic projections

of our revenues and our expenditures in the long term. We can forecast those. We

know what we are going to receive for the next several years. Obviously, they

can tell us what we are going to receive in the next several years under

equalization payments. They are going to go up fairly significantly. Canada

Health and Social Transfer are going to go down at a faster rate than those

particular Canada Health and Social Transfer also.

I want to refer to some of these figures just to give you an

indication as to where we are heading over the next few years. Canada Health and

Social Transfer last year was $427 million when you combined those two areas.

This year it is $340 million. That is $85 million, $86 million less. Next year,

it is another $60 million. That is $147 million reduction in direct revenues

into this Province in a two-year period. That is going to have a dramatic

impact. We are going to see the following year another $18 million reduction in

Canada Health and Social Transfer to the Province, and on and on for the

(inaudible) year after, right on down until it hits the low level in the year

2003 of $233 million. That is a drastic decrease in money coming into this

Province.

On the other side of the coin, on equalization, it is going

to go up progressively over the next while, but in real dollars it is not going

to be very dramatic, and it is not going to offset what we are losing under the

Canada Health and Social Transfer. That is based on population projections of

today, not allowing for declines in our population in the future that is going

to exacerbate the problem and result in less equalization because of reduced

population. It is going to result in less transfer under Canada Health and

Social Transfer because now we are moving from a basis of need and equality,

health care and education for all Canadians. We are moving to a system now that

is going to be funded, at least part now, 50 per cent, based on population, and

in the future it will move to a population base.

We are going to find that with the geography of our Province,

without the population base of our Province, we are going to find it costs more

to deliver services per capita to this Province than in almost every single

other area of this country. That is going to have a drastic impact that is going

to be felt in the budgetary process here in the Province unless we start to deal

with the reality.

We have all contributed in the past. All governments have

contributed to the debt. Every single premier and government since Confederation

has contributed to the debt of this Province. Some have contributed more

significantly than others. The interest on the debt continues to grow. I

mentioned it the last day: 42.11 per cent growth in the public sector debt since

1989. Granted, a good chunk of it in interest based; there still has been a

decrease. Each year there has been borrowing on a fairly large scale, I think,

$250 million one year with the previous government here, and last year was the

first year we did not have to contribute to our net debt overall; it was the

first time in many, many years.

Overall we have seen tremendous negative impacts on education

in this Budget. That is the one area that has been hit harder than any other

particular one, and it is occurring at a time when it is important to have this

access to education. It is important for people around Newfoundland and

Labrador, in all regions of the Province, to have equal access to getting an

education. The closing of five college campuses, and university courses in six

locations around the Province, was a very quick, ad hoc decision, as many

members here in the House can attest to, I am sure. I have heard many of the

members indicate that they did not find out until two hours and three hours and

one hour before the announcement, and some did not find out at all. That is not

an acceptable thing for a government that promised in its Red Book, and

preached, consultation with stakeholders in the process. It is an unacceptable

procedure that is affecting the lives of children here in the Province, and

putting undue hardship upon families in the financial means to be able to

educate their children.

Most people feel, when given advance notice, if it is a cost

cutting that is going to give efficiency in the system, be able to retain money

in the system to provide services that are important, and higher priorities,

that is one thing. One particular aspect of that is that we have not been given

that opportunity to be able to put forth those proposals and to discuss

particular changes. We have seen it with the minister here last week in the

House in health care, for example, with ambulance operators. We have seen that

there is an increase, in some cases almost 100 per cent, almost doubled, in the

fee that users are going to have to pay; it is a tax on the sick. If you

increase ambulance fees, it is a tax on the sick. Everybody cannot afford to pay

it. Because they cannot afford to pay, ambulance operators cannot collect it,

community ambulance people out there have to raise funds for their services

cannot collect it, what is happening? Government is taking that out of the

grant, out of the money they are giving to operators - I should not say out of

the grant - taking it out of the kilometres they are paying to community

ambulance operators and private ambulance operators around the Province, so that

is passed directly down to the user and is a tax on the sick of this Province.

The minister indicated there are no new monies in the government coffers. There

is $8.1 million extra in government coffers in extra revenue that is budgeted

here, in the Estimates here in the Province.

That is not what the minister said in the House, and that is

not acceptable either; to tell you it is not there when we know it is there is

very misleading to this House, I must say, to tell us something is not there

when we can see it in black and white there; and the minister admitted, off the

record, the next day that it was so, but when he stood in his place he did not

do that.

We have seen cutbacks, and I won't get into them today, we

have seen tremendous changes in social services. When we were told there was

going to be a marginal increase in budgets, we find out the same day that there

are cutbacks in that specific area again. That is just another part of the

procedure, another part of the direction, we have been told, that there are

going to be no significant changes - improvements. Still, we are going to see

pulled out of health care over the next while, while they guaranteed the total

amount over the next three years of $903.3 million, the minister admitted here

in the House that the restructuring of the Health Care Corporation of St.

John's, and any capital expenditures, is going to come out of this allocation

that has been given there. That is basically what the minister said in this

House, and that is not what people have been led to believe, and next year, or

the year after, or whenever this money is needed, we will be finding that will

be the case and there will be a whole other group of people upset with this, and

there will be a big uproar down the road when the effects of this Budget kick

in.

Many effects of this Budget are kicking in now; they are

starting to be felt by people around the Province. I received many, many calls

this past weekend - I know my caucus members indicated, and maybe some of the

government members - had calls from people who had Crown land and leases and

cabins there, who are wondering what is happening. I had four within an

hour-and-a-half span on Sunday when I was home, dealing with this particular

map. There were many, many others. I spoke with people who had calls

representing different groups, and many other people who were looking at

pursuing it aggressively and getting to the bottom of this. They had called the

department and the department does not know. The minister said today, contact

his officials in the department to get answers on these things. People called

the department as late as today - this morning they called the department to ask

questions and the people over in the department, many of them, do not know. They

have indicated they don't know, they don't have the answers.

So they made an announcement and they don't know how they are

going to deliver what the fee is, the structure and what they are going to do.

How do you expect people not to be confused when they see something in the

telegram this weekend - I made reference to it on Budget Day. On Budget Day I

said there is another $6.2 million grab. I discussed it on Thursday on the open

line program. I discussed it here in the Budget back on last Friday. The

minister indicated that he has not had any complaints. He has not heard anything

about it from Opposition MHAs either. I talked about it in the House on Friday,

on Open Line on Thursday, the day the Budget was delivered in the media. Out in

interviews with different media I discussed it and made reference about this

$6.2 million. How many more times do we have to indicate that it is there,

before people are going to pretend that they hear what is being said?

So it is important to face reality and to come out and tell

the people. Give them the facts. People still don't know. The minister today

didn't know when asked questions. Officials did not know. We called this morning

on behalf of constituents to find out things and they had called but couldn't

get answers. People are really alarmed and upset. They are wondering what is

happening. There should be a specific plan. If you are going to make a change it

should be discussed. There should be a plan. We should be able to know the fee

structure and what it is going to be. We should know the specifics. We should

know how it is going to be carried out or there shouldn't be a plan and it

shouldn't be announced. It should be done beforehand.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right, I agree. We have one sensible

member - I don't feel entirely safe with the Minister of Health behind me but if

somebody could keep an eye on the minister for me while I am addressing some of

the major concerns in health care here that the minister has failed to address

here in this Province, some of the pressing concerns.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you fall I will catch you.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will make sure that I will not fall. As

Abraham Lincoln said: I have slipped but I have not fallen.

Like I said to the ministers here on Friday, you should go

down to the manufacturers show and I say it again to the minister. I am not sure

if the minister heard the comment.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's he doing over there?

MR. SULLIVAN: He likes it so much over here, he enjoys

the company, he likes our policies, what we stand for. He used to be over on

this side before. He was a member of the 500 Club. Brian Mulroney's 500 Club and

now he wants to come back to the roost again from where he started, I say to the

minister. He is really comfortable. Doesn't he look relaxed over here?

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you mean he was?

MR. SULLIVAN: He still is? Maybe he will get some of this

$20 million lawsuit, is it? Maybe he is waiting to get his returns too, I say to

the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) but he was a member.

MR. SULLIVAN: Certainly one of the displays at the

manufacturing show was Dalton's Casket Manufacturing up in my district who are

producing an excellent quality, made in Newfoundland product employing local

people in the community. Actually people who came off the TAGS program, people

have gone to work from the TAGS program and working at this business to try to

diversify the economy in the local area there and have done a tremendous job. It

is those types of initiatives that we need to have in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Did anybody have an opportunity to watch, a couple of weeks

ago, Leading Edge? If you watched the program on TV they did a very good,

extensive interview with Mr. Dalton pertaining to his business when he started

out. He went out to a Newfoundland funeral home and the person said come back in

a year. He said if you are still in business I will buy from you. Well that

person who made that statement had a display down to the manufacturing show

trying to sell headstones. I told Mr. Dalton that if I saw him there I was going

to say to him: Very interesting, if you are here next year I will buy one from

you. That's the type of initiative we need - people get out there, promote their

product, work at it. It has taken a lot of time and a lot of effort. He needed

to back it with resources from another business he had. Sometimes the support

base is lacking but in this instance there was reasonable support I must say.

We need to be able to use those initiatives to promote and

diversify those types of businesses here in Newfoundland that are not competing

with other businesses in the Province that can bring in new growth, new dollars

and can tap into markets outside the Province. So I think it is important to be

able to generate anything that we can export that brings new dollars into our

economy and just does not circulate the dollars within our local economy.

Although it is important, too, very, very important that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians support our own initiatives, our own products here in the Province.

That has been highlighted, `manufactured right here', I think that is a good

idea and a good proposal, to let people know what is manufactured here in

Newfoundland and Labrador so that people can buy it when they have a choice

between local and some other product. It is normal, it is good for this

Province, it is good for employment in this Province, it creates jobs here, and

I would prefer to see jobs created here in Newfoundland and Labrador than

created in any other part of this country, or this world.

Mr. Speaker, there are many things in this Budget. I am sure

the Government House Leader would like for me to go on for days. Maybe he might

agree, because I do have certain pressing commitments, maybe he would give me

leave to come back after I do some provincial business out of the Province on

Tuesday and Wednesday, maybe I could come back and pick up on Thursday.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do have some pressing commitments today I

say to the Government House Leader. Maybe if I ask leave now to come back and

start on Thursday I will get leave of the House. Would that be possible?

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I certainly would not. In fact there

are so many things there that I could use up seventy-five hours all my own on

things that are hidden in there. I have volumes of things that I have not even

looked at I say to the minister.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: I have committee ones besides. These are

things that are not going to be done in committee. There are a few things

mentioned there that maybe the Government House Leader may be able to answer.

There is going to be a review of all commissions and agencies to look at three

things. Does the program serve a valuable public purpose? That was one of the

things they were going to look at, and that is fair game. Can the program be

provided more efficiently and effectively? Certainly, I think we should be doing

that on an ongoing basis. The third one though has me a little puzzled, is the

program affordable? That is one that is not really a decision for people within

government and a committee of public servants to make that determination.

MR. TULK: (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Or the other ones would be recommendations,

too, I would assume. The political process is going to decide these. But if it

is affordable really comes down to the basis of political priorities.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, economics can be political. If you

want to put more emphasis on social as opposed to some other area that is a

political priority, so if they are affordable I cannot see how we are going to

pass judgement on that particular one. I can see if it is serving a valuable

public purpose, no doubt. If it is going to function efficiently and effectively

we should be doing that, but the affordability of a program comes down to a

political decision of whether we politically want to pay the price to have that

program at that cost. That is what it comes down to. The minister there is even

nodding in agreement, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He looked down. Well, I am very sorry; I

did not mean to put the minister on the record. Maybe he was just nodding. Maybe

I was putting him to sleep and I did not realize it. Maybe that was the reason

why.

Anyway, some of the other areas I am going to address a

little later, certainly when we get to estimates here in the House. There is one

point there that maybe somebody could answer. I just want clarification. Under

the consolidated revenue fund, I made reference to it earlier but I did not get

an answer, so I will repeat it again. There is one particular part there,

$77,700, under consolidated revenue fund, 1.2.01, if not when we get to

executive council I can ask that. I am assuming that is the Trans City one, the

debt expenses for Various Facilities, it says, $77.200, the fund they are

putting aside yearly to buy out the lease at the expiration of thirty years.

That is $77,000 a year times thirty years. Would that be roughly the ball park

figure?

Anyway, the minister is nodding there as if he is in

agreement. That is a big price to pay there, over $30 million. I think it is a

net cost to us of over $30-some million more. Looking at the figures the former

Minister of Finance had, the costs are about $100 million I think on the three

facilities when we could have delivered them much cheaper. The former Minister

of Finance who is trying to salvage the Dockyard.

With that I will conclude my remarks on the Budget. My

colleague is eager and ready to go.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to have

yet another opportunity to talk about the so-called good news Budget introduced

by this government. Introduced on May 16, my birthday actually. It wasn't the

best birthday gift I've ever received, I would say to the Speaker and to the

members of this House. The fall-out from the Budget we are just seeing in many

areas.

People in my district, people who I've talked to over the

last two months since the election, are seeing now in the Budget what they were

told different during the election. What people were promised during the

election was a philosophy that would not see an approach that would cut our way

to prosperity. What people were told during the election is that everyone would

get their full and fair share.

It is too bad that one person who ran in this election was

not elected. A Liberal candidate who promised everything under the sun during

the election. Because if he had been elected maybe we wouldn't have seen the

type of Budget that we have seen today. We wouldn't have seen the dramatic cuts

to post-secondary education; we wouldn't have seen the dramatic cuts to health

care. Although the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board in his Budget Speech, alluded to the fact that there were no tax

increases, which I will get to throughout the course of my half-hour on the

Budget debate.

Just let me show you, let me articulate, and let me read in

for the record some of the promises that were made during the election. I will

say to my colleagues on all sides of the House, maybe they heard some of the

similar promises, and maybe they themselves made some of the promises. Let me

give you an example in one district: My pledge to the voters and citizens is -

here it is - I will pursue the concerns which affect our post-secondary

education students. It is too bad that candidate is not in the House today. He

was going to pursue the concerns of our post-secondary education students.

Here is the other promise he made: I will press for answers

and solutions on the status of the Newfoundland Dockyard. Maybe the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology and the Premier should have taken advice from

this candidate who ran for their party and pressed long ago for not only answers

but solutions to the Newfoundland Dockyard. Because if they had we wouldn't have

seen eighty to 100 jobs disappear today in this region of the Province. Which is

as important as any other region, I may add to my colleagues in the House, to

the economic well being and the prosperity of this Province.

Here is another promise, a beautiful promise: I will be an

active participant in educational reform. An active participant in educational

reform, this candidate was going to be. Here is another beautiful promise: I

will be a strong voice for health care restructuring.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like who, like who?

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, there is more to come: I will work

with all levels of government to get our fair share. Municipal services such as

water and sewer and road grading will be addressed effectively and immediately.

That is what this candidate said during the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Government

House Leader has asked who he was. I have to refer to a button that he had

during the election which said: Tulk and Tobin, dynamite, written under but what

he failed to say to everyone else is what things he was going to blow up in the

Province, Mr. Speaker. A big button that said: Tulk and Tobin and written

underneath it, dynamite, but they failed to say what parts of the Province

post-secondary education institutions they were going to blow up. They failed to

tell people in the Province in terms of increased rates and university tuition,

increased rates in Crown lands. Dynamite alright, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: He got it wrong, Mr. Speaker. The button went

like this, round. It was a beautiful button and up here was Liberal, down here

was dynamite and then it was Tobin and Tulk, TNT and if he wants to know what we

blew up, it was the Tory Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, he may have blown up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: He may have blown up the (inaudible) -

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

There is no point of order. The hon. Government House Leader

took advantage of the opportunity to elaborate a little bit, to give further

clarification.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride,

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my hon.

colleague, the Government House Leader, getting up and clarifying a situation

but what he failed also to articulate was that, while he may have blown up the

Tory Party, there were still nine land mines left for him, I can assure you of

that.

Here is another promise. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the one

that is most laughable. Here is a great, great Liberal promise. It was part of

the Tobin philosophy, if we can all remember, early in the campaign: Don't talk

about issues get in, press the flesh, promise what they want, and talk to them

after about the issues. That is exactly what happened.

Now, listen clearly to this, Mr. Speaker: I will articulate

loudly and clearly your concerns on UIC reform; Premier Tobin has already met

with the new federal minister and reforms to the UIC bill are starting to take

place. I support Premier Tobin's efforts and I will continue to lobby for the

rights of our seasonal, temporary and part-time workers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is too bad and it is very sad, Mr.

Speaker, that, that person couldn't articulate and lobby as he said he was going

to do because, probably, we wouldn't have those concerns; and another promise,

Mr. Sp