June 7,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 24

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the galleries of the House

twenty-four Grade VI students from the Inter-Island Pentecostal School from the

District of Twillingate & Fogo. They are accompanies by teachers, Bruce Bowers,

Alvin Quinlan, Derek Ryan, Mabel Rideout, and chaperones, Ruby Ryan, Shelia

Cooze, and bus driver, Floyd Boyd.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table for hon. members of the House of

Assembly the list of projects identified under the Provincial Capital Roads

Program for the fiscal year 1996-'97. The department plans to call tenders

starting immediately and work will be completed during Summer and Fall. This

year's projects, which include carry-over and committed work, totals $6 million

and also consists of various road and bridge repairs along with some paving. The

Provincial Highways Program is primarily provincially funded.

Mr. Speaker, total capital expenditure on highway

construction this year will amount to $64 million. This includes $30 million

under the Trans-Canada Highway Agreement; $20 million under the Regional Trunk

Roads Agreement; $8 million for the Trans-Labrador Highway; and the $6 million I

am now referencing under the Provincial Roads Program.

Mr. Speaker, the projects to be carried out under this

Provincial Capital Highways Program reflect the priorities established by my

department to improve the overall transportation infrastructure of Newfoundland

and Labrador. The government realizes that the projects I am announcing today

will not meet all requirements for highway improvement throughout the Province.

However, given the restraint that government has, the amount of funds approved

for this program, and others just mentioned, is significant and will provide

employment throughout the provincial highway construction industry.

Mr. Speaker, for the information of hon. members, I have

listed each project separately, and the list is attached to the statement that I

have just read. It itemizes twenty-two different projects and I offer this for

information.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

of her statement. I would also like to thank my colleague, the Member for

Bonavista South, for raising the question yesterday, on the luncheon, so that we

could have this statement presented in the House this morning.

Mr. Speaker, it is very strange that 40 per cent of the

people in this Province, in the last provincial election, voted for our Party,

yet it seems that the bulk of this work, all of it or just about all of it, is

in Liberal districts. It reads to me, Mr. Speaker, more like a Liberal menu than

a list of roads to be done.

To us, on this side of the House, it is very disappointing,

Mr. Speaker, not only to us but to the people we represent in this hon. House. I

think maybe, sometimes, what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture tells us,

that: If you are Tory you get nothing, according to this here, he is probably

right. But I guess the people of the Province will be the judge of that as we go

on over the next three or four years. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is very

disappointing to members on this side of the House.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today was for the Premier. Is the Premier going

to be here in the House today?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: At 10:00, okay. Well, the Premier has

missed 60 per cent of what has gone on in the last two weeks from not being in

this House and hopefully somebody would tell him, somebody will indicate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member again that it is not parliamentary

to make reference to the absence of members or ministers of this House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, today I will ask questions of the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

The jury is still out on whether it was wise or short-sighted

of the Province to borrow on seventeen years of Term 29 payments and spend the

money in the next three years. Will the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

confirm that Ottawa has not signed a contract or formal agreement with the

Province binding any future governments to resume Term 29 spending in twenty

years time?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks two questions, or

posed a conclusion and asked a question on the conclusion, in suggesting that

somehow the jury was out on whether this is good or bad for the Province in

economic terms. That conclusion is clearly incorrect. If one takes the present

value of money, it has displaced borrowing at 8.75 per cent for twenty years. At

a present discounted value that would be approximately $74 million. We have

received $130 million, essentially, for what arguably, should have only been

paid to the Province at $75 million. If you take it even at 5 per cent, which is

our Treasury bill borrowing rate, and not the appropriate one we suggest,

discounted value would have it at $99 million. So, however one chooses to

resolve it, only a jury who couldn't count would come to the conclusion that it

wasn't a deal in the Province's best interest.

The second part of it, which I think was a question, was

whether or not there has been an agreement with the Federal Government. The

answer is, yes. We have an exchange of letters. I have written the federal

minister and he has written me, confirming that the money will resume after

twenty years and that we can draw down the $130 million any time over the next

three-year period, including this year, I might add.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I correct the minister: we have only received $50 million,

not $130 million. We have foregone $30 million. And it is only an advantage if

it prevents borrowing, on the financial end. That is not the intent of my

questions, I say to the minister.

Will the minister confirm that under existing legislation,

the Newfoundland Additional Financial Assistance Act, (1966) that was known as

Bill C-185, the government can only enter into an agreement to provide

additional financial assistance not to limit the $8 million payment in any one

year.

Now, will federal legislation be introduced to give effect to

this new arrangement?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me address the first part of the hon.

member's comment in the House. We will receive $130 million over this three-year

period, including this year. We are choosing to draw down $50 million now, and

$80 million remains. We can draw all of this year should we so choose, some of

it next year, all of it next year, as the case may be. It is a three-year draw

on $130 million. For what we believe to be prudent economic reasons, we choose

to draw only $50 million this year.

To answer the second part of the question, no, there will not

be legislation. An exchange of letters between governments are binding and this

is what we have done in this case. I differ with his

interpretation of the 1966

enactment. It is not necessary to introduce legislation, either federally or

provincially in order to achieve the end that we have sought.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not questioning the short-term economic advantage; that

is not my question at all. The Diefenbaker Government, to its discredit, tried

to buy us out of Term 29 with a one-year $36.5 million payment. Now, what,

specifically, are the grounds for the minister's assurance that the Chrtien

Government has not bought us out of Term 29 with a three-stage payment of $130

time, to resume payments of $8 million a year?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, there is legislation that

requires the Federal Government to pay $8 million per year. If anything, in the

absence of change to the legislation it does not hurt the Province's case and,

in fact, strengthens it, because the only legislation on the book is one that

requires the federal government to pay this amount in perpetuity.

What we have exchanged is letters. The federal Minister of

Finance can bind the federal Crown; the provincial Minister of Finance can bind

the provincial Crown. I do it every day. I sign guarantees on behalf of

municipalities of members opposite and members here. Once I sign on behalf of

the Province, the Province is bound; period. There are other lawyers in the

House; the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi knows this well. An exchange

of letters is all that is necessary in these circumstances. What we have is our

security above and beyond the promise of the federal government to resume it in

twenty year. It is a fact that legislation requires that it be paid annually in

any event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The legislation states it must be paid in each and every

year, including the seventeen years that we are now not going to get any - that

is what is in the legislation - and we only have the right under this to

negotiate any additional monies.

The minister has said that all that binds this deal is a

paper trail of letters between the two governments which lay out the details of

the arrangement. Now, with untold millions in future revenue depending on this,

minister now table all of these documents in the House so we all can see them?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member is relying on one element of law. There are a

whole number of manners, or whole degrees and ways in which parties can be

bound. Parties can be bound by legislation, parties can be bound by regulation,

parties can be bound by agreement, parties can be bound by agents. Every time

someone on behalf of the government makes a contract, we are bound by it. We

don't legislate every particular contract in existence. So I say, with all due

respect to the hon. member, that his

interpretation that there must be

legislation to effect this change is clearly inaccurate and incorrect.

On the second matter, yes, I have no objection to tabling the

letters. I will check with my colleagues; they are a matter of intergovernmental

exchanges. If they are not privileged or confidential for some reason, I would

be delighted to table those in the House, and I will do it within the next

several days.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My next question is

to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

If you feel it is based on legal foundation, I ask him: Will

the government table the legal opinion which indicates that the government can,

through a simple exchange of letters, change the terms of a nondiscriminatory,

statutory payment, taking the money up front and depriving future governments of

seventeen years of receiving those payments? In other words, I say to the

money up front based on a simple exchange of letters?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government does not need to table a legal opinion on what

is a basic principle of law. We don't table opinions on whether the hon. Leader

of the Opposition is entitled to sit in this House once he is elected. We don't

table opinions of law on matters that are self-evident and that are evident to

any person who knows the law and I say with all due respect to the hon. member,

there is no legal opinion because it is done every day. Intergovernmental

Affairs exchanges letters, the Premier exchanges letters. The ministers exchange

letters with the federal Crown that are binding, that are contractual and that

are honoured so that there is no legal opinion, we don't need to - and I would

ask the hon. member, should he have a lawyer in his Caucus, I think there is

one, Mr. Ottenheimer, who might I am sure, be only too delighted to expand his

knowledge of the law in this issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They table legal

opinions when it is politically expedient to do so. This is something that

affects Newfoundlanders forever, every single year. If they have a legal opinion

that is substantiated, I ask them to table it.

Now under this new Term 29 Agreement, the federal government

this year is paying us $50 million. That is $8 million it owes us this year and

$42 million that we would normally receive in subsequent years, money that we

are not going to receive in following years. Now, are we giving up anything, I

say to the minister, in the short term in return for the luxury of having that

extra $42 million this year?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, any person who has a

fundamental knowledge of mathematics and does the equation and had to choose

between taking $130 million in cash right now or $8 million a year for the next

twenty years would clearly choose in favour of the $130 million. All one has to

do is think of the amount of money that would yield upon investment at simple

interest rates in the bank. By the most simple economic analysis, it is clearly

a great benefit to the Province. It is something the federal government has done

to assist us in what is a very difficult economic circumstance over the next

couple of years. So the economics of it are so clear but I cannot see it being a

matter of question or argument in this House.

On the second issue, on the matter of legal opinions, yes we

table legal opinions when matters are controversial but we don't table legal

opinions about basic law. I mean this is so fundamental that any Minister of

Finance combined his or her government that there is no need to follow up on the

question, Mr. Speaker, I have answered already anyway.

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

South.

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

morning are for the Minister of Health.

There has been much discussion lately, Mr. Speaker,

concerning the closure of the Grace Hospital and indeed some of the calls that I

have had and even some of the constituents in my own district who are certainly

going to be affected by this closure are very concerned. Will the minister

inform the House if the government has indeed purchased the Salvation Army Grace

Hospital and if so, what was the purchase price?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have been

negotiating with the Salvation Army Grace Hospital people for the past year and

a bit to conclude an arrangement that sees us own that property consistent with

the arrangement that we already entered into about a year-and-a-half ago with

the Sisters of Mercy at St. Clare's. I will be able, probably within the next

seven to ten days, to indicate to the House that there has been an agreement

concluded, and I will indicate at that time what the purchase price is, along

with other details with respect to that issue.

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

South, on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, in that view, and if the

hospital is going to close, and apparently it is, and the minister says that he

can tell us within a week or so exactly what the purchase price is - I am very

glad to hear him say that he will tell us in the House - I would now like to ask

the minister: Will the Grace Hospital be closed and what plan has been put in

place to transfer these services?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The answer to the first part of the hon.

member's question: Will the Grace Hospital Close? I have said in this House

probably a dozen or more times, and I have said publicly, subsequent to

announcing that decision on June 29 last year, that the Grace Hospital will

indeed close. It will close sometime between now and December 31, 1998.

There are a number of initiatives ongoing with respect to the

transferring of services from one site in the city to another, to accommodate

the forward structuring that we announced. By way of example: Late this month,

maybe, or early next month, the Rehab Centre at Pleasantville will have been

decommissioned and the services from that site will be provided from a Janeway

location for the duration of the existence of the Janeway; and then that will be

transferred over to the new site at the Health Science.

The hospital will be closed. The

schedule that we set out on

June 29 last year holds. I can tell the hon. member and the House that I had

meetings last Friday evening with Sister Elizabeth and the Chair of the Health

Care Corp. Plans are well in hand to ensure that there will be no delay from our

point of view or from theirs in completing the full range of the restructuring,

as announced and within the time lines that we have put forward.

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

South, on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I guess one of the problems

I am having, and the calls that I am still receiving from my constituents, is:

When? When? When? This affects peoples' lives and I think these people have a

right to know.

Can the minister now tell the House the amount of money that

this Province will save as a result of the move in closing the Grace Hospital?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I would be glad to indicate that figure again. It is a

figure that I have indicated many times in the past. We will save roughly 25 to

30 per cent of the operating costs of the facilities that will be

decommissioned, as a result of restructuring. In the case of the Grace Hospital,

their budget is in the $40 to $42, $43 million range. If you take 25 per cent of

that, it is very obvious that it works out to about $10 to $12 million, so that

would be the savings that we will accrue to the taxpayers of the Province. The

good news is that it is not money we are going to take and do other things with,

we have committed to a three-year budget for health care that shows an increase

over last year; we are committed to putting these savings back into health care

inasmuch as we have to make new capital construction to accommodate better

services -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and the net effect of the restructuring

in St. John's will be a universally more acceptable health care system for the

people of this Province that they will enjoy, that they will have the advantage

of using, that will enhance their health care status for years and years to

come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

Since my questions yesterday, the minister has met again with

the workers of the Marystown Shipyard Union and the workers union. I ask the

minister: Will he table a report today on the details of the discussions with

the Marystown workers union?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague was talking

to me, I think you asked was I in a position to discuss the details of my

discussions yesterday with the unions. No, I am not in a position to do that

yet.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Isn't it true that the government will refuse to provide the

Marystown Shipyard workers union and the National Defence Department with the

$45-million operational guarantee to guarantee the work on the QUEST ,

therefore denying them this crucial, crucial work, unless the Shipyard workers

union agree to concessions that are put forth by the government, rumours that

Shipyard workers union have to put 120 clerical positions on the chopping block?

We need to know what these conditions are so we can gauge whether or not they

are reasonable to the taxpayers of our Province.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: It is a good question, Mr. Speaker.

Look, I have to say to the member and I know he is asking his

questions sincerely, but you can't have it both ways. You can't have the Leader

of the Opposition in here, three weeks ago, beating up on the minister and the

government because the yard is losing money on the one hand. On the other hand

now, you are coming in and asking us to negotiate in public, on how we can make

the yard more productive and create a good future for the yard; you can't have

it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, I have given a commitment to the unions, we have

had discussions with the unions, they have been very responsible through all of

the discussions. We have talked about productivity, we have talked about

efficiencies; we have talked about partnerships to build a better future for

this yard and it can only be done in partnership, Mr. Speaker, not by trying to

score cheap, political points in the House of Assembly.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the entire future of the

Marystown Shipyard depends on whether or not the workers accept the government's

terms.

Minister, don't you think that the taxpayers of the Province,

hence the owners of the Shipyard have a right to know what the concessions are?

Don't you think they have an interest in knowing what the conditions the

government has set forth for keeping this industry alive?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we are the custodians of the

taxpayers dollars. We are working very hard in very difficult times, in an

internationally competitive business where many countries, indeed jurisdictions

around the world, are putting heavy subsidies into yards.

The union had acted very responsibly last year making certain

concessions. The Board of Directors was put in place, given a two-year mandate

to find further efficiencies from management, not just unions, from management

right down through the system. Mr. Speaker, we think there is a very good future

for this yard. We think we can capture a lot of work. We think we can have those

men and women working for the next twenty years if we get the fundamentals

right. We have put our cards on the table, the unions have put their cards on

the table, and I can tell you that we have agreed to work toward productivity.

We are ironing out the details and if we get those ironed out by 5:00 o'clock

today we have a great future in Marystown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kilbride.

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

Last week in the House I asked questions regarding the

outrageous and dramatic increases in tuition fees at Memorial University. I

would like to ask whatever minister, whoever can comment on it in view of the

absence of the Minister of Education, is the government aware of a new proposed

fee increase that is to go to the Board of Regents on Thursday of next week, and

if the government is, can they outline what those increases will be today?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of

Education who is out of the Province today on business of government I would

like to outline, to the question, that this is a matter between Memorial

University and the Board of Regents. Will be referred to there, and, of course

we will all know in due course when that proposal is brought forward.

Thank you.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister if she

can confirm there will be over a 200 per cent increase in medical student

tuition fees, from $2500 per semester to $8000 per semester? Can she confirm

that.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The medical school at the university comes directly under the

jurisdiction of the Department of Health or the government through the

Department of Health. I can confirm to the hon. member that there will be

substantial increases in medical school tuition this year at the university.

There was a figure put forward and it is publicly known of $6250 next year but

that may very well not be the figure, it may be something higher than that. The

Senate will be dealing with the issue. I met just this week with the dean of the

medical school and I can tell you that the medical fees at the university will

be considerably higher, but I want also to inform the House that we are not

doing anything more than being consistent with other universities. Dalhousie

this year has had a substantial increase, the University of Toronto this year

has increased their fees to dental students to $8000, and there are a number of

other examples across the country where fees are going this way. We will be in

step but we will not be inconsistent.

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

supplementary.

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

It is obvious from the Minister of Health's answer to my

question that he has absolutely no knowledge of what is taking place with regard

to medical tuition increases. The fact is that Memorial University's medical

school increase will go from the lowest cost in the country to the highest, and

that is not in step with the rest of Atlantic Canada.

Let me ask whatever minister wants to get up and answer, Mr.

Speaker, can government confirm that tuition increases for five courses across

the board will in fact increase by 15 per cent? This is the proposal going to

the Board of Regents on Thursday, and that for special schools, such as

pharmacy, education, social work, that the proposed increases will jump 32 per

cent by the Fall of this year? Can the minister confirm that?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: I certainly cannot confirm that. This is, as I

have said, a decision that the University is bringing to the Senate and they are

the people who will be discussing that and making those decisions.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this hands-off approach to

post-secondary education is unacceptable. What we are seeing is post-secondary

education that will be available only to the elite of this Province. Let me ask

the Minister this, in view of her answer that we let the University handle it,

would she not agree that the cutbacks that came from the Budget on May 16 have

caused increases in tuition fees to exceed beyond, way beyond, what a student's

ability to pay will be. Would she not agree with that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I think almost anyone could

conclude, after the type of Budget that we brought in this year, and the

enormous savings that had to be made to balance the Budget, that yes, the answer

to the question would be that if tuition fees increase it could be ascertained

that it is partly the cause of the Budget that was brought in this year.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to ask this question, in view of the many young

people we have witnessing the proceedings this morning. My question is for the

Minister of Finance. Will he confirm that government has changed its mind and

has decided not to implement a Kindergarten program referred to as Literacy

2000, and a second program referred to as Book Shop? These programs, it is my

understanding, have been discontinued. Will the minister confirm that is the

case and, if so, will he tell us what amount of money is being saved?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, details like that I do not have in

front of me, but the substance of your question, yes, I can confirm that in the

Kindergarten program this year we were unable to implement programs that would

have been desirable to implement but because of a lack of finances it could not

be done.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I submit to this House that the funds, the savings to this

government, are relatively minimal. I would ask the Minister of Finance: Will he

discuss with his Cabinet colleague, the Minister of Education, and other

ministers around the Cabinet table, this very issue? I submit the savings are

very minimal. Therefore, will he discuss this issue in the hopes of reinstating

this program for the benefit of hundreds and hundreds and thousands and

thousands of young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who can benefit from this

very worthwhile program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, of course ongoing discussion would

be held about matters like this, and when funds are available programs that we

would like to see in the curriculum will be brought forward when money is

available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are

to the Minister of Social Services, and they deal with regulation eight. The

minister knows, or should know now, that the decisions made by the government

have caused severe hardships for many people throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador. I refer specifically to the discontinuance of the $61 emergency

funding.

In view of the hundreds of calls that have come from all

parts of the Province to all hon. members, in particular to the Department of

Social Services, and with recognition to the fact that this particular policy

change punishes severely the very poorest of the people of our Province for

simply being poor, and government's decision has had a significant impact on so

many people - 4,000 families - will the minister now reconsider her government's

decision on the grounds of compassion for those parents, those children, and for

those seniors who have been so negatively impacted by her government's

discontinuance of funding under regulation eight?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to start off by saying that any and all of the

decisions we made this year with respect to the Budget were not easy, and they

were certainly done with the fullest understanding of the types of impact it

would have, but it was a matter of choice. We made a distinct, clear choice that

we would try to affect the least number of people possible through not affecting

basic social assistance.

I would also, for the member's interest, indicate that when

this policy was put in place in 1977 there were a lot fewer clauses available to

meet the special needs of people, and if you were to ask many of these people

specifically why they were receiving this allowance they would not be able to

indicate why. What I have encouraged people to do, is to go back and see exactly

why they were getting this allowance and see if perhaps it can be covered under

another area. We will not be rescinding the $61 decision but we do have other

provisions within our policies to address many of the issues that people are

concerned about. I would expect that the hon. member would look to those other

policies to direct the people that are calling him like we have been doing here

on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Just two points that I want to draw to members attention, one

is regarding the attendance of members in the House and I refer members to

Beauchesne, 289, paragraph 3 which says; "The duties of Members have become

extremely varied and Members must travel frequently. The discharge of those

responsibilities will sometimes take a Member away from the House. This absence

from the chamber should not be the subject of comment."

As well, with Question Period there are certain restrictions

that are placed on questions during Question Period and I refer hon. members

again to 411 in Beauchesne which says: "A question may not: seek information

about matters which are in their nature secret, such as decisions or proceedings

of Cabinet or advice given to the Crown by the Law Officers."

Before we proceed I would like to welcome to the House of

Assembly, twenty-six Grade V students from St. Mary's Elementary School in the

Waterford Bridge Road area in the District of St. John's South. These students

are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Eric Hiscock and Ms. Judy White.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I again stand in the

House and present a petition on behalf of the many, many Crown land owners in

this Province who wish to voice their opposition to the change in Crown land

fees.

As I mentioned yesterday when I presented this petition we

had a very strong turnout at a meeting at the Holiday Inn on Wednesday night,

one which the minister attended. As I mentioned as well yesterday, up to that

point the minister was under the illusion that the Crown land users in this

Province have no difficulty with the new market value pricing system. Well he

found out differently on Wednesday night. The people of this Province have a

real problem with the changes in the Crown land fees. He promised he would take

it back to Cabinet and he would have a look and see if there was anything they

could do to help the Crown land users in this Province.

One of the problems that they have with this are the people

that feel that they cannot afford to come up with the $2,000 or the $2,500

before the end of October this year, are going to find themselves in a

precarious situation in that they will no longer receive the monies that they

have paid towards their Crown land as a subsidy towards the purchase price. As

well many people are going to find themselves in a very, very difficult

situation because many people are not going to be able to afford the $500 or

$600 a year. These people built their cabins with hard labour, sweat equity and

they cannot afford to pay this $500 or $600. This is the only bit of resort that

these people have and the only bit of comfort that they have as a getaway.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House and present

this petition on behalf of the Crown land users. Thank you.

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

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

Again today I rise in my place to support the petition put

forth by the Member for St. John's South dealing with the increased rates for

Crown lands in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, for years and years now people in this Province

have enjoyed and have had the right to enjoy the Newfoundland outdoors. They

have had the right to apply for Crown lands, Mr. Speaker, and they still have

the right to apply for Crown lands. When I refer to the right, I suppose, I am

including the right to be able to afford to apply for Crown lands for summer

leases, or once they have their summer lease and have their cabin built, they

would then be permitted to apply for a grant.

Under this new policy, this government had been trying to put

forth the idea, I suppose, and it is really a misconception, that with this new

policy people can now convert from a lease to a grant, Mr. Speaker. That was the

case before this policy was brought into place. The people in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, own the Crown land. They are the people who own the land. The

government administers the Crown land but the people of the Province own the

land.

The rates are really quite traumatic. They are drastic

increases, Mr. Speaker. The minister has actually put on paper, in black and

white, that the cost to administer the Crown land and the leases costs 50 per

cent more than the revenues they take it. Yet we see the rates going from $75 to

a minimum of $500 per year. That works out to be probably - what? - six or seven

times an increase. So, if it is only costing 50 per cent more to administer, why

are they charging so much more than is required to administer? The bottom line

is, of course - and that was the first comment that I made on this new policy -

that this is nothing short of a tax grab, a money grab. They saw a place where

they could make a buck this year and that is why they brought in the October 31

deadline. There are no ifs, and or buts about that, Mr. Speaker. That is the

reason why they brought in the October 31 deadline, so they could force people

basically to make application by October 31 and then they would try and get as

many of those documents and grants prepared by the end of the year as possible,

and then they would have an influx of money.

The minister has stated, I think, that there are 5,945 leases

affected by this. So they are saying they are going to take in $6.2 million with

this new plan. If you take the amount of leases and take an average of $2,000

per lease, when you take into consideration the $100 application fee, the $200

documentation fee, and probably $1500, we are talking $2500 and $3000. So if you

take an average of $2,000, that is approximately $12 million. The potential

there really is for $12 million to be taken in under this program.

I can imagine what people at the department said, that

basically they would expect to get maybe 50 per cent of the people who have

leases to apply for grants. If this is the attitude, that would then beg the

question: Why would they come up with 50 per cent of the people taking

advantage? They must know in their own hearts and souls that the people in this

Province cannot afford to come up with this kind of money. So what they are

really trying to do now is hit maybe what they feel is 50 per cent of the cabin

owners to come up with this $6 million; and they may come up with much more than

that. That is a possibility in itself, Mr. Speaker.

As I said earlier, this policy is not a good policy for the

people of this Province. I remember the Minister of Finance standing in his

place on Budget Day and announcing that there are no new tax increases in this

Budget for 1996-1997. Since that time, of course, people in the Province are

starting to realize the real implications of this Budget with respect to the

Crown land rate increases, the various license increases, and in particular, I

suppose - one of the ones that hurts the most - the ambulance fee increase.

I know of people, Mr. Speaker, especially the seniors in this

Province, who have to take advantage of that service on a frequent basis. The

government of the day is trying to keep people in their homes and download onto

the families. They are trying to keep people in their homes and not in

hospitals. For that very reason, people have to utilize the ambulance services

more often than they had in the past. You almost have to be on your death bed

for the hospitals to keep you in in this day and age. I know of someone who went

to the Health Science and had been sent home, someone up in age with a broken

hip. They were sent home in an ambulance. They had to pay $75 to go there in an

ambulance and $75 to get back; that is $150. Those are the kinds of rate

increases we have seen with this Budget.

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

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

In conclusion, I will again repeat my previous statement that

I support the petition, and I think this policy is wrong.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents

of Bonavista South. The petition reads:

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, having made some $27.8 million

profit last year, is not in need of extra revenue from consumers; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power's passing corporate income tax

increases on to consumers would be defying government's intention of ensuring

corporations dip into their profits to help bear the cost of public fiscal

responsibilities;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador do

whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity

rates.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that has been signed by - I

don't know how many names are on it, but there are certainly five full pages,

and even on the end where the lines have run out, which just goes to show the

concern that is being expressed out there today of the fear of electricity rates

once again taking a dramatic jump of some 4.5 per cent or 5 per cent, up to $55

to $75 a month on people's electricity rates.

Mr. Speaker, this same utility, if we recall, a couple of

years ago came to government crying about the unfair taxation that

municipalities were putting forward, and government again bent over backwards to

give them a little push and to help them out, if you were, when government

stepped in and made it - I don't know if it was legislation but it was certainly

a regulation - where municipalities could not charge a utility any more than 2.5

per cent. Some of the municipalities out there prior to that were being able to

set a charge to the utility company like they would with any other business. It

would go through a motion of council, and you would decide what your rate was

going to be for a utility, you would decide what your business tax was going to

be, and that was allowed to take place. That is why municipalities go out and

elect councils. That is why you have a mayor and six councillors in most

municipalities. But government, in their wisdom, caved in to Newfoundland Power

again and said: It is unfair for you to tax them any more than 2.5 per cent. It

is unfair for you to be issuing them a 5 per cent or 10 per cent utility tax -

another example of government bending over to the utilities and not having an

income reflected back into the communities.

I suppose it was a situation that if they were allowed to

continue charging the same rates, maybe the utility would have gone right back

to the consumer and just stuck it on their bills again anyway. In fact, at one

time, if I recall correctly, Newfoundland Power was collecting taxes for

government. It was added on to your hydro bill if you charged them any extra

funding.

When you consider the economic conditions that we are living

in today, and when you consider a utility making $28 million in profits, then I

think that is ample funding for anybody who is in business today.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon Newfoundland Power to be like the

Crown corporation, the biggest Crown corporation in Atlantic Canada, New

Brunswick Power, that has come out and said publicly: We are going to be a

utility of choice, and we are going to compete by offering people a service, and

not cutting back on jobs, not laying off people, not raising utility rates, but

by sharpening our pencil, if you will, and running a leaner, meaner machine. And

that is what this particular utility should do. Nobody would deny them the right

to get a fair return on their investment - that is what private industry is all

about, sure - but when you see them now getting a fair return of some 13 or 14

per cent to shareholders on their investment, I think that is not a bad return

when we consider the economic climate of this whole area today.

So, Mr. Speaker, I call on government to reach out and

support the poor people, the people living on a fixed income, the people out

there on social assistance, the aged in this Province, and deny this utility

company the rate increase they are looking for. Their justification for coming

forward and saying, We haven't had -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - a rate increase since 1992 is certainly

no reason to justify an increase today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise today to support the petition brought forward by the

hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have seen example after example of the

penny-pinching, the real hardship that this government is inflicting on ordinary

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have rarely seen in this Province the kind

of callousness that this government is showing towards the ordinary people of

the Province.

This morning in Question Period I attempted to ask the

Minister of Social Services if she were willing to reconsider Regulation 8 and

the hardship it is causing. In this petition here, we see, day after day, the

zero response from the government to the application by Newfoundland Power. We

know and everybody in this House should know that ordinary Newfoundlanders out

there today who have found out that they are losing funding under Regulation 8 -

they have found that they will not have that source of income - now they are

being told that Newfoundland Power may put their Hydro costs up next year. And,

Mr. Speaker, we see no response from the government. We don't see a member

rising up and saying, These people who are offering those petitions have a point

of view that is legitimate. We hear the government saying, We have appointed a

Consumer's Advocate, and we say that is a good idea, but we are wondering what

individual members of the government would want to say on this issue. We are

greatly concerned that this government is rapidly becoming very, very right

wing. The right wingers have taken over. Preston Manning is looking to his left

to find where this government is now seated in terms of its philosophy. The

attitude of this government now is that they are so neo-conservative, they are

so right wing, they are so uncaring, so high and mighty, such a bunch of

Pooh-Bahs -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: - that, Mr. Speaker, what we have now is a

case of where this government now places itself to the absolute right of the

political spectrum. Because they have abandoned the true essence of Liberalism,

which is to look after the very poorest people in society, to be caring, to be

outreaching, to be compassionate, to be sensitive, to be able to say, we care.

In this particular case, they have forgotten two words, they have forgotten the

words, `we care' and they have forgotten the words, `we serve'.

We are saying to them now, Mr. Speaker, as true democrats -

and people have gone out and said: We want to consult, we want to be on your

side, we want to show you that we really, really are out there as caring,

sensitive people. Mr. Speaker, they have had their chance on many occasions to

stand up and say where they stand politically. No, Mr. Speaker, they haven't

said a word. They have not said a word.

I say to the member over there, people are calling me in my

office and asking: `Will someone speak up for the poorest of the poor?' Mr.

Speaker, I get callers on a daily basis by the dozens from across this Province,

and they say to me: We tried to call the minister but she won't accept any

long-distance charges. In other words, if you are not paying for it yourself,

there are no collect calls being received in the minister's office. That is

shameful, when ordinary Newfoundlanders will not get their calls returned from

the minister's office. We know for a fact that people in that department are

saying to the people who are calling - they are making excuses as to why the

minister is unavailable. Some of them are, we understand, not exactly, shall we

say, according to the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the government, look at where you

are, look at where you are going, care for the ordinary people of this Province,

stand up on those issues like you have here today. Do what you said you would

do, be on the side of the people, keep near to the grassroots. Because the

essence of our political system is that when we abandon the people we suffer the

consequences. In February you all went out and you said: We are on the peoples'

side. What happened? The change is more vicious than happened to Saul when he

was on the road to Damascus.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: You should be all knocked down, Mr.

Speaker. That is what you deserve, because you have lost your mandate, you have

forgotten your commitments, and I hope you suffer the consequences.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this petition,

and particularly to respond to some of the comments made by the hon. member who

just took his place.

Mr. Speaker, it is so easy to prate and prattle and

sabre-rattle about increases here and increases there. It is so easy to posture

and to lay yourself, to prostrate yourself as the champion of the common people,

when you are not in a position to have to make the decisions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this petition asks the government to do

whatever is required. To my knowledge, the government is doing what is required

and doing it in an exemplary fashion. The government has its Consumer Advocate

and I think the Consumer Advocate is doing a marvellous job, doing an excellent

job for the people of this Province.

What I would suggest to the hon. member, is that he should

get out and educate the people and lead the people of this Province, to tell

them what is happening; and not to lead them and misinform them by telling them

that the government is responsible for the increases in the electrical rates

that are taking place in this Province, or the electrical rate increases that

are suggested. He should be telling the people what the process is. He should be

educating the people as to what the process is, and maybe directing these

petitions to the Consumer Advocate so that he can see what the reactions and the

response of the people of this Province are.

Mr. Speaker, if I thought for one moment, my standing up and

responding to every petition in this House was going to affect the decision of

the Public Utilities Board, I would be here standing all day long.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I reject, Mr. Speaker, the accusations that the

people on this side are not caring people, that the people on this side are

callous. I reject those suggestions. I don't make those comments about hon.

members opposite. We are all here working for the same cause, working to improve

and enhance the quality of life of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is the

job, Mr. Speaker, and I don't suggest that I am doing one iota, one scintilla of

a job better than what the hon. members are doing; but I am doing my best to

ensure that the people who elected me will get the best representation possible

and that they will re-elect me again. I can tell hon. members that it won't

happen by posturing and doing the kinds of things that hon. gentlemen are doing.

Let's tell the people the truth. Let's tell them what the correct procedure is

and let's tell them that this government is doing everything that is required

and more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to rise today to present another petition, Mr.

Speaker, and the first thing I want to do is, apologize for not being able to he

here. Yes, I hear some members missed me in not presenting my petitions on the

food fishery, but I am back again and well-armed again with more petitions since

two days ago from almost every district around the Province. People in the

communities are organizing and orchestrating these petitions on their own with

their own prayers and so on, and then we get an example such as this, the member

standing up and talking about prattle and rattle or whatever he was talking

about.

Talk about representing his district, Mr. Speaker, I guess he

was one of the members too who stood with a standing ovation when this Budget

came down because he looked at the chocolate covering on the Budget and the

Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island, his college just closed, walked

across the floor and shook hands with the minister: Thank you for closing our

college on Bell Island, Mr. Speaker, and there was a big, standing ovation from

all around the House because he said: What a lovely-looking chocolate covering

on this Budget.

Now the illusion starts, Mr. Speaker, like yesterday in the

House of Assembly or Wednesday when he talked about -

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: I wonder would the hon member, I know he is

getting carried away; he is being stirred up by the Member for Terra Nova's

passionate speech, I know he is all stirred up but I wonder if he would care to

read us the prayer of the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, I remind hon. members that when

presenting a petition, the comments should be kept to the prayer of the

petition.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I humbly apologize to the

Government House Leader. I mean, I would hate to get a point across without

being perfectly within the technicalities of the House of Assembly and

everything. God forbid, we should make a point before making sure our

technicalities are straight, so I will read it, Mr. Speaker:

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

and Labrador, in Legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned

residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, known as the Fighting

Newfoundlanders - which the Government House Leader will have no idea of what I

am talking about, but I do, Mr. Speaker - ask for the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador do

hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to support our

petition to do one of the following: Open a food and recreational fishery to all

Newfoundlanders or, close the food and recreational fishery to all other

Atlantic Canadians:

Wherefore, your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to support and represent our request to the federal Government of

Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the point we were

making. First of all, a raging and standing ovation by all the members on the

closing of the Budget and how the Minister of Government Services and Lands

thought there were illusions with the cabin owners and so on until he went to

the meeting. The same thing, Mr. Speaker, and I relate it all to this petition,

out of touch again. The Member for Terra Nova has not stood to represent his

people on this petition or to tell us if he supported or did not support it. Mr.

Speaker, I am here from every single district.

The people in this Province are very concerned about this and

we talk about the timing of the year. There are many families in rural

Newfoundland who just want to have the opportunity to go out and jig a fish so

that their families could eat it. It is a simple thing, do not turn a mountain

into a mole hill. All we are talking about is a small, food fishery, with a very

small number of fish being caught - the members of the House on the opposite

side do not seem to understand what it's like to get up on a Saturday morning,

five or six o'clock, a nice sunny morning, and get into your dory and row out

the bay a little bit, or get into your speed boat and go out the bay a little

bit and just jig a fish. Do you understand that, I say to members? Why hasn't

any member?

The Member for Terra Nova keeps talking about representing

his constituents, at least get up and respond; you must have heard it from

somebody in your district, that I would like to be able to go out and jig a fish

this summer. I think the stocks are recovering and, Mr. Speaker, everywhere I

hear it from people, everywhere, from fishermen, not from Ottawa's scientists,

from fishermen and people who fished for years and years. I sit and speak to

them every day in my district and they say: Paul, I would love to be able to go

out and just jig a fish, why do they make such a big fuss about this food

fishery?

It is all about image and perception, that is what it is all

about so the former federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, now our Premier,

made this decision against Newfoundlanders to be able to go out and jig a fish,

stop making a big fuss about it. So they go over to England and they can wave

the Canadian flag and say: Thank you for taking on the Spaniards, which is a

whole story within itself, a joke within itself, Mr. Speaker, that they came

here on a two-week holiday and stayed at the Delta, froze their fish for them

and sent back, now we are being sued. That is what the flag waving in England

was all about, the great minister from Canada, the great Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans from Canada, so he said: We are even going to stop our own

Newfoundlanders from going out to jig a fish. Whoop-de-doo, he really laid it to

Newfoundlanders didn't he? We will show the world, we will not let our

Newfoundlanders jig a fish to eat. What a load of foolishness this has all been,

for two years now.

If any hon. member is really standing on principle and

listening to the people in their district, listen to the fishermen who fished

for fifty years and who cannot go down, get in his boat, and row out and catch a

fish. That is what it is all about. Stop making a big fuss about it. Open a

small food fishery and put criteria in place that will suit everybody. That can

be done so that we will have a little bit of dignity left. Mr. Speaker, the

point I make for today's petition is so we can give a little boost of morale to

rural communities so that this summer they can go out and jig a fish and not

make a big fuss about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to

clarify for the record, the Government House Leader indicated that Standing

Orders indicate that the prayer must be read in the petitions, certainly for the

record, so that people can ensure that the proper procedure is followed. I do

not know that to be true and it does not say so, to my knowledge, in our

Standing Orders, so I think we should get the record straight here on this

particular point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order. I do not know if the hon. member is

referring to the ruling on the point of order. The Chair did not rule that the

member was correct, that the prayer had to be read. The Chair just reminds hon.

members that they must confine themselves to the prayer of the petition, so

really there is no point of order.

MR. LUSH: Let him speak to the point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the Chair has ruled that there is

really no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to speak on behalf of the petition put forward

by my colleague for Baie Verte asking government to seriously consider reopening

the food fishery. I think his petition went on to say the food and recreational

fishery. Now, I do not know what a recreational fishery is, but I certainly know

what a food fishery is, and anytime that people I know of went out to jig a cod

fish it was not for recreation but to put food on the table. I suppose what flew

in the face of every Newfoundlander was when this government, or their cousins

up in Ottawa allowed it to happen just a few short years ago, to allow people

who were coming to Newfoundland as tourists to go out and jig cod fish while

depriving our own people, our own native Newfoundlanders, the right to do

exactly that.

If you were coming here as a tourist you could go out on the

Scademia or you could go over in Terra Nova National Park and take

part in one

of the excursions that they have out on the bay and jig yourself a cod fish. The

government of the day tolerated that and promoted it, Mr. Speaker, but our own

people out there were not allowed to go and take

part in such a fishery, to

bring it back, put it on the stove and provide a meal. I say to the government

of the day that is deplorable. Finally, there were enough people who spoke out

against it and they did decide this was going to stop, and now from what I

understand it has stopped, and sobeit, they treat everyone alike.

I guess when you get back to treating everybody alike then it

goes right back to the petition that was just presented. What is so different

about a native Newfoundlander and a native person from New Brunswick, Nova

Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or Quebec? Many of the people who live on the

shores of the Northern Peninsula can look out their window and see the lights,

and see the boats from Northern Quebec fishing, I say to the Member for Terra

Nova, while we have to sit back and not be allowed to take

part in the same

exercise.

It was only the other day I spoke with a gentleman who worked

with Marine Atlantic and he indicated to me that probably this summer he was

going to spend a week up in Nova Scotia rather than come back on his two weeks

off. He would just come back for one week and catch his cod fish for the winter.

He would go off from Nova Scotia to catch his cod fish and bring it back for the

winter. That is the only way he was allowed to take

part in the cod fishery,

because they are still allowed to take

part in this particular fishery.

Now, the Minister of Fisheries will get up and say that the

member is promoting opening a fishery when scientific evidence tells us that

there is not enough stock out there to support this, his fish plants are closed

and all the other bad things that a food fishery will do. Well, Mr. Speaker, I

don't believe any of that. The amount of fish that we are talking about, the

amount of fish that is caught is something like 2,000 tons a year, which is only

a drop in the bucket.

The minister looks over, Mr. Speaker, and he has a concerned

look on his face. It was only yesterday that I talked with a member and one of

the biggest fishermen from the member's district. I talked to him and he echoed

the same concerns, telling me about all the codfish out on the Grand Banks, all

the codfish they were getting out of the nets that they were setting. And this

same minister says, no, that is all wrong, because some scientist said there is

not enough fish out there for a food fishery and that is why it should close. So

it is obvious that the minister is not opening his ears, either, to the real

scientists of the world, Mr. Speaker. He should be listening to the fishermen

out there today.

A couple of days ago I had a call from a person in my own

district who went out and put out twenty-four lump nets with a ten-and-a-half

inch mesh. When he went out to pull his lump nets, he had 70 pounds of lump roe

at the end of the day and he had 1,200 pounds of codfish, I say to the minister

- 1,200 pounds of codfish. Now, what is he going to do with it? He can't sell it

because he is not allowed to catch it. If he goes and reports all the cod that

he caught, then somebody is going to tell him that he has to take his lump nets

out of the water because the by-catch is too high. So, what does he do with it?

He has to make himself a criminal in order to bring home a few codfish and

provide food for his family. He is supposed to throw it away, Mr. Speaker,

whether it is dead or alive. I say to the minister, this is unheard of, and I

don't see any reason why people should not be allowed to go out there today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and jig a few codfish for food, Mr.

Speaker, because I don't think it will destroy the stocks. I don't think it will

hurt the stocks and it will have no bearing whatsoever on the plant opening in

La Scie, the plant opening in Port Union or the plant opening in Bonavista

because we are talking about very, very minimal numbers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know what's happening with members on the opposite

side but day after day, week after week, they are bringing petitions into the

House of Assembly to request a food fishery.

MR. J. BYRNE: We are speaking on behalf of the people.

MR. EFFORD: But if there was enough fish and we were all

satisfied that there is enough fish out there, the first thing that we would be

doing is talking about a commercial fishery. We have 1,700 people who just came

off TAGS in the month of May. We have thousands of other people, all around the

Province, not working and with no income. We have hundreds of people who will be

coming off month by month now until the end of TAGS. Once they come off the TAGS

program and if there is no fish, they have one alternative, to go to the hon.

Minister of Social Services' office. Ninety-nine percent of the people in this

Province don't want to do that. Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in this Province

who would rather - would have any more fun going out and jigging a cod than I

would. In fact, in a few short hours from now I will be aboard my boat, five or

six o'clock this afternoon and I will not come in until Sunday night or possibly

Monday morning. Nobody likes it any better than I do. But, when I go to my

community -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: See how serious they are? We are talking

about a fishery -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: We are talking about a very serious issue.

They raise it in the House every day, they bring petitions into the House every

day, and they won't listen to a reasonable explanation. That's how serious they

really are. The bottom line is, I would like to have a food fishery. I would

like to be assured that there is sufficient cod out there that we all can go out

and enjoy a traditional way of living.

When I spoke to a man last week at the Royal Canadian Legion,

Bay Roberts, a veteran from the Second World War, eighty-two years old, living

here in St. John's, he said the only pleasure that I used to get out of life was

to go back to where I lived - it was some part of Trinity Bay - to be able to

get aboard my little boat in the evening and go out and jig a few fish -

eighty-two years old. Yes, I would like to be able to have a food fishery. Yes,

it is part of Newfoundland's heritage and it should be part of the future, but

we messed up things very, very seriously. We made a lot of mistakes. We have to

be totally satisfied that the fish stocks are in sufficient numbers that you can

have a food fishery and you can have a commercial fishery - number one a

commercial fishery, number two a recreational fishery - and that is it, Sir.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. DICKS: Order 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3, the Concurrence Motion of the

Government Services Committee. I believe the hon. the Member for Cape St.

Francis adjourned the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place today to continue on with

what I was saying yesterday. I say to some of the members - well, I can't refer

to anybody in particular not being here, but I remember one of the ministers

waving a white flag, so I tell him to get the white flag ready.

MR. EFFORD: What? What is he saying?

MR. J. BYRNE: He is at it again, look! Didn't you just

have enough to say? I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't here.

MR. J. BYRNE: He wasn't here, no. I don't want to name

you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay.

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue what I was saying yesterday.

Starting off, the Government Services Committee covers Works, Services and

Transportation, Municipal Affairs, Government Services and Lands, and Finance.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation made an announcement this

morning in this House of the provincial roads program, and where the money will

be spent. I would have to ask the question: Did the former Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation make up that list? I am really disappointed this

morning. We looked at the list, and I think there is only one P.C. district

getting a very minimal amount of funding from that provincial program.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, is not

disappointed at all because it is all Liberal districts getting funding this

year for the provincial roads program. As the Member for Conception Bay South

said, of the money that is being spent, 90 per cent is being spent in Liberal

districts, and that's not right - that is just not right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is not right, is it? The Member for

Terra Nova says it is not right. The Member for Terra Nova agrees that is not

right. He disagrees with his government spending that kind of money in Liberal

districts. It is just unfair. It goes back to the days just after Confederation.

If you were a P.C. in this Province, you were harassed, you were crucified.

I was speaking to a lady this past weekend, Ms Grace Sparkes,

who ran four times for the House of Assembly back in those days - I am not sure

if it was the House of Assembly or federal, Grace Sparkes?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Federal, yes, and she was really given a

hard time by the Liberal government of the day. And that is what we are getting

back to now. It is nothing less than disgusting.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of comments I want to make, and I

have some questions I was going to direct to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Who is a good P.C.?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ms Sparkes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, a grand lady. She is eighty-two years

old, I believe, around that age. I shouldn't be saying, I suppose, how old she

is. She is an elderly lady. Her mind is very sharp at this point in time. She

still golfs, from what I am told; she still drives a car. She attended a meeting

this weekend. She made a presentation at our dinner and dance, at the Executive

Council meeting, and spoke for fifteen minutes without a note. An elderly lady

like that, she is just simply amazing. I think, if I have half the get-up-and-go

that she has when I am sixty-two, let alone in my eighties, I will be quite

satisfied with my lot in life.

At the committee meetings on the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation, I asked a lot of questions - we went on for close

to three hours, as I said before, and got a lot of answers. I must say, the

minister was quite well versed in her department, and, as I said yesterday, her

staff was well versed also.

I don't know if I am going to get into the specifics of it

now, but we had a lot of questions also for the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, in particular. I had

some concerns with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in their

policies now, because the minister stated that they are planning on getting away

from private development, having discussions with private developers in the

city, and he feels that land developments now within the Province being handled

by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing are basically in competition with the

private developers. Ever since Newfoundland and Labrador Housing came to be, Mr.

Speaker, from what I know, they were into land development, and they used the

profits from land development for their social housing program.

Now, there are some people within the industry itself, in the

development industry, in the real estate and in the building supply industry, I

suppose, who have different points of view. I have been speaking to a couple of

these people and some support the idea of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

getting out of private development and allowing the private developers to do

that; but I have to question the intelligence of that move. I am open to be

convinced if that is a good move or not, Mr. Speaker. There are other people out

there who fear that certain individuals may start forming and put a - what would

be the right word? I won't use the word cartel, as such, but be able to control

development within the city and control the pricing of lots within the city;

whereas Newfoundland and Labrador Housing was always in the position where they

could set the rates out there for the normal individual to try to get a house in

this Province. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, as I said, has

traditionally had social housing programs and they use the money from the land

development to support that.

The minister stated at meetings with Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing that they are talking about selling off a lot of their market

rental units; 200 units going this year. Again I have to question that because I

don't know if that is a good move or not. The money that is coming in from those

units, of course, would offset expenditures by Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing; so that is something that has to be looked at very carefully, and I am

sure the department will be doing that.

I wouldn't want to see the same situation occur that occurred

with Newfoundland Hydro, in that the government was trying to unload

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro last year - unload is probably not the right

word, they were trying to sell it off for the quick buck to help balance the

budget last year or the year before, and we would be without that. Here we see

this year, Mr. Speaker, that the government is increasing the amount of money,

the revenues, that they receive from Newfoundland Hydro. Then again, if they

sell off Newfoundland and Labrador Housing rental units and they sell off the

private developments and get out of it altogether, what impact will that have on

our provincial revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and for the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in the long haul?

Again we see the short term versus the long term. We have to

make that comparison. This administration seems to be more concentrated on the

short term rather than the long term. We can, I suppose, relate this same train

of thought to all of the different departments in government. Take Mines and

Energy, for example. We have Voisey's Bay up there. Government seems to be

putting a lot of their eggs in one basket, and that is in Voisey's Bay. Now, we

have, of course, Hunt Oil on the West Coast, we have Terra Nova and we have the

Hibernia project starting to produce oil within the next year to two years. It

all speaks well for the Province's future, Mr. Speaker. It is not all doom and

gloom, I suppose.

It all boils down, from my perspective, to timing and

priorities. The timing of it, with respect to Voisey's Bay - we know that it is

a big development. There is a lot of money that could be there, a lot of

potential for taxes for this Province, depending on how you approach it and what

system you put in place. We are really not clear on what system to this point in

time. We haven't received any amendments to the Mineral Tax Act yet that have

been promised. So we really don't know what is going to happen. Again it gets

right back to timing. If this government is planning to get revenues out of

Voisey's Bay within the next two to three years, hopefully - and I hope their

plans come to pass, Mr. Speaker, because we really don't know at this point in

time if that is going to be the case.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Government Services and Lands

- I will make a few comments on that also. That is a new department that has

been formed. We have a new department and a new minister. From what I could

gather, when we were having the committee meetings, because that department is

not really that well organized at this point in time - there are sections of

that department all over the place and they are trying to pull it together.

Hopefully it will come together. It is in a department that is going to have a

lot of responsibility in the future. The policy that they just brought in, and I

said earlier when I was standing with respect to the petition, that the Crown

lands policy again is a tax grab. I don't know if the minister really understood

what was being approved. I don't if the minister understood what was being

approved when that policy was put forward. I know, from speaking to his staff,

that the department - they tell me that this plan has been worked on for two

years. Now I find that to be pretty hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, that this plan

or the new policy was worked on for two years because when the policy was first

announced we asked questions in this House and the minister could not answer the

questions. He finally tabled some answers to questions and they were no answers,

they were very vague and what have you.

Then there was another ministerial statement made in this

House and that was vague. It tried to clarify the situation and it did not. Then

we had more questions asked, no answers, Mr. Speaker, another ministerial

statement, another press release to clarify the situation somewhat. At a public

meeting it was obvious that this policy was developed from May 16, when it was

first announced. There was a very general statement made and it developed as

time progressed. When people got up against it and they could see the flaws in

what they were proposing, Mr. Speaker, they developed a policy as time went on.

So as we all heard before in this House, yesterday and today

about the public meeting held the other night, 250 people showed up to that

meeting. I am saying 250, that is the minimum, it was closer to 300 but they

were very passionate. They were very concerned and they were upset. We saw some

of the clippings last night on television and you could see that the people at

that meeting were very, very concerned about what is happening to the Crown

lands policy and the cabin owners in this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, after that

meeting I had people come up to me and congratulate me for calling the meeting

because they could not get any information out of Government Services and Lands.

They had made numerous, numerous calls to the department and their calls were

not being returned. If they did get it through the questions could not be

answered. So they were thankful that we had called the meeting.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Government Services and Lands, I

have a question for the minister. Madam minister, with respect to

transportation, with respect to Pippy Park - I asked questions at the meeting

about the amount of land that was available and what have you and how the people

in the park were being treated. There is an appeal or a hearing going on this

very day, this past week at the Holiday Inn concerning some land in Pippy Park.

Would she be able to tell us what the concerns are of those people with respect

to the amount of money they are being asked for and how much land is involved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing process in

place with respect to the acquisition of lands that are provided for under the

Pippy Park Commission. Typically, those have been allocated and government is

going through a very long-term process of acquiring lands as it can afford to

acquire them and of course, in addition to that, if people wish to sell their

properties on the open market they do have the opportunity to do that. However,

everybody recognizes that there is a certain difficulty in selling lands on the

open market when they are inside of the Pippy Park Commission. So the long term

goal of government is to be able to provide for people who want to sell their

land back to government through the Pippy Park Commission. Residents from the

area, and I think they have a residence group, have approached the department

and have asked to meet with me, as the minister, to be able to address their

concerns to me as the new minister. I have agreed to that meeting, it is

scheduled for within the next two weeks. I am not certain of the date, I don't

have it here with me but at that time I will be able to better speak to the

specific concerns that the residents might be addressing in the forum that you

are talking about at this time.

I know they have concerns that they wish government to

proceed more rapidly with acquiring properties for those of the property owners

who wish to sell their land but not everybody does. In that case as well,

government is quite happy to have residents continue to live in the park because

we consider those people who live in the park to be the stewards and the

guardians of Pippy Park as well. So I think you will see that there will be a

degree of flexibility and an arrangement where we can hopefully satisfy what

people who live in the park are looking for; but, as I say, I will be meeting

with them very shortly, and at that time have an opportunity to hear from them

directly what their concerns are.

Thank you.

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

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

Minister, basically I know the process, and we had some

discussions on that, but basically I was asking you about a specific hearing

that is taking place today. So you are not familiar with that hearing? What I

was getting at, apparently there were two appraisals done, one for the

individual and one for government, and they came out the same. The government

did not accept it. They went back and asked for another appraisal. There have

been as many as seven or eight different appraisals done; so, to me, they are

not really being up front and forthright when they are pulling that type of

tactic. Would you want to comment on that?

MS BETTNEY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister says she will take it under

advisement.

Mr. Speaker, again, as I said earlier, yesterday when I ended

off I was talking about the roads program, and was hoping that the minister

would come out with some announcements this time around that that would not be

so politically aligned, I suppose, as the previous minister used to do, but in

my district of Cape St. Francis there are a number of roads down there that

really do need work. I have been talking about it; I met with the previous

minister on a number of occasions. I had a meeting with the new minister not

long ago, and I would say it was a reasonably good meeting. She had her staff

there, and I made my case to get some funding for the district, and I think the

minister understood.

I know the funds are limited, but if you go across this

Province and look at the amount of money that has been spent over the past five

or six years in various districts in this Province, and compare it to what used

to be St. John's East Extern and now Cape St. Francis, you will see that

district has not received its fair share by any stretch of the imagination. I

can get you districts and go back over the past five years and get a breakdown

of where the money has been spent in this Province. I hope there is no need to

do that. I would basically like to get some funding for Cape St. Francis this

year. The road to Bauline is in a pathetic condition. They went down last year

and did some maintenance with pothole patching. The road in Shoe Cove itself,

just beyond the sign where you come into Shoe Cove, the road is in pathetic

condition. The WindGap road in Flatrock is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: I thought we had ten minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: Didn't the hon. member speak yesterday as

well?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, but I had an intervening speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Concurrence.

MR. J. BYRNE: Concurrence - do you want to get that

straightened out?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take a moment to consult with the Table.

MR. J. BYRNE: I had an intervening speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I say to the hon. member, where you speak

back and forth from both sides of the House with just one intervening speaker is

at Committee stage. The hon. member has thirty minutes in which to speak in this

debate, and he has used up his thirty minutes.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I do understand that we have

an agreement between the two House Leaders that members may speak as many times

as they wish; however, we do agree that there would be a rotation of ten and

ten, but by agreement we have, on behalf of both the government and the

Opposition, agreed to relax the rules for the Concurrence Debates so that there

should be no difficulty with hon. members speaking however many times they

desire, and going beyond the normal thirty-minute time allocation as per the

Standing Orders.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Government

House Leader asked me to act in his absence.

I know from the hearings we had the other day, or I should

say the Committee of the House on Supply, we did, in fact, do that, and I think

the rules are somewhat different, but in the absence of the Government House

Leader I will certainly go along with it for now. If that is not clearly

understood, then either myself or the Government House Leader will indicate to

the Chair, but certainly at this point I have no objection to following that for

the time being. Of course, any member might object to that manner of proceeding,

and should that be the case then the Government House Leader or myself will deal

with that at that point; so we certainly give consent to continue in the fashion

indicated by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is obviously bound by the

agreements of the House. Are there any objections from any member to operating

the debate in the manner which has just been described?

Very well.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

do you have a copy of the estimates with you? No? Maybe we could have a copy

sent to her.

I have a question for the minister. On page 71, under

Administration under 2.2.01, item 09, Allowances and Assistance. There is an

amount of money of $600,000 and I remember you mentioning that at the committee

meetings this is basically due to insurance claims. Would you like to inform the

House about that insurance claim, what it is for, and if it is settled and how

much it will be? That is the one in Corner Brook I believe.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't have my detailed notes here with me at the present

time. I am reading now from some of the comments that the member has made with

respect to this item being related to an insurance claim in Corner Brook; is

that the one to which you are referring? The increased amount that you see there

is the financial allocation that we have made in the Budget to provide for the

payout on a claim that was awarded due to an insurance claim related to an

injury, so this amount is provided to be able to provide compensation for that

claim.

Now as I say, I don't have my detailed notes here so I can't

say whether there is anything else related to that, but that is my recollection.

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

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

On page 73 also, under 2.3.01 Administration, item 06

Purchased Services; you had budgeted $642,000 and it is up to $933,000, that is

a large increase and I think that has something to do with insurance on the

vehicles. Would you want to explain to the House why there is such an increase?

MS BETTNEY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 73, item 2.3.01, Administration, 06

Purchased Services, up from $642,000 to $933,000 and deals with the insurance

policies on the vehicles for the government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The item refers to the insurance premiums for the vehicle

fleet and they reflect natural increases that have taken place in the price of

that service. That item is tendered and the amount that is listed there reflects

the lowest tendered price that we received.

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

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

Page 79, Minister, Development of New Facilities, Purchased

Services, $4,110,000 to be spent; is that with respect to the Philip Building

and could you tell me if the Philip Building went over Budget and by how much?

Now when I asked that question, I asked it in Committee and I was told that it

was going over Budget by $200,000. Now, I am not sure if they misunderstood me,

I know there are renovation changes to what was originally planned on the

request of the Minister I believe, and I am not sure if the Deputy Minister

thought I was asking how much those renovations would be if that was $200,000

but from the original estimate when the government decided to purchase it from

Hydro and turn that into a Natural Resources Building, how much it went from

then to now, and the actual expenditure to convert or renovate that building?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the original budget for Philip

Place was $7.8 million. It is presently 75 to 80 per cent complete. It is within

budget at the present time and it is estimated to be completed within budget.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you. One more question and then I am

going to sit down and let one of my colleagues take it from here.

Minister, I asked the question last week concerning Philip

Place and I will ask it now. I could have asked it in Question Period, but - on

May twenty-third there was a tender closing for furnishings and - I have a copy

of it here, wait now - general and systems furniture for Philip Place, it closed

on May twenty-third. I would just like to ask the question: in the past few

years we have seen as many as 2000 people being laid-off from the civil service

and I am just curious as to why we would have to tender for furnishings for that

building, when we have 2000 people gone? We have computers left behind, we have

desks left behind, chairs left behind. Couldn't we utilize this when we are in

such a hard financial situation, when the government had to see fit to let go

2000 people? Couldn't we have utilized that equipment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Again without having the

very specific details of that tender here in front of me it is very difficult to

comment on the necessity of the specific items that were listed in it. All

attempts are being made to utilize existing furnishings for any remodelling, for

any change of offices, for any change of personnel that take place throughout

the whole of the government system. Sometimes we are able to make those

accommodations and sometimes we are not, but within that whole area that you

call remodelling and refurbishing and accommodations, there are a large number

of items that are very unique to the remodelling process, whether it is the

cubicals or the different office lay-outs that simply cannot shift from one site

to another and are unique to fit in with other things that are already in place.

Again, at this point without having the specifics in front of me, I am trying

more to project possibilities than provide you with a specific response to your

question of whether there were items available. The only thing that I can say to

you is that, if there were items of furnishings related to these accommodations

that we could have used, we would have used them and would only have gone out

where we absolutely needed to require new.

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

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

I will ask the Minister, would the Minister supply me with a

copy of that tender and what was requested in the tender?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker the tender would have been a

public document. There is absolutely no reason why it cannot be supplied to the

member, so it is available for the asking.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to say a few brief comments on the Government

Services Committees and I think the headings comes under Works, Services and

Transportation, Municipal Affairs, Government Services and Lands and Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I must say to the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation, knowing that she was working with a very limited amount of

money, that it was certainly disappointing for me not to see any money put

forward in this years budget for Route 235. I noticed the Minister had

identified some money that was put forward there for Route 235, down by the Ryan

premises in Bonavista, but as the Minister noted this is 100 per cent funded and

that particular piece of roadway was something like point four of a kilometre

and what it is is to re-route a

section of the highway around some of heritage

buildings that are there. It is certainly, certainly very disappointing when you

see the many concerns that I have brought here to the house and the many

petitions that have been brought forward and you see the school children who

have not stayed out of school Mr. Speaker, but they certainly have taken

part in

many public functions, demonstrations if you would, public meetings putting

forward the need to have their

section of road which leads from Summerville, I

guess the worst

section is, from Southern Bay down to Stock Cove upgraded and

repaired. Many of the children cannot get up in the morning and have a breakfast

before they go to school, Mr. Speaker. Their experience has been with the road

being so bad that when they get to school they get stomach sick and have to

spend most of the morning outside the classroom setting altogether. This is a

particular

section of roadway that was built about twenty-nine years ago, from

what I understand and inspections of roadways were not then what they are now

and I think many contractors were probably allowed to do things that they would

not get away with today.

We have had the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation out there. He did see fit to go out one day and meet with a group

of concerned citizens. We all gathered there in the building and they expressed

their concerns to him. They were very reasonable, Mr. Speaker, fully realizing

the cash restraints the government is under and they said look we don't expect

to see a contract let for $5 million or $3 million to complete Route 235. What

we are asking for is a start to be made. If you never start you never finish. If

you would see one kilometre done this year and another kilometre another year

then at least the people would know that there was something being done there

and eventually they would have a decent highway or a decent road I guess, they

are not looking for a highway. A decent road to drive over.

Now Route 235 goes down around the scenic area of Bonavista

South. It takes the shoreline and drives through all the communities. The

scenery there is unbelievable as it is in many other parts of Newfoundland but

all along that roadway you will find that there are very little services. In

order for anybody to access any government services they have to drive to

Clarenville or Bonavista and this is the particular roadway that has to be used.

The children are bused into a local school there, many of them having to travel

in excess of - well I would guess probably some of them may have to travel

fifteen to twenty miles over that particular roadway considering the branches

off from it, which is in just as bad a condition.

I might add, store owners are echoing many concerns because

the service industry has threatened to take their trucks off the road from going

down in this particular area. The school buses are continually going to the

garage and having repairs done because of the damages caused by going over Route

235. So it is certainly very, very discouraging that I did not see anything

brought forward under this years Budget. The local office of Works, Services and

Transportation have identified this piece of roadway as their number one

priority for the past number of years and I believe that to be so. I don't think

it is just a situation where they are telling me that because I am there

complaining or some of the people from the area. I think they are sincere and

when they put their proposals in to government, I have no reason to believe that

it is not their number one concern.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the highway or the particular

roadway going down through the communities of Bonavista Bay I can also think of

communities in my district that are without pavement. Communities, Mr. Speaker,

that have had their roads upgraded and have been told and promised by other

politicians that it will be upgraded this year and paved next year because that

is the way the government does their work. That's the way that pavement should

be laid and that's the way they found their roads - they get the better, I

suppose the greater spending power for their dollar.

When I think of communities like Winter Brook and Jamestown

and Princeton and roads in Summerville, Mr. Speaker, still without pavement it

does not give me much joy in reading the projects that are being put forward by

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation this year. In fact, in my

particular district I think there are a couple of culverts to be replaced. There

is certainly a much, much greater need that needs to be addressed and attended

to. When people live in communities today who are unable to open their windows

and unable to put clothes on the line on any particular day because of the dust

and dirt that is coming off the roadway then I think it does not say much for us

as representatives and it does not say much for government in recognizing some

of the priorities as it goes to road work. So that certainly disappoints me,

that I have not seen any increase in road work in my particular district knowing

that the need is there.

When I see $100 million - I suppose this is what frustrates

me - when I see $100 million spent on the Outer Ring Road and I see this need in

communities like Princeton, Jamestown, Winter Brook and Route 235, Mr. Speaker,

then it makes me wonder who government is listening to and if they got their

priorities fooled up a little bit.

Now I know that the Outer Ring Road is federal money, but

there should be some correspondence, I would hope, and there should be some

degree of consensus reached between the federal government and the provincial

government as it relates to priorities for spending money on such an important

thing as road work. That concerns me to no end when I see that kind of money

being spent right here in this city, $100 million, and see such a great need

existing out in the rural Newfoundland communities today.

Municipal Affairs is another heading under the Government

Services Committee, and it bothers me when I see the cutbacks that

municipalities are taking, and it bothers me when I hear of people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I will yield to the Minister of Finance

for a few minutes.

MR. DICKS: No, that is okay.

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, okay.

Before the Minister of Finance goes, if he is going to stand

on his feet, maybe I will just ramble a little bit and ask him, when he was in

Labrador - I understand the Minister of Finance went to Labrador for public

hearings and consultation on the Budget, and I know it must have been brought

forward to him many times, especially in Labrador West, the Labrador City -

Wabush area, about taxation on tobacco, I say to the minister, which has been

brought up in this House many times by the former member who sat here. When you

look at the people in Labrador City and Wabush paying something like $57 or $58

a carton for cigarettes when they can shoot up the highway for about twenty

miles to Fermont and buy a carton of cigarettes for $26, we must be, I say to

the minister, taking an awful beating there on the sales of tobacco.

I understand that housewives have been arrested and charged

as criminals for going and doing their grocery shopping and including a carton

of cigarettes in their purchase there. I suppose if that is not done then the

law is not taken very seriously, because if we are going to have laws and rules

and regulations, then we may as well abide by them. I don't know if that is

being done now, Minister, or if it is not, and I would also like to know if you

are planning on addressing that particular problem in the near future because it

is a concern that has been raised to me several times, and I am sure the Member

for Labrador West knows full well what I am referring to.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, when you see communities that had entered into water services and sewer

services years and years ago when they were encouraged to take part and be

involved in taking

part in the services of supplying water and sewer to their

communities, and were told the maximum charge you would be expected to pay would

be 20 per cent - I am not sure if it was 20 or 25 per cent, but I believe it was

20 per cent - of your revenue that you collect, that is all you would be

expected to pay back to government, many of those communities went and applied,

and were successful in getting Cadillac water and sewer systems, and today we

find that many of them are burdened with the expense of paying many, many more

dollars than what they had anticipated back to government. It was changed in

mid-stream, and most of those communities now find themselves saddled with such

an expense that they will never, ever get out of debt again.

Then, when you see the minister and this government coming

forward and taking a 22 per cent cut on municipalities last year, mid-season,

and see another 10 per cent taken away from them this particular year, I wonder

why we would ever get anybody to come out and volunteer their time to run for

council.

A lot of us have served on municipalities in the past, on

municipal councils, because we wanted to contribute something to the community

where we live, to the community where we raise our children. None of us, I

think, get involved in municipal council to take our taxpayers and our

neighbours, and the local residents, to court to collect taxes, but this is what

is happening out there today. Many of those communities have had to go and fill

up their local holding cells of the RCMP with delinquent taxpayers, have gone in

the darkness of night and arrested people, who had to leave their children at

home, because of tax arrears. Many times those people could not afford to pay

and the communities that took

part in such activity had no other choice because

the heavy hand was put on by government which said if you don't collect your

taxes, then we will hold you responsible, and we will intercept your government

grants and you will get nothing until you pay the full amount.

Mr. Speaker, I think municipalities should be rewarded for

their effort in collecting money. A lot of those municipalities owe hundreds and

hundreds of thousands of dollars but now that they have become responsible, many

of them, they put great efforts into collecting back taxes. A lot of them have

taken it almost from the brink of collapse, the brink of bankruptcy in their

communities, and are now up to just about having their tax arrears paid back to

Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing, having it up to the current

charges.

I think those communities should be rewarded, but instead,

the heavy hand is still kept on them and they are being told, just because you

are making an effort in collecting taxes, and, yes, you have done very well, but

because you owe X number of dollars still, then we will not provide you with any

funding this year to provide a new salt and sand spreader, or we will not give

you the authority to borrow money in order to correct the problem in your water

and sewer system. I have one community down in my district, Plate Cove East; the

community council there just got their notification from Newfoundland Power

saying that the water services are going to be cut as of June 14.

Here is a situation where a system was put in place that

should never, ever have been put there in the first place. It is a Cadillac

water system and as it got in need of repairs things were just cut off, done

away with, bypassed in order to provide water. There is no chlorine there and

there has been no chlorine for years. There is one pump and that pump pumps

water up into a reservoir and the only way you know it is full is when the water

starts to flow out over the top of it. Then somebody has to drive down to the

pump house and manually turn the pump off. The same thing with starting it up,

go and manually start it up, and when they see it flowing over the top again,

cut it off.

Here is a system that cost something like $750,000 when it

was put in place, to serve a community, in fact, I think it was put there to

serve two communities, but the end result was, it served twenty-two households.

Now, Mr. Speaker, those twenty-two households will never, ever pay their debt

charges, let alone the principle, on that particular service that has been

provided to them there. It should never have been put there in the first place.

If small communities like Plate Cove East, Plate Cove West, or Stock Cove, want

a water supply, put in a couple of artesian wells and then make them responsible

for maintaining their own water services after that. Let them have a little

water committee where they can collect fees and have a bank account if something

goes wrong. The biggest expense they will have is replacing a pump. They can

have that money put there and ready for themselves so they can pay their own way

instead of going and putting in those Cadillac water and sewer systems.

In fact, it was only the other day, I think, in my own

hometown that they had a public meeting and the council decided they were going

to put in water and sewer. They did one particular area which needed to be done

in the worst kind of way and I think last year they got another $600,000 or

$700,000 to continue with the work. And the residents spoke out and said: We

don't want it. Sorry, we don't want your money, because we know we are going to

be responsible for paying it back.

Most of the people who live in this particular community are

either senior citizens or people not fortunate enough to have a job and are on

social assistance, so they don't want to be saddled with those kinds of

commitments anymore, and you can't blame them. As important as water and sewer

is to communities, people should be encouraged to keep within their means of

being able to pay for it. That has been done, not only by this government - the

situations I just referred to were done by a government of my political stripe,

and that still doesn't make it right, Mr. Speaker. It is wrong. And that is why

many of those communities find themselves in such a situation today that they

will never ever get out of debt anymore. They will never ever be able to pay

their service charges to Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing.

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me, as I said, that we still have

those people volunteering their time, to come out and offer themselves for

municipal councils. Because, I can guarantee you, there is not much joy in it

anymore and not many positive things happening with respect to government

stepping in to give them some financial resources to do some positive things in

their towns. All they can do is pretty well maintain what they have or else try

to collect taxes from people who are already burdened with other outstanding

bills and with very, very little or very, very low prospects of finding work

themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the other heading under this particular

government department is Government Services and Lands, and I think we all know

the many, many issues that have been raised here as far as the regulations or

the new policy of Government Services and Lands are concerned as it relates to

charging landowners now with the cost of purchasing their land. Many people are

speaking out and saying: This is not what we thought would happen when we

entered into this agreement with government, and I agree with them.

I think people should be given an option, if they want to

purchase the land, let them purchase it. I don't think we should go and lay the

heavy hand on them and say that in order for you to keep your cabin or, in order

for you to maintain this piece of property, you must do this, you must pay me

$2,500 or you must pay me $3,000. I don't think we should do that. I think

people should be given an option if they want to purchase the land, then let

them purchase it. Maybe there are people out there, as the minister says, who

would like to purchase the land, they want it to be theirs and, God bless them,

they should be given the opportunity to go and buy it if they could afford to,

but we shouldn't go out and say to those people: now that we are the government

that we are going to charge you because you have a cottage built, or because you

have enhanced the land that you decided to go and spend some of your

recreational time on, that we are going to charge you now $2,500 if you happen

to be living on a roadway or $3,000 if you happen to be living on some

waterfront property.

I think that is wrong and I think it should be changed. I

believe the minister will look at seriously changing, and I hope he would not be

dictated to by some of the other people over there who have no feelings for the

person out there who is struggling today and would like to have a little place

in the countryside where they can go with their sons and daughters and get away

from city life or from their own town life. It is something obviously they must

have wanted to do or they wouldn't have entered into renting the piece of land

in the first place and building a cottage.

If you look at the thousands of dollars that those people

contribute to the economy of this Province, if you look at the thousands of

dollars they contribute in purchasing gasoline in driving to their cabins and

cottages, Mr. Speaker, you will find that many of them are great contributors

already and shouldn't be tagged as people who are getting something for nothing

because that is not the way it is. But it concerns me that some of those very

people will be deprived of the opportunity to go and not live in a cabin, but I

suppose, occupy a cabin for a couple of months in the year or a couple of weeks

in the year, or as one person said to me: `a place where me and the missus goes

to have a boil up every couple of days' - go up and cook supper.

The Member for Trinity North laughs because he probably knows

the people I am talking about. In fact, those same fellows came from an area

that he represented prior to the last election. But that is what some of those

people do. It is a place that they have built, it is a little `get away', it is

the place that they enjoy. They go up and they light the fire and have a meal

and that's it. But now, Mr. Speaker, they will have to go and fork out $2,000 or

$3,000 in order to maintain that piece of property or else they are going to

have to pay $500 a year, I say to the member; yes, they will.

Mr. Speaker, I also plead with the Minister of Government

Services and Lands, to seriously consider bringing back the Motor Vehicle

Registration Act that was changed by the former Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. It never met with many positive reactions out in rural

Newfoundland. Most of the people I have spoken with and the people I have seen

demonstrating here in the lobby of the Confederation Building were people who

had no objections to getting their vehicle inspected. They had no objections to

going and paying their $15 a year if they could go out and drive on the highways

of this Province, Mr. Speaker and know that the tie-rod end or the ball-joint or

some other thing wouldn't fall off their car, with their family aboard on a

Sunday afternoon ride or a ride to work each day. I think it was uncaring and

thoughtless for the Minister to have taken such a heavy hand, if you would.

I know that the new Minister is seriously looking at it and I

know that the old Minister is putting a lot of pressure on her not to bring it

back. But I also understand that those same garage owners have had to go out and

purchase hundreds of dollars worth of equipment in order to do vehicle

inspections. Because you still have to get your vehicle inspected if there is a

sale made and you transfer it from one individual to another. It doesn't have to

be done on an annual basis, but in order for those same garage owners to take

part in doing motor vehicle inspections now, they have had to go out and buy

several pieces of equipment that have cost them hundreds of dollars.

The Minister's argument was - one day when I brought it up

here, I think he shouted across the House and said: You agree with the garage

owners out there who are writing out inspections slips and collecting the money

and putting it in their pockets, with the vehicle never going in the garage. I

have no doubt, Minister, that that has happened.

MR. EFFORD: You are not still talking about that.

MR. FITZGERALD: I have no doubt that has happened. Yes,

and I say to the Minister, he is still talking about it. He is talking about it

to the new Minister and trying to convince her not to bring it back, I say to

the Minister. But Minister if those kinds of things are happening, then let's

deal with them. Let's deal with the people who are breaking the law. Let's deal

with the people who are abusing the law, but let's not go bringing in blanket

coverage - if somebody poaches a moose, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to outlaw

moose hunting. Deal with the people that are breaking the law and let the other

people who wanted to take

part in the program, take

part in it.

Now, I know you might say, well, you still have the option.

There is nobody who said you can't take you car and drive it in to the garage to

get it inspected. You can do that on a daily basis, I suppose, if you would, but

human nature being what it is, Mr. Speaker, and I am no different from somebody

else, is that we never take part and do those things unless there is a deadline

or unless there is a time frame or unless somebody says you must do it. That is

the way it is today. And I think to this particular regulation should be brought

back and should be reinstated immediately. And there should be changes. There

should be changes, I say to the Minister. There should be changes made in it to

deal with the abuse, because it shouldn't be allowed to be like it was before,

and the people who were abusing it should not have a license to do inspections.

But I think that the inspection regulation should be brought back immediately

and I think that the garage owners are not the only people who might be

suffering because of this, I think you might see human life involved as well.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You can always have inspections without

having an inspection fee, I say to the Minister. It doesn't surprise me that the

Minister would take

part in such a program as this and do away with the

regulations because, as the member said, he has lost his scruples. There is no

doubt about that. The weakest member with the loudest voice over there happens

to be the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - the weakest member over there.

And I know that the new Minister of Government Services and Lands pays little

attention to him, as do the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. Because they have been saddled, they have been

stifled by some of the uncaring regulations that have been brought about by

people like the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not living in reality at all.

MR. FITZGERALD: That's what is happening here. And, as I

said right from the very beginning, some of those tired old faces on the front

benches should be moved way back, and let's get on with having a government here

that listens to the people and brings in rules and regulations that are helpful

and progressive, rather than do the things that they dream up and concoct

themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there has been an agreement

made between both sides of the House that we would accomplish some legislation

here this morning, and I will certainly sit down now and allow that to proceed,

and let somebody else speak on behalf of this particular heading of government.

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

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

If it is agreeable to the hon. Government House Leader, we

are prepared at this time to call the vote on