June 5,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 22

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me apologize on behalf the

hon. Earnest McLean for not being here to present this statement but Mr. McLean

is on the CBC radio program at this moment doing or trying to do the best he can

with regard to making an explanation as it relates to his department at this

particular point in time.

Mr. Speaker, for the information of members of the House of

Assembly and the news media, I am today tabling additional information in an

attempt to further explain the new Crown Lands Market Value Pricing Policy. I

think the documents which I am tabling will serve to clarify any

misunderstanding with reference to the new policy.

This information outlines all of the various options

available under the new policy. It will be our intention to publish this

information in the form of newspaper ads so that everybody concerned clearly

understands the policy and all of the options available for existing commercial,

residential and cottage owners. Prior to tabling this information, however,

there are a number of points which I feel I should make with reference to this

policy.

This is a good policy for leaseholders and, it is a good

policy for the owners of Crown lands - the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Leaseholders will be able to purchase land at a fraction of

the market value and, in so doing, they will acquire ownership of an asset as

opposed to being the holder of a land lease.

Current leaseholders will be given the opportunity to acquire

property under the old fee structure or to convert to the new fee structure -

the leaseholders can decide which option is most advantageous to him or her.

The lease purchase option ensures the land is developed and

serves as an interest-free loan which allows the leaseholder five years to pay

for the property.

The new policy means that the cost of obtaining Crown land in

most rural communities will decrease.

Revenues received through lease rentals only covered about 50

per cent of the cost of administering the leasing arrangements. What this means

is that leaseholders, for a long period of time, have had the benefit of

extremely low annual leasing rates. Basically, it ensures that the people of the

Province receive a fair and reasonable return for the land resources of the

Province.

The new policy means that the Province will no longer have a

competitive advantage over private land developers.

The new system ensures a consistent policy framework

throughout the Province.

It reduces red tape and makes it easier for the public to

deal with government, and it will have a minimal impact on the majority of

leaseholders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would first like to thank the Minister of Government

Services and Lands for sending me a copy of the statement a little while ago. I

appreciate that.

This is the second time we had a minister make a Ministerial

Statement in this House to try to clarify the situation with respect to the new

pricing policy. I have had time to basically skim the new information, and

really, there is not that much more new information there. It is a bit clearer,

I would agree, to the credit of the minister, I suppose, but it does not change

the intent of this new policy. There are a couple of points I would like to

bring out in this statement, the general statement and not the specifics.

The minister says `The lease purchase option ensures that

land is developed and serves as an interest-free loan.' The lease purchase

option is in place now and it takes a person having much more time to take

advantage of that option, so this is only forcing the issue and forcing people

to come up with money earlier on, when they may not want to.

With respect to: it serves as an interest free loan. Can you

imagine leasing someone a piece of land and calling it an interest-free loan.

Mr. Speaker, that would be quite a spin to put on it, to say the least. It also

says: `What this means is that leaseholders, for a long period of time, have had

the benefit of extremely low annual leasing rates.' Mr. Speaker, those rates are

what allowed the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to have

access to Crown land and to have access to cabins within the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just in conclusion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. J. BYRNE: Make up your minds, is it leave or not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: `It reduces red tape and makes it easier

for the public to deal with government and it will have a minimal impact on the

majority of leaseholders.' I would have to question the accuracy of this

statement. People now will still have to make application for leases, make

application for grants, they still have to be processed, and it will not cut

down on red tape for the applicant by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr. Speaker, they say this is a good policy. I have to make

the statement that this is not a good policy for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

In view of the finding of the Supreme Court of Appeal, will

the Premier call for a full public inquiry to determine whether the Public

Tender Act was wilfully broken in the Trans City tender?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we just had a public inquiry.

The courts dealt with this issue and we are analyzing what the courts have said

and over the next few days we will make a decision as to where we go from here,

as to whether we are going to appeal or whether we will take -

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The court was only asked if these companies were wronged. It

was not asked and it was not within its mandate to render whether there was

political interference or political patronage, even though, those suspicions

were raised by Judge Orsborn. In fact, Judge Orsborn said: Viewed as a whole,

the evidence before me is sufficient to raise suspicions that the award of the

contract to Trans City was influenced by factors unrelated to the substantive

content of the bids.

I ask the Premier - we had a decision by Judge Orsborn of the

Supreme Court Trial Division, and now it is confirmed by three judges of the

Appeals Division of the Newfoundland Supreme Court.

Now, evidence taken, raises reasonable grounds and clear

suspicion that misconduct may have occurred, and I ask the Premier: Don't you

think it is important to clear the air? Will the Premier clear the air and call

a public inquiry into this matter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is ill-advised

or misinformed. Neither did Judge Orsborn nor did the Court of Appeal, at any

time, say there was any reason for punitive damages. There is no blame laid, so

I would ask the hon. member to re-examine his facts. At no time, did either the

trial judge or the Court of Appeal say there was any reason for punitive

damages. That was thrown out in both cases.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was not within his mandate to render a judgement on

political interference, I say to the minister, and I say to the Premier, prior

to Judge Orsborn releasing his judgement, back on January 25, 1995, the former

Premier of this Province felt it was such an important issue, that the former

Premier stated on November 30, 1994: I give this commitment to the House. If at

the conclusion of those court proceedings there is any basis whatsoever for the

conduct of a public inquiry, I can assure this House that one will be ordered;

and on December 12, he stated again -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind the hon. member again that he is on a

supplementary, and that there should be no

preambles and no reading of extracts

from papers or other materials.

MR. SULLIVAN: If, according to the former Premier,

anything arose out of the court case, he would definitely call one. In fact, in

addition to evidence that raises grave -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member he is on a supplementary now, and to

get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, the Premier, in

light of the fact that this contract was ordered, contrary to the Public Tender

Act, to friends of the government and to friends of the minister's at a cost of

millions of dollars of taxpayers' money -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Would the hon. member get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier, will he call a public

inquiry and do the appropriate thing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the

questions of the Leader of the Opposition by pointing out to him that a

judgement was rendered yesterday. I can tell him that the government has not had

an opportunity to properly assess that judgement, or to decide what the next

move on the part of the government will be. The Leader of the Opposition knows

the range of possibilities are fairly broad, including the possibility of a

continued appeal, but we have not come to any conclusion about that because we

frankly have not had a chance for the Minister of Justice to render his advice

in that regard, and frankly, we have to await the review by the Minister of

Justice.

The reason I rise in my place is I believe the Leader of the

Opposition to be, and I believe all members of this House to be, honourable

members. The problem with the questions being put now by the Leader of the

Opposition in advance of the Minister of Justice reviewing this decision, or

indicating a next course of action by the government, is to extrapolate from a

judgement - on the question brought by companies on damages, to extrapolate from

the judgement opinions about whether or not there has been any political

impropriety here, or any improper influence here, and, Mr. Speaker, more

importantly - this is an important point - to call indirectly or directly into

question the reputation of somebody like former Premier Wells, who has served

this Province with honour, with integrity and with distinction. Mr. Speaker, I

say to the Leader of the Opposition that he really should think twice before he

plays those kinds of games with the reputation of somebody who is not here, and

there is no basis to impugn those kinds of motives with respect to the

premiership of Clyde Wells while he sat in this place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was saying, the current Premier should show the same

integrity and call an inquiry, as the former Premier said - that is what I

indicated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, government and ministers at the

highest level broke the very laws of this Province that they were asked and

elected to uphold, I say to the Premier. There was evidence before the court

that government had been warned on several occasions by officials that they were

circumventing the Public Tender Act and violating the laws of this Province. The

minister and Cabinet ignored this advice, I say to the Premier, and they allowed

this scandal to occur.

I ask the Premier: Will you call an inquiry to make sure that

all the facts are known, and so that the best public interests of this Province

can be served?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what I am determined to see

is that the proper process, at this stage of the game, is followed. The proper

process is to allow the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice to

review the decision which was rendered yesterday, to consider all the

implications of that decision, and to bring advice forward to government as to

the next step that should be taken. That is the proper way to proceed. To

conduct a kangaroo court within twenty-four hours of the decision, across the

floor, to impute motives, to slander people's reputations, to draw conclusions

about improprieties, to suggest criminal wrongdoing when there is no basis for

it, is the improper course; and I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to

think twice about what he is doing, right here and now in this place.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Are you going to allow your Minister of

Justice, who was a member of that Cabinet that broke the law of this Province,

to weigh it and render a decision on what your government is going to do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the

Leader of the Opposition, if he is convinced that what he is saying bears

weight, should leave this House, where he does not have the legal protections of

the House, to name names, if he is suggesting there is any criminal activity

involved here on the part of any minister, to name those ministers outside the

door; and I will be waiting for him after question period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I wonder if the minister would update the House today on the status of

negotiations between the crab processors and the crab harvesters in the

Province; and number two, if he would indicate himself if he expects to see an

early summer fishery within the crab industry this year?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The status of negotiations as of today is simply that

negotiations broke off last Friday; so there are no negotiations ongoing between

the harvesters, the FANL group and the union. There has been a mediator

appointed by the Department of Labour and there has been an impasse reached,

where the offer that was put on the table was ninety-two cents a pound for the

large crab and seventy-five cents a pound for the smaller crab. The harvesters

have said very clearly that they are not willing to accept that price, and

negotiations have broken off until a further offer comes on the table; but there

was no further offer as of today.

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

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, if we don't see an early summer fishery and all the

crab fishing effort is moved to August and September, I would like to ask the

minister: What precautions are being put in place to ensure all of the crab

fishing areas, I think 3L, 3K and 3PS, are not all open at one time, and we

maintain some kind of a harvesting plan, so that we won't see chaos in this

industry once it is allowed to open?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the management plan which

recently came down clearly laid out a proper harvesting and processing of the

different sectors across the Province. We all would have liked to have seen the

crab industry start up now because it is a very lucrative industry, it is

financially beneficial to all the people involved in the industry and to all of

the Province as a whole; hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crab. The hon.

member realizes that last year the market allowed to $2.50 per pound and this

year it is less than $1.00 per pound.

The manner in which the harvesting plan has come down has

clearly laid out that there is a very small amount of crab for most of the

harvesters out there. So what they are saying is they can't see making any money

at that price. So naturally negotiations are ongoing. If negotiations are

settled, whether it is the spring or the fall, there is going to be a problem

with the plan right now; because the one concern we all have is that all the

crab will come in at the one time, and therefore causing a problem with quality

and the way in which it is processed.

I will be talking to the federal Minister of Fisheries. We

are talking to the local DFO on a daily basis to deal with this issue. I don't

think it would be as much of a problem this fall as it would be this spring,

because the real problem in the spring fishery, if it doesn't soon get started,

is that in July month, in the warmer period of time, you get a lot of soft

shell. You don't have that same problem in the fall.

With the way the harvesting plan came down for the Yukon,

from Alaska I should say, for the Atlantic King crab and the reduction in quotas

for the Atlantic Provinces, the market demand out there seems to be really good

and I don't thing there will be a real problem catching them the fall, catching

a full quota and supplying the market. The real problem is if it is not settled

now and the fishery starts up in the middle of June.

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

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the minister is aware by now that Newfoundland crab

boats are presently fishing crab in at least the area 3PS that I am aware of and

landing their catch in Nova Scotia. I ask the minister if he is going to allow

such activity to be tolerated? I ask the minister if he would step in

immediately and protect the jobs of hundreds of plant workers in this Province?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: If the hon. member had done the research to

his question, or whoever wrote the question for him had done research, they

would know what powers the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland or anybody in

Newfoundland has in preventing somebody from going out on the Grand Banks and

catching crab and selling it where they choose to sell it. We have authority to

prevent somebody who lands crab within the ports of Newfoundland, to stop them

from taking that crab and trucking it out of the Province but I don't have

authority, nor do I have the ability, to go out on the Grand Banks and take a

boat and say that you must bring that crab back to Newfoundland.

We are talking to Minister Mifflin's office about the issue

and from the information - I just had a meeting five minutes before coming into

the department, with Justice - what authority do we have? The advise I am

getting from Justice is we don't have any legal authority. We are talking to the

federal minister to see what we can do. The problem is that an individual goes

out and catches his crab and he decides to sell it. I think it is just something

that is happening within the industry, but it will be only one trip out to Nova

Scotia and that's it because the real issue - it was tried a couple of years ago

and it did not work out because with the time it takes to catch crab out here

and bring it to Nova Scotia, by the time they get to Nova Scotia about 50 per

cent to 75 per cent of the crab is dead and nobody will buy it. So I think in

the matter of one or two trips it will take care of itself.

The authority in Newfoundland, we don't have it. We are

talking with the federal minister's office to see what authority they have. It

is a real concern because if it continues and there is a lot of crab going to

Nova Scotia the hon. member is quite right, there are a lot of jobs lost here in

the Province, jobs that we cannot afford to lose. What I am intend to do, apart

from my legal authority -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: - is talk to the people in the fishery and

try to negotiate something between them.

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

for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that there have been at least three trips made

to Nova Scotia. I say to the minister that there are many other harvesters, as

he knows, right from his own district, getting geared up today to make that very

trip. I ask the minister if he has done anything to facilitate negotiations

between the harvesters and the processors in this Province? If he has not, would

he be kind enough to intercede immediately to get this crab fishery reopened so

that we can all enjoy the benefits?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, again, I just came out of a

meeting with my lawyers, getting advice from the Department of Justice on what

authority I do have, even in a collective bargaining system. I have to be very

careful in trying to interfere with the collective bargaining system and that is

something I am getting further advice on. There is a proper system in place, a

collective bargaining system where negotiations are taking place in an orderly

fashion. I cannot go in and demand on an harvester or demand on a processor, you

must pay a fisherman a certain price or you must catch a certain amount; I don't

have that right as minister.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology. The industry minister indicated in an answer to questions on May 27,

that he was due to meet with the federal Minister of Transport, David Anderson,

about Marine Atlantic's refusal to let the Newfoundland Dockyard submit a tender

which would have been a winning tender for the work on the coast guard vessel,

Henry Larsen . It has since been reported that Marine Atlantic won't let

the Newfoundland Dockyard bid on the Sir Humphrey Gilbert or the Canadian

Navy vessel, the Iroquois . Since the work on these vessels would not be

completed before the June 30 takeover deadline, dockyard workers now have about

a week to submit their intensions on whether or not they are going to proceed

with an employee takeover.

Has the minister now met with the Minister of Transport,

David Anderson, on this matter? Has he obtained from the federal minister an

assurance that if the employees indeed say, yes, to their intentions for an

employee takeover that the minister will see that they can start bidding right

away on work that will extend beyond the June 30 deadline.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, to the original question, the

problem with the Larsen was that the dockyard workers and management had

prepared a bid that could have been achieved within the parameters of the

extension that had been put in place. In other words, that work could have been

completed by June 30, and that is why I expressed the outrage of the people of

the Province that the bid was withdrawn at such short notice. It could have been

accomplished within that time frame which was, in fact, the second extension put

forward by the Federal Government.

I have had a long discussion with the minister, Mr. Anderson.

The problem that Mr. Anderson has had is that he has not had a firm decision

sent to him by the steering committee that was put in place and facilitated by

Mr. Baker. Now, I should tell the House that I had a briefing with Mr. Baker

last night, a fairly lengthy discussion. There is in train now, in process now,

the document prepared by the committee of workers that Mr. Baker was put in

place to facilitate, being brought to Ottawa in the next forty-eight hours. Our

position is that if this is the basis for discussions for an employee takeover -

and there are some good things in what I saw last night - if, in fact, there is

a basis, then, of course, bidding should continue for all work.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I ask the minister if he has met with Transport

Minister David Anderson, and has he met with the President of Marine Atlantic,

Rod Morrison, on this matter? If so, has he received word from David Anderson

and/or Rod Morrison as to whether or not, if the employees submit an agreement

to go ahead with an employee takeover, Marine Atlantic will let them start

bidding right away on work beyond the June 30 deadline, work on such vessels as

the Sir Humphrey Gilbert and the Iroquois ?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I had a lengthy discussion for, I

guess, about an hour with the federal minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you see him?

MR. FUREY: No, I didn't meet him. I saved the taxpayers a

couple of thousand dollars and spoke to him on the telephone for an hour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the dockyard

was slated, amongst other things in the federal Budget, to be shut as early, I

think, as December of 1995. The then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the

current Premier, caused an extension for three months to see whether, in fact,

there were grounds there for an employee takeover. The current Premier then

asked for a further extension and received an extra three months. That is six

months. This is a very complicated objective that is set before the workers at

the dockyard. You are talking about setting up a new corporation, dealing with

share structures, working out pensions, dealing with severance matters, a whole

plethora of very complex issues, looking at the financial statements, looking at

the capitalization of the dockyard, looking at where the operating dollars would

come in the aftermath, the marketing, etcetera. We believe - I believe, this

government believes, that it should remain open, that bids should continue on

that parallel track while these discussions are proceeding in a meaningful way

for an employee takeover.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because of the details involved in the plethora of issues

involved in an employee takeover, the number of issues involved, I feel that it

is important that they be allowed to bid on work that will take them beyond the

June 30 deadline.

The Evening Telegram made a good point on Monday when

they criticized Marine Atlantic for disallowing the Henry Larsen bid, and

I will quote: Does this mean that the dockyard should not function as a business

in the meantime? Why would employees want to take over a business that is going

out of its way to lose money before they hand the keys over to the new owners, I

say? Does the minister believe that Marine Atlantic's decision to disallow such

bidding by the dockyard is a sign of an unwillingness on the part of the Federal

Government to make an employee takeover work? Is it a sign that Ottawa is

reluctant to put any money into guarantees into the dockyard to make a takeover

succeed? Will the minister tell his federal counterparts that such an attitude

could destroy a 100-year-old industry, an industry that is important to

Newfoundland -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: I am asking a question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member has asked several

questions now.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: Will the minister tell his counterparts that

such an attitude could destroy a 100-year old industry, an industry that is

important to our economy at this point in time?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, there was a plethora of questions

in that and the hon. member is going to be asked whether he understands and

knows what `plethora' means or he will be banished to Rarotonga right after the

House.

Mr. Speaker, we did make a case to the federal minister. The

Premier made the case to the federal minister. The onus clearly here, is on the

employees. Is there a firm willingness, a decisiveness, a decision by the

employees to collectively take a decision to remove the assets from the federal

Crown, take them over themselves on the conditions that they would spell out,

where investment would be required by the employees, where there would have to

be a marketing and management team put in place, where there would have to be a

restructured union contract because they themselves would now own it? All of

these have to be answered. I can tell you that a package is going forward

through the facilitator who has worked very closely with all of the unions and

the steering committee. It should be in Ottawa in the next forty-eight hours,

and from what I have seen, there truly is a serious basis for further

discussions and negotiations.

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

a final supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Besides having an interest in seeing that

this industry succeeds and the employees remain working, the Province has a

multimillion-dollar investment in the dockyard because we helped to finance the

synchrolift. Indeed, the Province is suing CN at this time because of the

millions of dollars paid in interest on a loan for that project between 1987 and

What leverage might our investment and our interest

overpayment give us in the negotiations towards an employee takeover, and has

the government thought about asking Ottawa, not only to acknowledge our

financial contribution but to also use it to help cushion a takeover or finance

modernization? In other words, is there something tangible that our Province can

do to help make the employee takeover succeed?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I have had meetings with the

unions and, in fact, the hon. the Member for St. John's South was invited to

those meetings; we had some very good and frank discussions. There are a number

of concerns that the unions have expressed with respect to the viability and

future of the yard. At that time, I told them that the Province would look at

all and every opportunity that we could lay before this process to make it work.

The member is quite right. The previous government, in 1983

put forward an $8-million loan to subsidize the recapitalization and building of

the synchrolift. When he talks about we are now suing, we are protection our

position in the courts on the principal and interest that is owed back to the

Province. Of course, we would look at that debt, and of course, we would look at

some creative ways to deal with that. If, in fact, there is a clear basis for an

employee takeover and the Province can help, of course, it will help.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are also for the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology and they also concern the dockyard.

Mr. Speaker, there has been note made by CN Rail and CN

Express and, of course, Marine Atlantic, of severance packages that they have

not only given out in this Province, but as well, in other parts of Canada. One

would certainly hope that this Province would be treated or its people would be

treated the same as everybody else.

I have a document, Mr. Speaker, which was given to me today

and if the minister does not have it or has not seen a copy, I would be only too

glad to give him a copy of it afterwards. I would like to ask the minister - and

I would just like to read the bottom part here which says: We are unable to be

precise regarding a date of closure due to the conditions described above.

However, request you accept this notice of group termination of employment in

accordance with

section 212,

part 3 of the Canadian Labour Code. Is the minister

aware that CN Marine and its Director of Human Resources have already served

notice on the federal Minister of Labour on the closure of the Newfoundland

Dockyard?

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

Technology.

notice that they were closing it as of December 1995; I just finished saying in

the early responses that the then Minister of Fisheries sought an extension of

three months and achieved it, and the current Premier asked for a further three

months so that the discussions could continue, and achieved it. Now, if there is

a basis for meaningful discussions and there is a serious intention on the

employees to take this over, I would assume that the logical consequence of that

is that there would be a further extension. I have no idea what the hon. member

is quoting from. I will take a look at it if he will send it across to me.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour. As

people in this Province know, and certainly members in the House, there are

serious concerns and issues regarding the clean-up of the Argentia base,

previously held by the American Navy. Can the minister confirm that the federal

U.S. Government has made an offer to the Canadian Government regarding the

clean-up of not only Argentia, but Goose Bay? And can he enlighten the House on

how much money is involved in that clean-up?

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

Labour.

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

question. The Federal Government has been negotiating with the U.S. Government

as to the potential for clean-up at Argentia and a number of other sites. The

dollar value has not been announced yet. The agreement has not been announced by

the federal minister and the Federal Government. The line department is the

Transport Department for the Federal Government. We are awaiting a further final

decision from the Federal Government and an announcement, but that has not been

made yet. They are in the process of finalizing an agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Petitions

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

MR. OSBORNE: I stand in the House today, Mr. Speaker, to

present a petition on behalf of the many cabin owners in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador who are voicing opposition to the change in Crown land

fees. The many cabin owners, as I have mentioned, are opposing these fees

because many of them find it is a burden, many of them just cannot afford to

come up with this type of money or funding by the October 31 deadline, and many

of them cannot afford to come up with the payments over a five-year-period.

These people have saved money for home renovations, purchases

of cars, to send their children to university, what have you, and this extreme

burden at this point in time is just far too much for many people in the

Province to deal with. They have fears that if they are unable to come up with

this funding by October 31, or indeed over a five-year-period, equal payments

over five years, that their cabins may be taken. These payments that are

demanded of the Crown land holders are much higher than the $75 a year that they

have become accustomed to, and this is the reason why they are voicing

opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I support the petition presented by the Member for St. John's

South and in doing so I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on behalf of

the people who have contacted me in my district, and outside, who are also

terribly concerned with this government's policy and the hardship that it will

impose on them, in particular as cottage or cabin owners, who entered into

leases with government to obtain Crown land to build a cottage on.

Let us fact it, Mr. Speaker, most of the people who are

engaged in this kind activity, are not the kinds of people who are able to come

up with a significant amount of money on fairly short notice as is required by

these new policy changes. I think it is incumbent upon government to examine and

re-examine this policy based on the fairness principle. We are not talking about

people who can spent $30,000 or $40,000 building a summer cottage or cabin and

all of a sudden they are called upon to come up with another $500, $1500, or

$2000. We are talking, in many cases, about people whose only recreational

activity is to spend their time at their cabin in the woods, or their cottage,

and it has been a tradition for them to that, and they do not have the money. I

have had calls from people who said: This will be a terrible burden upon me to

have to pay this money immediately.

MR. EFFORD: Come on, Jack, (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now, we are concerned here - the Member for

Port de Grave says: Come on, people cannot afford $2,500? What world is he

living in? What world is he and his fellow Cabinet ministers living in if they

are saying: Come on? There are no poor people in this Province according to the

minister, everybody can reach into their pockets and come up with $2,500 and pay

this government for a cottage lot when they signed a lease that said they only

had to pay $50 a year. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what seems to be wrong with

this government. There is a level of arrogance -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - about the reality and the real life that

people have to live in this Province. That is why they can take $61 away from

social assistance recipients. That is why they can continue to have a flat rate

of social assistance for the last seven, eight or nine years with a 17 per cent

decrease as a result of the cost of living. There seems to be an insensitivity

here, Mr. Speaker, that is reflected in the attitude of the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture. Not everybody has the same ability, as he has.

Perhaps every member of this House might be able to do the

same thing, but we are here to represent the people of this Province who are -

to a person, I have not heard one person - the minister is not in the House now,

he is busy on the radio. I bet you not one single person called up to praise the

minister for this policy. I bet you there was not one who phoned up and said:

Well done, minister, you are doing a great job in increasing these fees and

helping government revenues. Not one, because, Mr. Speaker, the people who are

using these cottage lot leases are people who cannot afford to buy the land

outright, who are just getting by, who are calling their members, and they are

calling them on that side of the House too. I bet there are probably even a few

who called the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to complain about this

policy.

I don't know what he told them, Mr. Speaker, but what he

should be telling his Cabinet colleagues and what he should be telling the

minister is that this policy must change. There must be an amelioration of this

policy to allow people who genuinely do want to buy out their leases at some

point in time, a better method of doing it. There has to be some amelioration of

this policy, not just the explanations that have been given here, not just these

explanations but something to help them. Maybe the minister can deal with this

when he responds to the petition.

One of his comments in his statement today says that current

leaseholders are given the opportunity to acquire property under the old fee

structure or convert to the new structure. Perhaps he can explain what that

means because it does not seem to appear in the attached explanation. That may

be what people want or need but perhaps he should explain that and explain

whether they can actually stay by the old policy and acquire the lands in

accordance with the old policy and the old prices as set forth in their leases,

or whether he is going to continue with these punitive pricing changes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today on behalf

of some members of my district and some other members that I would like to

present and endorse, wherein they are requesting that,

WHEREAS the school bus transportation presently provided for

Brophy Place, Kelly Street, Hunts Lane, McGrath Place and Blackwood Place will

be discontinued in September 1996; and

WHEREAS the families who will be affected by the elimination

of school bus service will have great difficulty in affording or providing

alternative methods of transportation to and from school; and

WHEREAS there is no school within walking distance of Brophy

Place, Kelly Street, Hunts Lane, McGrath Place and Blackwood Place, we the

undersigned request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador continue to

provide the same level of school bus transportation for our area as is currently

provided.

This petition, Mr. Speaker, has been signed by some forty-six

residents of the city area. I am very happy to present it and endorse it. I

think it is a shame and unjustifiable to withdraw this bus service from the

people of this area, in particular -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - and from other areas of St. John's, in

general.

The people in this particular area are generally low income

people. They are living in public housing; they are already living on minimum

income. They cannot afford to pay the extra $25 a month per student to provide

bus transportation themselves, and in some cases it would mean that a parent

would have to accompany the child to school, and that is another $50 a month.

They have concluded that it would cost a group of people in this small area some

$65,000 extra a year in order to provide their own transportation, and these are

people who are living on minimum incomes right now.

We are talking about some ninety families, and 140 children.

They did a survey up in the area, and they found that only four families - only

four of these ninety families - have their own cars, and only two of the

families said that they anticipated being able to finance the extra cost of the

transportation themselves.

Walking to school is not an option because all of the schools

they attend are in excess of one mile, and the kids would have to cross two

four-lane highways in order to get to them. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very

serious matter for the people in this area, and I think that government has to

reconsider what it is proposing to do in this regard.

I realize it has been suggested that the St. John's Metrobus

could provide an alternative facility, but I would like to quote from a press

release issued today by the Chairman of the St. John's Transportation Commission

in which he says: Metrobus does not have the equipment or financial capacity to

handle all these children. To carry the 1,400 students in a manner as now done

on the yellow buses would cost Metrobus in excess of $1 million annually.

Additionally, Metrobus would have to charge its normal fare to the children of

$25 per child.

So in order to save a couple of hundred thousand dollars for

the provincial government, we would be imposing a cost of some $1,300,000 on the

residents of St. John's. I don't believe we can justify doing that.

The chairman goes on to say: The downloading of this service

from the Province to Metrobus amounts to asking the citizens of St. John's to

pay an extra tax of approximately $1 million annually toward the cost of

education, and an additional $300,000 in bus fares.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of these petitioners, I appeal to

government to reconsider what they are proposing to do. In this particular

instance I don't see how we could possibly justify it. I don't see how we can

continue justifying depriving St. John's residents of free school bus

transportation when we are providing it everywhere else in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: That is unjustifiable and unfair, and it is

time we did something to correct that, and it is particularly time we did

something to correct it in view of the fact that we are continuing to provide

free bus transportation for school students in Mount Pearl. Now, how can we

provide it in Mount Pearl and not provide it in St. John's?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: I ask the government to reconsider what it is

proposing.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wholeheartedly endorse the comments made by the Member for

Virginia Waters. He is quite correct when he stands and presents this petition

today and states that it is unfair and it is inequitable the way that certain

constituents and certain members of our society and our Province are being

prejudiced by the insensitive decision of this government in denying the right

to school busing.

It must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that these are young

people and families who have been accustomed to busing free of charge over

dozens of years. In fact, the very area that the Member for Virginia Waters

speaks of, I had the privilege last week of meeting with these same individuals,

and he is quite correct in what he says, that they are sincere in their

deliberations, they are sincere when they say that they are people of need.

These are low income individuals who require the assistance of this government

to attend to their needs.

I wholeheartedly endorse the petition as being presented by

the hon. member. Let's remember, Mr. Speaker, buses of Metrobus are not school

buses. They are not equipped to be school buses. The drivers are not trained to

be school bus drivers. There are no student monitors and student aids aboard

these buses.

Mr. Speaker, these buses do not drive onto the school parking

lots. These buses can stop easily on the opposite side of a street from which

the school is located, and regardless of the weather, regardless of traffic

conditions young children, as young as five years of age, are being forced to

cross streets to gain entry into their schools. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it is an

insensitive, unkind decision and it lacks any attention whatsoever to what is

right in our society, and I stand in support of the petition as presented by the

hon. member.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the presentation of the petition by my colleague

for Virginia Waters and the comments he made, along with the Member for St.

John's East in support of the petitioners. We have indicated quite clearly

already in this House, previously and publicly, that if in fact it is verified

that there are differences in the information that the Department of Education

has, and that the Department of Education received in meetings with officials of

the City of St. John's Metrobus, and the school boards that serve the area as

well - these meetings, by the way, Mr. Speaker, have been going on now for over

two and a half years with respect to this issue. While there is a different

issue that has been raised here, particularly by my colleague for Virginia

Waters with respect to no busing in St. John's versus busing in Mount Pearl and

the rest of the Province, the government at this point in time is not looking

for ways to add monies to the transportation budget to increase the amount of

school busing that is occurring anywhere in the Province.

We are looking at going in the opposite direction, not only

in St. John's but everywhere in the Province, so that if we are spending money

in education we prefer that it not be on transportation unless it is absolutely

necessary, if people cannot get to school any other way; and that if we are

spending money in education that it be for operational things, for instructional

materials for students, for extra teachers, and for those type of things that

impact much more directly on their learning environment than transportation

systems.

Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out before that there is no

point in anybody trying to make a comparison to Mount Pearl. Nobody in this

House, including myself as the minister, has ever said that the Metrobus service

is designed to be a school bus service. What we have said is that in the City of

St. John's, and in the City of St. John's alone, that the information that the

Department of Education still has is that the students who need to go to the

schools in the city can be accommodated on the current Metrobus system. If the

information from Mr. Andrews is proven to be correct, that they do not have the

capability of handling these students, and that they cannot get to school, then

we will have to find an alternate arrangement for making sure that the students

can get to school.

We have already made that statement publicly and our

officials are checking the information with Metrobus. The information that we

had when we made the decision was that the system could accommodate all of the

students in all neighbourhoods of the City of St. John's. There was no

discussion about Mount Pearl or any other community because of the fact that

there was no public transit system that was available to accommodate the

students and take them anywhere close to the schools where they were expected to

attend.

The issue is being dealt with, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

point of view presented by the petitioners. A department official from education

was at the meeting with the parents in Brophy Place a week ago today, I

understand, last Wednesday evening, because the issue was raised when I was on

an open line show and we came back and made a commitment. Our official was at

the meeting, and the officials are continuing to meet with Metrobus and with the

school boards in St. John's, and the matter will be resolved so that students

are treated fairly; and also that there is a consistent non-discriminatory

policy with respect to school busing versus Metrobus opportunities in the City

of St. John's, because it is the only city that provides a comprehensive public

transit system. It does not happen in Mount Pearl, it does not happen in Corner

Brook even though it is referenced in the press release from the Chairman of the

board for the St. John's Transportation Commission, and it does not happen in

any other municipality.

There are not any choices in other areas, but there is a

choice in St. John's. We do not expect at any time in the future to be

introducing yellow school buses into the environment of the City of St. John's

to get students back and forth to school.

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

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

I am pleased to rise today, Mr. Speaker. The good news, of

course, I gave you the last day is that I ran out of petitions from my own

district, but the good news is that I started to get them from other districts.

I have some from the Member for Exploits district, from Botwood, Valley Pond,

Northern Arm, Glovers Harbour and so on. Mr. Speaker, they started to arrive a

couple of days ago and I am sure they will keep me going for a few days anyway,

as long as the House is open. Port de Grave petitions should be coming any time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a different prayer to this

petition so I will read this for the sake of the minister and his district to

make sure that we are all in order here.

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

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

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador 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 open up a food fishery for the people of this Province. Every

ocean-bordering province in Canada except Newfoundland and Labrador has a food

fishery.

We, the undersigned take strong exception to the treatment we

are receiving from this government. We did not destroy the fishery and object to

the fact that as a people, our heritage is being taken from us; we do not

believe that a small hand line fishery would damage the recovering stocks.

Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray.

Mr. Speaker, even in this petition, although the prayer is a

little bit different - and this petition, Mr. Speaker, is not from the Fightin'

Nfld'ers as the initial ones I was making, this is a petition that these people

in these communities made up on their own. They heard that petitions were being

presented and decided to send them. So I commend these people for taking the

initiative to do that and for putting together their own prayer, and in those

lines repeat the same words that I have been saying for the last seven, eight or

nine or how ever many petitions I have been presenting: That they are not the

reason, Mr. Speaker. The people who go out to jig a fish with a hand line, with

a little bit of bait and get five or six or ten fish, are not the reason for the

collapse of the fishery in this Province.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I will go so far as to say,

if those were the only people left in the fishery that we would not have the

conditions we have right now. They are the last people who should be penalized.

They again refer to the bay stocks and the small stocks, not the big biomass

offshore; they are talking about the few fish in a bay to which they can row in

a dory or bring a small boat out and jig a fish, not the ridiculous comparisons

that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture made here in this House, or the

Government House Leader made about the previous mistakes of John Crosbie and all

the mistakes of the federal government and the big scientific research we keep

hearing about. They are making a mountain out of a molehill, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking about when you can travel to Prince Edward

Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, as a Newfoundlander, go on a holiday and

go up and jig a fish, but you can't come down off Round Harbour where they never

see an officer anyway. They look down and there are only about ten families

living in the community and a man sitting there at his window - this is where

they came to me initially two years ago - looking out towards a harbour where

there is nobody around. The bay is full of fish and he can't go down to jig one

to eat. That is what we are talking about; we are not talking about commercial

fisheries.

I have no petition here supporting the opening of commercial

fishery until, like the Premier, the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

said: There is solid, scientific research that says there is enough in the

biomasses to support a commercial fishery. Then we will have to debate it

because we will not believe the scientists right away again. So even that

question of a commercial fishery is one that we can debate and wait for good,

solid scientific research before we open it; but that is not what we are talking

about. We are talking about a small, food, hand line fishery.

The criteria as I have mentioned to the Premier already is

something that we should sit down with people in the industry and talk about,

not some bureaucrat in Ottawa or not some - with all due respect and I talk to

them a lot - DFO officials in St. John's here. Yes, they know their expertise in

certain fields, Mr. Speaker, but I am talking about the fisherman who says to

me: He said we didn't get any fish that summer we opened the food fishery

because, they didn't know where to go to fish, or the people who were going out

to catch a fish didn't know where to go. That is what it is, Mr. Speaker. The

people in Petty Harbour who said: You can go out all day long and circle their

boats. If they are anchored on a berth, they will get their ten fish. But then

the Premier said: One of the reasons we closed it two years ago was because we

had reports that people went out, seven and eight people in a boat, and came in

with no fish.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely right. They were lawyers,

doctors and MHAs and so on, who could go out and circle Petty Harbour 500 times

and not get a fish if they don't know where to drop anchor. Berths in a fishery

are very important, and fishermen will tell you, you can sit in a boat - as a

matter of fact, and I don't know it that well for sure, but I have sat next to

people in a boat off Petty Harbour, ten feet away from their boat, and not get a

fish, while they were on the berth and could jig a fish. That is the reality. It

is simple. There is nothing more to it than that. The food fishery should be

opened as long as it is used by fishermen, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: I will continue to present petitions, Mr.

Speaker. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

MR. TULK: It is Private Member's Day, Wednesday, Mr.

Speaker. The Member for Cape St. Francis, I believe, wishes to speak.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, today I rise in my place to

present a Private Member's resolution:

WHEREAS the new Crown land rates are so great that they will

deprive many people of the opportunity to have a cabin or cottage unless they

are rich enough to afford it; and

WHEREAS unemployed, underemployed, pensioners, low-income

earners and other hurting Newfoundlanders have long enjoyed the freedom to have

a cabin or cottage in the great outdoors, and will be denied this freedom under

the new policy; and

WHEREAS many cabin owners who have invested a great deal of

time and manual labour in cleaning up the land, based on a traditional and

historical low accessible rate for Crown land; and

WHEREAS this money grab is no less than an attack on

Newfoundlanders' traditional way of life; and

WHEREAS there has been no public consultation on this new

policy even though the government has promised to consult with and listen to the

people before making decisions;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House

request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to delay implementation of

this new policy, call public hearings, and only then implement policies

according to the presentations made, and in line with Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians' traditional access to Crown land.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of calls on this issue. It is

a very hot issue, a very passionate issue for the people who own cabins and

cottage lots throughout the Province. It is a major concern also with people who

own residential lots within the Province, people who have a long-term lease on

residential land within municipalities and communities in this Province, and who

have basically included the cost of their lease per year in their payment for

their mortgages over the year. It is a major concern for those people also.

This policy was put in place without any consultation with

the people of this Province. This administration were not shy during the

election to promise public consultation on major policy changes for this

administration. The people believed what they were saying, obviously, and as far

as I am concerned this government is going back on their word to the people of

this Province.

We also have, I suppose, a situation where a lot of people

will consider this policy change to be a breach of contract. We have people who

entered into agreements with the Crown Lands Division, or through Government

Services and Lands, or Environment and Lands, or Forestry and Agriculture over

the years, whatever lands came under over the period of time since

Confederation, I suppose, and they considered themselves to have a contract for

a fifty-year lease or whatever, for x amount of dollars per year.

Mr. Speaker, these people are reasonable people. They would

expect an increase in rates per year, for rates to go up a reasonable amount, I

suppose, and we have not seen that in this situation. Leases have gone, over the

years, from $50 to $75 for a cottage lease, and I believe it is $50 per year for

a residential lease.

If it is within the terms of the contract, or the terms of

the lease, to permit the government to change the rate per year every five

years, I believe it is referred to so it could be reviewed, then yes, we could

expect a $10, $15 or $20 per year increase per lease, but what is happening here

is we are going from $75 a year to a minimum of $500 per year. That is for a

cottage lot not fronting on a pond. For a cottage lot that is fronting on a

pond, that will be $600 a year. That is in areas where there are no assessments.

MR. TULK: How much would a survey (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you asking me to do one for you?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't think I could do one for you, I say

to the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Why?

MR. J. BYRNE: Why? I won't get into why I wouldn't do one

for you. He is trying to detract me from my train of thought.

Mr. Speaker, back on the leases themselves, going to $500 or

$600 - that is for cottage leases - in the long haul, that is quite a lot of

money, I suppose, although the government now is saying it is for a five-year

period. Again, I have to get back to the assessed value of property. This $500

or $600 per year is for areas that don't have assessments. The government was

not quite clear when they first came out with their policy. I believe it was on

May 16, Mr. Speaker, that they announced this policy, and the statement was

pretty confusing.

We asked questions in the House of Assembly and the minister

actually gave a response to the questions and then came out with a Ministerial

Statement in the House of Assembly to try to clarify the situation, which really

didn't clarify the situation but only confused things more. Then we had tabled

in the House, answers to questions I had asked and again we didn't get the

answers. Today they came out with a Ministerial Statement presented by the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on behalf of the Minister of

Government Services and Lands. The minister was on Cross Talk on CBC Radio today

trying to clarify the situation, Mr. Speaker. I have to say the civil servant,

Mr. Parrott, who was with him at the time, did a good job. He seemed to know his

stuff, I must say.

To me, this policy is being developed as time progresses, Mr.

Speaker. There were a number of people who got up against it. Certainly we can

see why the policy had to be developed, as time went on, because, of course, of

the total confusion out there with the public. I don't believe that the people

in the department themselves can answer the questions, because I know that a

number of people phoned Crown Lands and they could not get answers because they

did not know the answer, Mr. Speaker. So, it is starting to be clarified at this

point in time.

Mr. Speaker, a point that I think has not been brought up

yet, and I wanted to bring up, is Crown lands. The question is: Who owns Crown

lands in this Province? Is it the government? The answer is: No, it is not. The

Government cannot own Crown lands. The people of the Province own Crown lands,

Mr. Speaker, and the government administers Crown lands. Basically, the people

themselves now are being asked to buy the land, well not asked, but are almost

being forced to purchase the land from themselves. I can see the Crown or the

government charging a fee per year for administration.

Now, the minister in his statement basically says that the

cost of the leases only covers 50 per cent of the cost of administering the

leases, Mr. Speaker, and he should know what he is talking about, I imagine. I

would have no reason to doubt that. If that is the case, if $75.00 per year

covers 50 per cent of the cost to administer, why are we now going to $500 and

$600 a year, Mr. Speaker? That is six or seven times the amount that is being

charged now.

With respect to the grants themselves, in areas where there

is a municipality or where there are assessments we don't really know what the

assessment will be at this point in time. I remember last week when we were

asking questions on this in the House and a situation with Deer Park came up. At

that point in time the policy wasn't clearly developed, and I asked the question

- I never asked the question, it was brought up in the media, and I made an

example of Deer Park. If a piece of property in Deer Park is assessed

conservatively at $10,000 a year, the actual cost per year would be $2,000 for a

five-year lease, and you pay the full market value for that property. Since

then, of course, we had some clarification that now in areas where there is no

assessment, there will not be assessment, it will be based on a set rate, and it

has been set now at $3,000 and $2,500, depending on the location.

So there are a lot of questions to be asked with respect to

this new Crown land policy. One of the big ones, I suppose, from my perspective,

is that again I believe it is morally wrong to take such a large jump, from

$50.00 or $75.00 a year to upwards of $500 or $600 and higher. We really don't

know how high it can go at this point in time, Mr. Speaker.

Now, in the statement today, the minister said that the

lease-purchase option ensures the land is developed and serves as an

interest-free loan which allows the leaseholder five years to pay for the

property. Now, to be clear on that, the lease-purchase option is in place at

this point in time. If a person has a lease today, a fifty-year lease, once he

meets the conditions of the lease with respect to building a cabin and putting a

cabin on that lot, he or she can apply to have that lease converted to a grant.

So this is really trying to muddy the waters I suppose. I am almost insinuating

that these options are not there at this point in time and it puts a certain

spin on it.

The other point here is, it serves as interest-free loan. I

mentioned this when I was up earlier with respect to the statement. It serves as

an interest-free loan; you are getting a lease, basically from the Crown or the

government, of land that is owned by the people and to consider that as an

interest-free loan, Mr. Speaker, is nothing less than the purest, the purest of

propaganda, trying to put a spin on this policy that makes it legit; and to my

mind it is not legit. It could be legally right, but that is something to be

determined in the future, Mr. Speaker, but morally right? It is not morally

right from my perspective.

Mr. Speaker, the minister states: This policy will reduce red

tape, make it easier for the public to deal with government and it will have a

minimum impact on the majority of leaseholders. I said: I have to question the

accuracy of this statement, and I do again, Mr. Speaker. If you are talking

about red tape, if a person is going to apply for a Crown land cottage lease or

a residential lease or commercial lease, he has to go in and make application.

That is not going to change. Then, that application has to be sent to various

departments for approval. It may have to go to Environment, it may have to go to

Transportation and what have you; that won't change, Mr. Speaker.

Once it is approved, well then, Mr. Speaker, the application

has to be processed and it has to go to the Crown Lands Division for

documentation preparation and what have you; that won't change, Mr. Speaker.

Then once the conditions of the lease are met, they have to make application for

a grant. Now, maybe, this might change. If a person has a lease and the

conditions of the lease are met, well then he may not have to make application

for the grant. Maybe that would be automatic and the grant will be sent to him.

That would be one step that could be cut out if the department so chooses to do

that, but again, I would assume that the individual would have to make the

application, the application would have to be processed, the documentation would

have to be prepared and the person would have to come in and pay his $100 for

his application and his $200 for his documentation preparation. Then, again,

where is the reduction in the red tape?

Now the Private Member's resolution itself talks about how it

may deprive people of the opportunity to have a cabin or a cottage unless they

are rich enough to afford it. Mr. Speaker, many people in this Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, who own a cabin and a residence, many of them, many,

many of these people would indeed have to build their cabins over a number of

years, maybe two, there, four or five years. I personally know people who got

cottage lots over the years and it took them a number of years to build their

cabins. While they were building their cabins, they couldn't take holidays

because every cent they had went into their cabins. The reason being, once they

have their cabins built, the intent was that they would take their summer

holidays or holidays in winter time at their cabins because they really couldn't

afford to go outside the Province. Not many people in the Province do, Mr.

Speaker, make trips all over the world, but there are a lot of people out there

who have cabins, who just managed to get the money together, the big bucks

together, to build their cabins. They scrimped and saved for years and then they

built their cabins.

There are a lot of nice cabins - well, they are summer homes

now, I suppose, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of people here in the Province also

who have a lot of money. I suppose there are a lot of rich people in the

Province too. I mean, they have their summer homes and they have their cabins

and they have their homes in St. John's, or wherever the case may be, and they

take their trips in the winter time down south and what have you. There are a

number of people who do that, but for the most part, most of the people who have

summer homes or summer cabins in this Province, as I said earlier, just managed

to get them by scrimping and saving for years. They built their cabins and they

go to them in the summer time.

Now, this new policy will quite possibly deny people the

opportunity to go to these cabins. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, with this

kind of an increase, if you don't have your application in by October 31, you

may have to pay this $500 per year. Five hundred dollars a year is a lot of

money, and if they cannot afford it now, I would say that you may see people in

this Province being forced to put their cabins up for sale. Now, Mr. Speaker,

that is a sad commentary on this government today, to say that people may be

forced to put their cabins up for sale. Some people may joke about that and make

light of it, Mr. Speaker, but - and that is a very serious situation when people

in this Province may have to put their cabins up for sale because they cannot

afford to pay the $500 per year.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Topsail says that's not

true.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Topsail said that's not

true. Now, I must put out a press release saying that the Member for Topsail

says, cabin owners in his district can well afford to have their cabins.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, I look forward to hearing

discussion from members on both sides of the House on this topic. I know there

are members on that side of the House who actually spoke to me and told me that

the religious policy was a good policy, a right policy for the people of the

Province, and other members on that side of the House said it was wrong and

should not be in place. Do you agree with an increase that the people of this

Province can afford? Mr. Speaker, who can argue against that? But to say that

this is a good policy, I cannot. I have to say that it is not a good policy for

the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

& Bell Island.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I stand to participate in the

debate this afternoon, not only as a person who is involved in owning a cottage

lot, but also one, I guess, who regrets not having taken advantage of the

opportunity to buy my lot at $1,500 some years ago, only to find out that by not

buying it at that given date, I am now facing a $2,500 purchase like so many

others.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt, as the hon. member has said,

that on the surface, this may cause some hardship for some individuals, but I

believe, Mr. Speaker, that, in itself, is going to be few and far between. For

example, there are some 9,000 people out there who have licenses for their lots

that are not affected at all. I think, Mr. Speaker, more than anything, what we

are seeing this afternoon is probably the classic example of I need a parade to

jump in front of and I think I have found one. I really believe that the motion

being brought forward this afternoon reflects that policy. I think we have a

parade, let me jump in front of it.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the remote cottage lots we also

see that there is and will be no change. There are other realities that we have

to deal with, Mr. Speaker, as well. There is the fact that the cost of the

residential lots - I think in most cases individuals who have a lot within a

municipality or within a community would welcome the opportunity to once and for

all have full ownership. That ownership allows them to see the value of the

homes that they have placed on those lots be enhanced by the mere fact that it

is not leased land, that, in fact, it is now land that is owned by them, it is

granted and, in itself, sees the property value increase.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to cottage lots that are either on

the pond or off the pond, I don't think anyone would disagree that those of us

who have been fortunate enough to acquire, over the course of being lucky enough

to have a lot that is on the pond, I think all of us would agree that that lot,

in itself, is worth substantially more than that of our neighbours across the

street. I know, in the development that I am a part of, my neighbours across the

street are fortunate enough that they actually have a piece of land set aside to

give them an opportunity to share in the pond, a right-of-way for them to access

the pond and enjoy it.

When we talk about a $2,500 fee for a cottage lot, I think,

Mr. Speaker, if we were to look throughout Newfoundland at the value of - I

would say in most cases, either homes in some, in the cabins in others that have

been built, I would say that most people in Newfoundland and Labrador have done

exactly as I have done, and that is, over a course of ten or twelve years we

continually work on the property and we bring it to a degree where we are

satisfied - and in my case, and most of my friends would agree, the bulk of my

cabin was built out of things that I either begged or borrowed or gathered up

over a period of time to enhance the property.

I am not much different from any other person out there who

has a cottage lot in the sense of the pride that we take in it. I know that

during the period of time when the road that we used to get to our lot, and my

friends, some 150 of them, and now that has increased to almost, I would say,

300 using the same road, that for most of us, every bump on a Friday afternoon

meant that we were leaving something behind. We were leaving that little extra

burden of problems that we had during the week. We were leaving behind some of

the cares that we had, and we were looking to rough it and enjoy the facilities

with our families. I will tell you that in the last couple of years, the value

of my own particular cottage lot has gone up dramatically, not in terms of the

physical dollars but in terms of the need for a refuge to get away. And I don't

think that my needs are much different from those of most people out there who

have cabins, who enjoy the opportunity to get away and to relax.

The fundamental truth that we are dealing with is that yes,

there will be a $2,500 fee; and, yes, if you want to acquire the property

between now and the end of October, you can pony up the $2,500 and you will own

it. I would say, and I would challenge anyone in this Legislature, or indeed, in

the Province, to say to me, that anyone who has to put out that $2,500 won't see

the value of their property in their own pockets go up threefold. In the

majority of cases, it will go up threefold.

I have seen people, during my tenure in the cottage area that

I am in, acquire lots for the $50 or $75 a year, not build on those lots, and

sell them for anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 because they were within a

reasonable distance of St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. WALSH: I could name them but I won't - but there are

people who have done that. There is nothing wrong with it; they are allowed to

do it, and they did. Well, one member in the House of Assembly is pointing to

himself and saying that he did.

I am saying that the cost of the lot at the end of the day is

a value that each of us has to put on what tranquillity and peace of mind, or

relaxation, or time with our families are worth, whether it is our children or

our grandchildren.

I was lucky that I built mine over a period of years when my

family were young enough to participate in the construction and the enjoyment. I

would say that, as with most people my age today, it is in reverse. If I am

going to the cottage, they are not. If they are going, I spoil their plans by

saying that I will.

The reality is, the $2,500, if you cannot afford it now, you

can pay it over a five-year period, and at the end of that five years you will

end up with a piece of property that, in most cases, will be worth $10,000 - in

most cases will be worth $10,000 - increased value on the cottage that you have

there.

The sad reality is that people today will pay more for their

cable TV in the next twelve months than the $500 fee to own outright an acre or

two acres or three acres of land in this Province, and enhance the value for

themselves for the time they may wish to part with that property, with a home or

cottage on it, or without. On the pond today it is probably worth $10,000-plus,

in most parts of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and on the opposite

side of the road, $5000-plus, in most parts.

If you look at it in the other reality, Mr. Speaker, this, I

believe, will be a program that may, at the end of the day, put even more

property in the hands of the people of our Province, not in leases, not in

licenses, but granted land, something they have no worries about at the end of

the day, clear title to enhance their own net worth. I do not know of a bank in

this Province, or I do not know of an individual in this Province, who if they

are able to maintain the cabin, that they have would not be willing to go the

extra step to have clear title and clear ownership.

Maybe we should do it a little differently. Maybe our

approach is wrong. Maybe we should not be asking for the $2,500 now. Maybe what

we should do is totally reverse. Let's let people carry on with their leases,

and when they decide to sell their properties, we will give them back $2,500 and

the Government of the Province, will take the remaining value of the property

and keep it for themselves.

Now, if you want a parade to jump in front of, Mr. Speaker,

try that one and see how many people you will have hollering, screaming, and

complaining, because most cabin or cottage lot owners know that the significance

of the $2,500 for the right to own is in insignificant when it comes to what the

value of that property and their cabins will be worth at the end of the day. I

would support, if they wish, a motion that says: When we sell or transfer the

property to our children, or sell it outright to someone else, the Government

can give me back $2,500 for my maintenance of the land, and all the profit that

is made in-between can be kept by the government.

Now, we know that is ridiculous and we know that is not going

to happen, but the reality driven home, Mr. Speaker, is that for that $2,500,

for that nominal price of $500 a year, clear title, clear ownership falls into

the hands of the person who now has the lease for the property. It was not long

ago that the City of St. John's tried to do something with all the people who

had houses that were built in the city on leased land, on leased property. They

could buy it if they wished for forty times the lease. They could own it

outright, and most people in the city jumped at the opportunity, took the

opportunity, because their homes were sitting on it.

Mr. Speaker, I contend that anyone who has a cabin, or a

cottage if they so desire to call it, would welcome the opportunity, as they did

in the City of St. John's to have that property freehold, clear ownership, clear

title, something they could leave to their children or something they could sell

at some future date. The $500 a year becomes insignificant in terms of what it

is you have at the end of the day, and I don't know of a bank in this Province

that wouldn't help you with the $2,500 immediately because of the value you

would have at the end of the day.

The $500 a year - as I said, people will pay more for their

cable TV in the next twelve months than that $40 or $50 - $40 a month is what it

works out to. Ownership of an acre or two of land in the wilderness of this

Province, ownership of land where each of us have the opportunity to have that

peace of mind for the few days we are there, ownership of the cabin we utilize

to do our Fall hunting, our Winter fishing, the cottage or the cabin that our

snowmobiling is built around. We can afford the $5,000 for the snowmobile to get

to it, yet someone would say we cannot afford the $40 a month for the ownership

of the cabins. The ownership of that land will appreciate. The ownership of the

car to get to it, the snowmobile for the wintertime and everything that you use

surrounding that cabin, in itself depreciates the day you buy it but that

property, Mr. Speaker, increases.

I think what we are seeing, more than anything, Mr. Speaker,

is that members of the Opposition have found what they believe is a parade that

they can jump in front of. They have found a cause that they believe will rally

the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, the opportunity for the ownership of a

piece of ground in this, one of the safest places in the world to live, for

$2,500 - $500 a year over five years, interest free - is a gift that 98 per cent

of the people in Newfoundland, who cannot get a cottage lot, would be so happy

to have. Ninety per cent of the people in the immediate metropolitan St. John's

would give their hearts to have that piece of ground. But I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, they cannot get it for the $2,500 today because those who own them have

sold those lots, if they don't want them, for $15,000, $10,000, each of them

have.

The hon. member said that he sold his and I wouldn't dare ask

what he received for it, but I do know that at a $75 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WALSH: A minute to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more here than

the Opposition finding what they believe is a parade to jump in front of and I

think the wheels are about to fall off their cart one more time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest, first of all, if the member opposite feels

so strongly about what he just said that he is invited to our meeting tonight at

which we would be honoured to have him give the same speech.

Mr. Speaker, this new market value policy that the government

has come forth with is putting a lot of people in a precarious situation. But

before I go on to that, let me just read from a statement made in the hon.

minister's statement that he released today: `Leaseholders will be able to

purchase land at a fraction of the market value and, in so doing, they will

acquire ownership of an asset as opposed to being the holder of a land lease.'

In a prior statement given by the minister, he says that we want to replace the

old arbitrary pricing system with one which is based on market values, not

fraction of market values. He says, one which is based on market values

prevalent in local areas. He goes further to say that government needs to assure

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

Province and the people of the Province in general. This was a statement that

the minister released just last week, on May 27, and today he is coming out with

completely different views. Again, I will say that leaseholders will be able to

purchase land at a fraction of the market value. That seems to be a complete

turnaround from what he said last week. So I don't know if this is an intention

to fix what wrong they have been doing, if it is we welcome that for sure -

AN HON. MEMBER: Damage control.

MR. OSBORNE: Damage control, yes.

Mr. Speaker, a number of the leaseholders in this Province

are unable to come up with $2,000 or $2,500 by the end of October of this year.

A lot of these people, as I have said on a number of occasions in the House,

have money put aside to send children to university, to do repairs to their own

residential properties, maybe even to do repairs to their cottages, take a

family vacation or purchase an automobile or what have you. These people have

not planned for this expenditure of $2,000 or $2,500. It was completely

unforeseen until the government took it in their wisdom to come out with the

fair market value pricing policy.

A lot of the people who are not able to come up with this

money by the end of October are going to be penalized because they will have to

purchase the land at 20 per cent of - well, I am a little confused, 20 per cent

of the fair market value or a fraction of market value or whatever the

government decides to do. I guess it is the statement that has come out today

that we will be going with.

AN HON. MEMBER: It may change next week.

MR. OSBORNE: Or it may change next week, exactly. But,

you know, these people were not prepared for this, and as a result of not being

able to come up with this type of money by the end of October, are going to have

to pay 20 per cent of whatever value the government decides to put on the land.

A lot of the people just cannot afford to do this either. Many of the people,

that the hon. member across from me stated to earlier, as being able to pay for

cable and paying more in the run of a year for cable then they are going to pay

for their land. This is just not so and a lot of these people probably don't

even have cable. These people cannot afford to have cable. They put sweat equity

into building their cottages. They put sweat equity into clearing their lots.

AN HON. MEMBER: They could have before (inaudible) any

changes.

MR. OSBORNE: They could have, they put in sweat equity. A

lot of these people got material second-hand or for nothing, and put sweat

equity into building their cottages, I remind the member across. So a lot of

these people just cannot afford to come up with this type of money over a

five-year-period. What is the government going to do, take their cottages

because they cannot come up with this type of money? Are they going to resell

them or burn them? This is something that has not been answered. It has been

asked in the House by my hon. colleague but it has not been answered yet. So we

still have no clear direction of where the minister is headed with this. The

Minister of Government Services and Lands has not given us any clear indication

of what his intentions are, whether he is going to burn their cottages or

repossess them and sell them. Many people in this Province are not as well off

as we, the members of the House of Assembly, and we have to remember this when

we are making such policies that some of the people in our Province cannot

afford to come up with this type of payment on an annual basis or to come up

with this type of money by October 31.

We have to become a little more humane when we are coming up

with policies to try to reap financial rewards from the people of the Province

as opposed to giving them financial rewards. This new market value pricing

policy or the policy that it came out with today, which I will be reviewing in a

bit more detail, whichever one he decides to go with, is going to place a

tremendous burden on the people of our Province. I think it is something that -

we should take heed to what people are saying and I hope more members of the

House attend the meeting tonight so that they can hear firsthand - we have been

told time and time again that they are not getting complaints, they are not

hearing negative remarks to this new market value pricing policy. Well, we are

hearing them every day. We are getting phone calls every day from people who are

opposing this. I have a stack of petitions in my office that I am presenting on

almost a regular daily basis here in the House of Assembly, from people who are

not happy with this new market value pricing system. This is a tremendous burden

on a family that is in a lower income category or even in a middle income

category.

I think that as members of the House of Assembly, we should

reevaluate what we are doing with this market value pricing policy and make it a

little easier for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to own a piece of

Crown land. In owning Crown land the government will reap rewards because these

people, the people who can afford it, will be purchasing building materials and

supplies and purchasing materials to upgrade and beautify their properties

whereas now many people are going to be restricted in the fact that they just

cannot afford to purchase Crown land. In my opinion there is going to be less

Crown land sold on an annual basis, or leased on an annual basis, and as a

result the people who can afford to purchase materials as opposed to going and

looking for used materials, are not going to be buying such materials.

I, as well as my two colleagues on either side of me, are

going to be attending this meeting tonight and we will be bringing back to the

House of Assembly the views and opinions of the citizens of Newfoundland who

attend this meeting this evening. Hopefully the hon. members across from me will

take heed as to what is being said, the opinions of the people at this meeting

this evening. Hopefully, we as members of the House of Assembly, can use a bit

of humane discretion and probably roll back the new rules and regulations put

forth in this market value pricing policy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the

resolution on Private Members' Day. I would just bring to the hon. member's

attention - when he mentioned earlier when he was up speaking to the resolution,

that there was no public consultation, I would remind him that during the Budget

consultations the public indicated to us that government should reduce red tape

and regulations. We were told that over and over again in the public

consultations, and I can assure you that this policy does that.

People also told us, Mr. Speaker, to get out of delivering

non-essential services, and long-term leases are not essential. Once the land is

developed, government should not be involved. Also, the public indicated to us

that we should not be subsidizing services. I also say to the hon. member

opposite that we are talking about 1 per cent of the population of Newfoundland,

5945 cabin owners who are effected by this policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. McLEAN: One per cent. Mr. Speaker, one per cent of

the population of cottage owners which is, I will say again, 5945 cottage owners

are affected by this program, by this particular policy. Not all of these are in

the category where they have to have their application in by October 31. Those

who have to have their applications in by October 31 are not that total, some

are in the category of being in a five-year process where they have probably two

or three years left on that five-year anniversary date.

I also say to the hon. member that application deadlines are

October 31, not payments. Payments are required within ninety days of the

document being processed, and it is not mandatory to involve yourself in this

particular program either. You can opt on your anniversary date for a five-year,

interest-free lease purchase. So it is not a mandatory program; there are

options.

I would also say, Mr. Speaker, that the ultimate goal is to

give ownership of the land to the people who invest in it. We need not be in the

leasing business, and perhaps I should say to the hon. member there is a

difference. If you lease property you do not own it, you are renting it. If you

have a grant you own it. Certainly government has a responsibility to obtain a

fair price for the land it holds in trust for the people of the Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: The government does not own it. The people

own it, government administers it. There is a difference.

MR. McLEAN: I also say to the hon. member opposite, Mr.

Speaker, that perhaps he is confused.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McLEAN: We are quite prepared to talk to the hon.

member and clarify the issues that he has a problem understanding.

I also say to this particular resolution, that government is

prepared to work with all cabin owners individually to ensure that they have

every opportunity to take ownership of their property. Certainly this policy,

Mr. Speaker, is not aimed at forcing people off their land in any way, shape or

form. As I stated, we are prepared to work with every cabin owner who is

prepared to work with us in trying to resolve any particular issue that they

might have.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I appeared on the radio talk show

Cross Talk to answer questions that were presumably from a hostile

audience, but I have to say to you, the audience that we were faced with were

very professional, very understanding. We gave them clarifications, and the

majority were very satisfied with what we were doing. There was no hostility on

the radio program on which we appeared.

Mr. Speaker, the policy that we have just adopted to deal

with the pricing for Crown land, we feel will be followed through. We have no

reason at this particular time - we are dealing individually with every lease

holder in the Province. We are identifying, through correspondence, what their

situation is, what the options are for them to deal with, and when we receive

the correspondence back from those people, or inquiries back from those people,

they will certainly understand where they fit in the policy. Many of the

questions that we have had, Mr. Speaker, are from people who are not even

included in this particular policy because they own remote cabins or they are

licensing areas where they can occupy cabins.

Mr. Speaker, to relay the hon. member's concern that

residential property owners will have to pay $500, I would mention to him that

residential lessees with no reopener clause can continue to pay $50 for the

remainder of the fifty years that they own the residential property. The

difference between residential properties leased and cabin properties leased is

that all cabin leases have five-year reopener clauses for rates, and that is why

we used the five-year anniversary date, because that is the time when you can

reopen the lease agreements for a change in price or a change in policy.

I say, Mr. Speaker, under those terms I firmly believe that

the majority of the 5,000 people who are affected by this policy will be able to

own their property at the end of this process without any undue hardship to

them. There may be some cases out there that we have to really take a serious

look at because of the situations they are in, and we are quite prepared to do

that, provided that the leaseholders apply to us by the deadline date of October

I would also say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be

attending the meeting tonight at the Holiday Inn to hear the concerns of the

people who feel they are affected by the program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, we will be attending the meeting

at the Holiday Inn tonight to hear all of the concerns of the people who will be

attending. We will also be there for clarification purposes if they so choose to

have the clarifications. We just want to have people in a situation where they

know what the real facts are, rather than the myth. They need to know where they

fit in this new policy.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this process, the thing that

people seem to not understand is that all of these leaseholders now will own

their properties, will be able to do what they like with that property following

the implementation of this program.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that I will be

voting against this resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to speak to the Private Member's

resolution which has been presented by my colleague, the Member for Cape St.

Francis.

The resolution states, Mr. Speaker, that new Crown land rates

are great and they will deprive many people of the opportunity to have a cabin

or cottage. It indicates as well that many unemployed, underemployed,

pensioners, low-income earners and other hurting Newfoundlanders have long

enjoyed the freedom to have a cabin or cottage in the great outdoors and will be

denied this freedom under the new policy.

It also indicates, and there is a suggestion, Mr. Speaker,

that this is nothing more than a money grab by the present government. Perhaps,

the significance of this resolution deals with the very issue which has just

been referred to by the hon. minister and that is the issue of public

consultation. Mr. Speaker, that is what the thrust and the spirit of this

Private Member's resolution is all about, which is why we are asking, and the

hon. Member for Cape St. Francis is asking, that this House request this

government to delay the implementation of this policy and call public hearings

and only then implement policies according to representations made and in line

with traditional access to Crown lands.

This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, of consultation, and I suggest

to the hon. minister and to the members opposite. the reason why we are in such

a state of confusion today, not only with this particular issue but indeed many

issues that this government is dealing with, the reason why there is such

confusion and uncertainty by leaseholders for both residences and recreational

cottages, is because there has been no input by members of the public, there has

been no consultation process.

If I understand correctly, the minister indicated that he

would be attending tonight's meeting at Holiday Inn. Is that correct, Mr.

Speaker? Is that what the minister indicated?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am delighted to hear that because, as

the hon. minister is aware, this public meeting tonight was called by several

Opposition members in response to an inundation of complaints, criticisms,

concerns and outrage.

AN HON. MEMBER: And unanswered telephone calls.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That as well, unanswered telephone calls

from the minister's department, and outrage, Mr. Speaker, by the citizens of

this Province who simply will not accept these new guidelines and these new

provisions as being put forward by the hon. minister.

The purpose of this meeting was that we, as members of the

Opposition, could hear the voiced concerns of what I anticipate to be hundreds

of Newfoundlanders who are directly affected by this new change in government

policy. We want to hear exactly what Newfoundlanders are saying. We want

petitions that are signed by Newfoundlanders so that these petitions can be

presented to the floor of these Chambers.

I am delighted to hear that the minister will be present

because unless the minister can answer more effectively the concerns that are

being raised by hundreds of Newfoundlanders, my fear is that they will leave

tonight's meeting more confused then when they entered the meeting at 7:30. I

sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that by having the minister in attendance tonight

that questions that we pose on behalf of those individuals present, and

questions that are raised on the floor by the disgruntled leaseholders of this

Province, can be effectively responded to. So I do congratulate the minister in

his decision to attend. I sincerely hope that his presence will at least help

answer some of the questions and will not further impede and just add to the

confusion which is in existence at this present time.

Now, I would like to indicate briefly what I believe to be

some of the difficulty with the new policy which this government has presented

and has found fit to deal with at this present time. When we are dealing with a

lease for a recreational cottage, the existing annual rental, Mr. Speaker, under

Lease for Recreational Cottage, is $75. That is what all Newfoundlanders have

expected, on an annual basis, to pay for Crown lands and have been doing so for

at least the last fifteen years. That is significant, Mr. Speaker, the time line

in this whole discussion is significant. Newfoundlanders have been paying on an

annual basis $75 for their recreational cottage and that has been over a

significant period of years.

The reason why that is significant is that when an ordinary

person goes to Crown lands, fills out the application, it is then accepted by

Crown lands and then there is in place a lease for a recreational cottage. All

of this was done on the understanding that the annual amount of rent was very,

very minimal. It was in accordance with their means, it was in accordance with

their lifestyle, it was in accordance with what they could expect to pay, not

only that year but in the year after, in the following year and quite possibly

even after the five-year review period.

On page 2 of Leases for Recreational Cottages, there is a

schedule attached, Mr. Speaker. Under paragraph 4, it says, `the rent reserved

as set out in the lease shall be subject to review every five years,' and there

is where the problem exists. For the last fifteen or sixteen years, Mr. Speaker,

there has been no increase whatsoever from the $50 to the $75 annual fee. Now

what this government is asking ordinary Newfoundlanders to do, is come up with

significant dollars, within a short period of time, to satisfy the new policy

which has been brought in by this government and to satisfy the rent-reserved

clause as found in paragraph 4, on

Schedule C, on page 2 of Leases for

Recreational Cottages; and that is what I submit, Mr. Speaker, is unfair. That

is why hundreds and hundreds of Newfoundlanders have objected to this policy and

that is why I am sure the minister can vouch for this. That is why, I am sure,

there have been hundreds of calls to his department. We, in Opposition, the

limited number that we are, we have received as a group collectively hundreds of

calls, so I am sure the minister has received a significantly higher number from

concerned Newfoundlanders who have voiced their objection to this new policy.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, mentioned this

business of leasehold properties in St. John's. There is a significant

difference in the analogy that has been raised by the hon. member and the

situation before us, and I will attempt to explain why.

As I am sure all hon. members know, significant portions of

the older part of the city of St. John's was, and continues to be, what is known

as leasehold land. There are old estates, for example, the Davis Estate, the

Gill Estate, there are literally dozens and dozens of old leasehold properties

in, generally speaking, the older sections of St. John's. Leases prior to 1922

are referred to as ancient leases and leases after 1922 are referred in the

legislation to modern leases.

Due to the fact that many of these lessors, the owner of the

lease, the landlord or the lessor, due to the fact that many of these lessors

were absentee landlords, and in many cases were unknown, unheard of, and the

tenants or the lessee had absolutely no idea where these landlords or lessors

were living. In most cases they were deceased.

The government, a number of years ago, saw fit to introduce

`The Leaseholds of St. John's Act,' which allowed tenants or lessees, they can

be called either, the opportunity - I am speaking of ancient leases now, in

ancient leases it allowed these tenants or lessees the opportunity to purchase

the ground or the freehold interest for forty times the annual ground rent.

In most of these ancient leases, Mr. Speaker, we were talking

about annual rentals of maybe $20, $10, $50, but, as you can see, the amounts

were very, very low. Obviously, if a person lived on Casey Street, which was

within the Casey Estate, obviously, or lived on Bond Street, which I believe is

in the Gill Estate, or McFarlane Street which I believe is in the Davis Estate,

and if those annual rentals were $10 or $20 and the legislation made an offer to

these lessees to purchase the freehold interest for forty times the annual

ground rent, when in fact the annual ground rent was probably only $20, lessees

or tenants would be ill-advised not to. It is in their interest to do so. The

difference is, it was done for a value which was within their means, and there

was no limit put on it. The legislation did not say it had to be done by a

certain date. It did not say it had to be done within August, 1996. It was

purely at the option of the tenant of the lessee to exercise that option and in

fact purchase their freehold interest which was at forty times the annual ground

rent at very minimal cost.

The reason why I make that distinction, Mr. Speaker, is

because what we now are faced with are individuals who have been accustomed to

paying on an annual basis for their cottage leases, $75.

AN HON. MEMBER: The significant difference here is that

they are second homes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The second home but, in most cases, I

would submit it is a very humble second home. It is, relatively speaking, a

cabin. You used the word `refuge' and I think that is an appropriate word. It is

a refuge for many people to get out into the country, drown a few worms, enjoy

time with their families, enjoy time with their friends, and basically get away

from the hustle and bustle of their weekly routine, in most cases. Clearly, I

would even go further. The hon. minister said it was their second home. In terms

of value, it may have been, in fact, their more significant home, but that is

not the norm.

The norm is, we are talking about individuals who could

expect to pay $75 a year, who entered into these lease arrangements because it

was only $75 a year and, in fact, if they could afford more, would have bought

out the lease perhaps outright, or perhaps bought another property which is not

even leasehold. Most people who can afford it would much prefer to enjoy and own

a freehold property as opposed to a leasehold property. They own the freehold;

they own it outright. It is the best possible title that can be enjoyed in our

property law system; but no, we are talking about significant numbers of our

Newfoundland people who could not afford that and who opted for the $75 yearly

assessment, and therein lies the distinction.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfair, and I would submit that is why I

am prepared to support this resolution today. It is unfair to have ordinary

Newfoundlanders put in a situation where they have to be expected to expend

significant dollars, much more than in anticipation of what they expected, and

well beyond their means and abilities to pay.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to tonight's meeting. Again, I

make reference to the fact that the hon. minister indicated that he will be in

attendance. I sincerely hope that in clear fashion he can answer the questions

that are going to be posed to him, and he can give some assurance - I don't know

what that will be, but that he can give some assurance - to ordinary

Newfoundlanders that their traditions and their rights have not been affected,

and that they can continue to enjoy their cabin property at a reasonable means,

and not beyond the means that they can obviously cope with.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I support this resolution and I

will certainly be voting for it in due course.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Governing is never easy; it is about making

choices. Opposing, of course, is always easy; you rarely make a choice.

I recognize that there are some members of this hon. House

who truly would like some clarification, some clarity, on this particular policy

that the minister has brought forward. I understand that most hon. members

simply would like some clarity on this particular policy, so what I am going to

do, I thought I would take a couple of moments to go down through some of the

issues. I want to provide some real information, not disinformation.

Now, market value pricing: what is involved? Move to outright

ownership using fair market values based on municipal assessments, appraisals,

or fixed rates, basically an interest-free loan to purchase property. Why the

change? It converts from lease to grant, outright title. It removes government

administrative and regulatory burden. It makes it easier for private

marketability of assets. It brings the price of land in line with the private

sector, and has not had a price increase in Crown land in over ten years. And it

avoids a distortion of adjacent private land values. The objectives further

government's policy of deregulation and use market values to ensure a fair

return to the people of this Province for their land.

The difference between the old and the new system: The old

system and prices were arbitrary, prices were inconsistent throughout the

Province. The new system attempts to ensure a consistent approach. The new

system is based on assessments, appraisals, and fixed rate. It moves from the

long-term leases to a grant system. There is less involvement by government

reducing administration and regulation. Who is impacted? All commercial,

residential and recreational cottage leaseholders. Who is not impacted? The

allocations as per

Section 9 of the Lands Act, municipal buildings, churches,

schools, municipal recreation parks, etcetera, agricultural or aquaculture

usages and remote sites. How many remote sites do we have in the Province, Mr.

Speaker? Well, we have 9,267 permits to occupy. I understand, minister, that the

designation is without land surveys. So, if you have a lot that does not have a

land survey, then you are a remote site and you don't come under this particular

policy. Now, there was some view, I know, from people within my own riding who

called me and said they have thought that a cabin up at the end of Ashuanipi

Lake would come under this policy because that is what they understood through

the media.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CANNING: There was confusion, absolutely. This is why

we appreciate this opportunity to provide some real information to subject the

disinformation to the test of what is actually there.

Now, the people who have these cottages or cabins on remote

sites, those 9,267 sites do not come under this particular policy and that is an

important point for all of us to recognize and repeat to those who wish to know.

The implementation is effective May 17. The leases issued prior to October 31,

1991, given to October 31, 1996, to convert to grants under the old pricing

structure. Leases after October 31, 1991, will be given five years from the date

of issuance of the lease to comply with the lease conditions and apply for

grants.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to give a little clarity to

this issue and I don't want to take too much time of the hon. House. I know

there are other members who wish to speak and wish to ask more questions so they

can receive more information and that is a good thing but I look forward to this

continuing debate. I am going to vote against this resolution. I believe that in

the final analysis, when we have a $290 million deficit, Mr. Speaker, how is it

that we should deal with this? Should we simply pretend that there is no such

thing as a deficit? Should we tax people to death? Should you increase taxes?

Should you cut expenditures? This is a policy of government that makes sense,

that provides the people who own the land, the people of this Province a return

on their asset. What I am suggesting to you is if you have an alternative to

deal with a $290 million deficit, then I suggest that you should spend some

worthy time standing up and telling the whole of the Province how it is that you

should deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would say to all hon. members

that this particular policy, once it is understood - and it will be understood

tonight at this meeting. I understand that the hon. minister will be attending

and he surely will be able to convey his views and the views of government with

respect to this particular policy; and I am sure he will be able to deal with a

lot of the misinformation that is out there. I again look forward to the

continuing debate and, at the end of the day, I want to repeat that I will vote

against this particular resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the resolution as put forward by my

colleague. I don't know if it was mentioned in the Red Book or not by the

minister when he got up and spoke. I think I did hear him say that they went out

and had consultation, and this is what they had heard when they went around from

place to place in the consultation process. I don't know if the minister could

probably table in the House where he went, where cabin owners came forward and

asked him to send them a bill, that they would be willing to buy their land for

x number of dollars rather than pay a lease that they had entered into which

was, as far as they were concerned, I suppose, very legitimate, an agreement

signed between government and themselves in order to maintain a lease for x

number of years at $75 a year.

Mr. Speaker, my own personal opinion is nobody should own

land, nobody should own any land, whether it is land in St. John's or land out

in Bay Bulls or land in North West River, I say to the hon. minister. There have

been more bad friends and more enemies caused over land, I would suggest, than

probably the two World Wars and the Korean conflict put together, especially in

rural Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, nobody should own land, and it would be a way,

I suppose, that the government would continue to get an income, because we could

charge everybody x number of dollars, whether it be a $75 fee or a $100 fee to

maintain ownership of that particular piece of land, and when you want to sell

it, you sell what you have on the land. You sell your house, not the piece of

land. The piece of land will automatically go on and return or go forward with

that particular sale.

You look at rural Newfoundland - and I am sure many of us

here today can relate stories where people, because - I don't know if we would

call them smarter than other people, but maybe they had a little bit of

foresight where they would go out in the old days and run a fence line down and

they take in acres and acres of land and the next thing you know, the boundaries

of the community would be expanded. The next thing you know, Mr. Speaker, there

would be people looking to build homes, who wanted to get away from their

brother, get away from their neighbours and go out and buy this particular area

of land where the gentleman who had enough foresight and a few extra dollars to

buy a piece of land had fenced it.

Because it is squatters rights, because they can go out and

get four or five people in the community to verify that the land was occupied or

the land was under fence or under some other control for a number of years, that

they then could go and divide it into building lots and have done very, very

well with it. You talk about feudal landlords, a prime example, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, I say to the Member for

Conception Bay East & Bell Island, it makes me feel a little bit better.

I say to the minister, as well, you talk about coming here to

St. John's or coming in to Mount Pearl and buying a piece of property, the first

thing you have to do is go out and pay $40,000 or $50,000 for a piece of land

before you ever drive a nail, before you ever buy a piece of building material,

and where does it go? It certainly doesn't go back to government. So, I say to

the minister, maybe we have missed the boat on this for a long time, but it does

not make it right for the minister now to come in and say to those people that

we are going to start allowing you now to buy your land and it is going to cost

you $2,500 if you are not on waterfront property, or $3,000 if you happen to

have a piece of land that borders on a particular lake or a particular pond.

Many of those landowners, I say to the minister, are people

who are living on a fixed income; many of them are people who have retired and

the only income they have is their meagre senior citizen's allowance and I can

assure you that probably even to come up with the $75 a year might be a problem

for them - not as some of the members on the other side shout out and say, that

it is no problem because they don't know of anybody who can't come up with

$2,500. Well, I say to the minister that I know lots of people who will find it

very, very difficult to