May 14, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 26

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

welcome today seventy-three Grade IV students from St. Augustine's School in Kilbride, and

they are accompanied by their teachers: Ms Ann Marie Alacoque; Betty Pittman; Veronica

Mahoney, Heather Coultas and chaperons: Mrs. Sudworth; Mrs. Waterman; Mr. Lee; Mr.

O'Reilley and Mr. Garberg.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have in the galleries today, Mayor Harry

Cooper of the Town of Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to recognize at this time

Father Coulton from Ontario as well as Ms. Susan Kilfoy and Members of the Marystown Right

to Life Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

Statements by

Ministers

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, May 19 will mark the beginning of

a series of nine public meetings held throughout the Province to receive input on the most

effective and efficient use of resources to improve literacy. A Consultation Paper and

Workbook has been developed which will be used as a guide for these consultations.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the year, the provincial government

announced its intention to develop a Strategic Plan on Literacy through consultation with

stakeholders. Ms Luanne Leamon has assumed responsibility for developing the Strategic

Plan under a special one-year assignment to the Literacy Development Council of

Newfoundland and Labrador. She will be working closely with learners, community groups,

volunteers, professionals, industry, labour, the Literacy Development Council and both

levels of government. The Plan will look at literacy for all ages, both within and outside

of the formal education system. A Literacy Strategic Planning Unit has been established

and a Steering Committee consisting of stakeholders has been meeting on a regular basis to

provide guidance.

Mr. Speaker, Literacy development is a lifelong process and an

important part of many functions in today's society including employment, contribution to

community life and citizenship, personal fulfillment and safety. We need different skills

than what we needed in the past. Our economy and related employment opportunities are

changing. Our children deserve an education which will prepare them to develop their full

potential, and our adult population needs to be able to take advantage of changing

opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, community and client involvement is an integral part of

developing this plan. I encourage everyone to participate in this process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to respond to this statement and thank you,

Madam Minister, for providing me with a copy of your statement.

Literacy is an important thing for everybody. It is extremely sad when

you see an adult who is holding a book, pretending to be able to read, or who goes in to

do business in a bank or some other institution and has to fake the fact that they are

unable to read. I think this is commendable. It is a commendable thing to have all of our

population educated. It will help break the cycle of poverty, because when people are more

educated, are able to get out there and learn, be prepared for employment and the

challenges that meet them today, then they will be better able to take care of themselves

and their families. I look forward to taking

part in this process.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I thank the minister for a copy of her statement on

literacy. We obviously have to support any efforts in the area of literacy.

I have to say that I question the commitment of government in the area

of literacy, Mr. Speaker. The government, several years ago, wiped out the Adult Basic

Education Program which was offered by professional instructors in the public college

system, in dozens and dozens of colleges around the Province.

There has been a tremendous amount of planning done, and advice to

government over the years. Why we have to engage in other planning processes, is beyond

me, Mr. Speaker. We should be making a commitment to the eradication of illiteracy, and

getting at it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright -L'Anse au Clair.

Does she have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to commend the minister on the initiative that she has

taken with regard to literacy, and to point out that literacy groups across the Province

are doing a tremendous job.

I know firsthand in rural Labrador, in the community where I live, that

we have had a number of literacy coalitions that have not only provided the service of

tutoring and so on to people within the community, but also developed the tools to do

that. They have documented the culture, the tradition of the people who are participants,

so they can learn, firsthand, from their own experiences.

I also want to say that they have done a tremendous job in providing

programs like books for babies, and also reading circles, to communities where children

did not have the opportunity to participate in forums like that. I welcome the commitment

of this government to continue with that process so that literacy reaches a broad spectrum

of people, adult and children alike.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the Budget of March 26 this year, government announced

a major new investment in education with the establishment of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Education Investment Corporation. A budget of $50 million was established for the

next two fiscal years.

As all members know, the Corporation was set up to facilitate the

construction, renovation, extension and equipping of educational facilities throughout the

Province.

Shortly after this initiative was unveiled, we invited school boards to

submit a list of priorities from all ten districts for school repairs and maintenance to

be carried out during this summer season.

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House today that collectively the

boards have submitted a very long list of prospective projects for the Investment

Corporation's consideration. The Corporation, in cooperation with school boards, is

currently evaluating all proposals and expects to be in a position to approve numerous

projects in all ten districts so that necessary work can begin immediately upon the

closing of schools for the summer break.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: We are expecting that major improvements will be

carried out in as many as 100 schools this coming summer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Not only will these initiatives significantly improve

the physical appearance of schools throughout the Province, but will also provide much

needed work for people in many areas.

The $50 million fund through the Education Investment Corporation for

capital related works in our schools represents the largest single investment in

educational infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador since Confederation with Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: This program this summer, Mr. Speaker, will also be the

most ambitious maintenance and repair program ever carried out in the schools of the

Province during any summer break period.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the educational reform process, we are

delivering on our commitment to improve educational facilities in Newfoundland and

Labrador and provide a safer, cleaner, healthier environment for all students, teachers,

and school workers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we must put it in context. First of all, the minister sat

on the air quality report for nearly two years and would not let it be released properly.

Then, last year there was $20 million in the budget for capital money, of which only $2

million was spent. Some of the $50 million is actually money that did not get spent last

year.

Then, on March 22, the minister said he suspected a decade of

neglecting school maintenance due to tight budgets contributed to the air quality

problems. He further said: There is no question, forcing school boards to live within

meagre and shrinking budgets has contributed to the sick school syndrome.

He further said: We are paying the price now for decisions that have

been taken in the last decade to restrict the budgets by tightening down on the amount of

money spent on regular school maintenance.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is an admission - again, putting it in

context, his statements were on March 22 and the Budget was on March 26. On May 7 he made

a statement saying they were going to address the issue. Today he tells us -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the children of this Province need more

than lip service. They want action, and they want it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

he have leave?

By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for an

advance copy of his statement.

We, of course, are pleased to see that long delayed, long overdue

repairs and maintenance to schools throughout the Province are going to be undertaken, and

the fact that 100 schools will be assisted in these improvements.

The question I have to ask is: Who is making these decisions? I

understand they are now being reviewed and I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, to what

extent there will be political interference in the choices of schools to receive this long

overdue maintenance. There is no indication here of consultations with the corporation or

with the school boards themselves. I would like to know what kind of hand the minister is

going to have in dictating which schools get assistance and which ones do not?

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

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I first of all apologise to the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi for

not receiving a copy of my statement.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the award of an $8,446,860

contract to S.M. Construction for the upgrading of approximately fifty-six kilometres of

the Trans-Labrador Highway from Cache River to Wilson River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the award of this contract brings the

Province's total commitment for the Trans-Labrador Highway project this year to $36

million. This includes $500,000 for planning, environmental assessment and design of Phase

II of the project between Red Bay and Cartwright.

During the past two months, two contracts were awarded to S.M.

Construction for the upgrading of 24.7 kilometres of highway from Wilson River to Metchin

River, and 32 kilometres from Metchin River to Rapids Brook. Two contracts were also

awarded, Mr. Speaker, to Labrador Construction for the upgrading of 21.6 kilometres from

Rapids Brook to Churchill Falls, and 42 kilometres from Churchill Falls to the Esker

Intersection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Together with the carry-over contracts for upgrading

between Bob's Brook and Cache River, and Lower Brook to Pope's Hill, a total of 210

kilometres of highway between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Esker will be under construction

this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: The Department of Works, Services and Transportation

anticipates that all work, with the exception of approximately 15 kilometres between Cache

River and Wilson River, will be completed this year.

Mr. Speaker, in April, 1997, the government made a commitment to

complete the upgrading of the Labrador Highway between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and

Churchill Falls in three years. The projects being announced today will result in the work

being substantially completed in two years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Work is ongoing on the environmental assessment for

Phase II between Red Bay and Cartwright. I am hoping environmental approvals will be in

place for the 1999 construction season. This being the case, government intends to

construct Phase II in four construction seasons, thus fulfilling the original commitment

of completing Phase II in six years. Government recognizes that it is a major undertaking

to complete the road in four seasons, but the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation has been assured by contractors and in-house engineering staff that it can

be done.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to report this good news, to

outline what work is being done on the Trans-Labrador Highway, and to re-state

government's strong commitment to the Trans-Labrador Highway project. This project

represents a very aggressive construction phase for this

section of the highway.

Mr. Speaker, government will continue an open and regular dialogue with

the trucking community and the public at large to minimize the local concerns.

Last year government spent $16 million on construction of this highway

between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Churchill Falls and created 230 direct jobs. This year

our expenditure will be $36 million, and government estimates that the direct jobs created

will be in the order of 510, with many more in associated work.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and I will work with

the contractors to maximize employment for residents of Labrador again this year.

The Member for Labrador West and I will be in Labrador tonight and

tomorrow to brief local representatives and interested groups and give them a complete

overview of this project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his apology again

today. We had an apology yesterday from the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, an apology today from the Minister of Government Services and Lands, on

not presenting me with their statements.

In the meantime I am just wondering - this is just another announcement

on the Trans-Labrador Highway - will the Trans-Labrador Highway be extended by maybe a

couple of hundred kilometres with respect to the mileage that this government is going to

get out of the announcements they are putting forward?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is good to see that

this Administration has announced it at least another fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth

time, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime, at least they are living up to one of their

commitments in spending some money on the Trans-Labrador Highway. I congratulate them on

that, Mr. Speaker. It is positive with respect to 510 jobs. Obviously any jobs created in

the Province is a benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and so be it.

Another point, of course, is the trucking industry. We have seen shows

- any people who have not travelled the highway in Labrador - on the condition of the road

over the past number of years, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: As usual, the only nonsensical statements made here

in this House of Assembly are made by yourself, Premier.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the trucking industry will be pleased with this

because the condition of that road over the years has normally been a pathetic situation.

I say to the ministers opposite, the Minister of Government Services

and Lands, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, any time you want to get up

and apologise to me, I will accept your apology.

Thank you.

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

he have leave?

By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say that I support the efforts of government to

move speedily -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - to move speedily with the construction and the

improvement of the Trans-Labrador Highway. It is a very important project not only to the

citizens of Labrador but to all the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, does she have

leave?

By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear that construction will continue on the road from

Churchill Falls to Goose Bay this year. I must say, I am extremely pleased to see that the

contract for this construction has been awarded to a Labrador-based company. At the same

time, I also have to stress the importance and the necessity of moving forward to the

Phase II

section of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Taking into consideration and understanding the environmental

assessment and the procedure that must be undertaken, I still have to stress the

importance of moving this road forward as soon as possible. Every day, week and month we

are delayed, it is causing concern for communities there, and the people who live there,

in order to be able to carry on in everyday life and build an economy for their

communities.

So I would say at this point that I welcome the day when the minister,

my colleague, can stand in the House and tell me that Phase II of this road has been

awarded to construction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In the federal budget in February, measures were outlined and announced

by the federal Finance Minister with respect to assisting students with spiralling student

debt. Now we see that those announcements today have found themselves into a bill before

the House of Commons called, Bill C-36. An announcement is one thing; the details always

reveal something else.

In this particular bill there are amendments being made to the

Bankruptcy Insolvency Act which says that any students who wish to declare bankruptcy

right now have a period of two years. Amendments to that act are going to extend it for

ten years. In other words, I say to the Premier, because of the lack of economic

opportunities for graduates from our post-secondary institutions, many have found the

situation where they have no other choice but to declare debt. Now the federal

government's response to that situation is to extend the period by which they cannot

declare bankruptcy.

Will the Premier or his government join with me today in condemning

this particular provision or amendments to the Bankruptcy Insolvency Act?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we will take a look at that.

MR. SULLIVAN: You will what? What did he say?

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: I believe the Minister of Finance said, `Yes, we will

take a look at that'. That is not the question I asked.

The question I asked is: Will the government join with the Opposition

today in condemning this piece of legislation that does nothing to help students in this

country, and in particular in this Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, bankruptcy law is a matter of federal

jurisdiction and the Province has no direct or other role to play. The concerns the hon.

member is expressing may very well be legitimate and he may have the right idea, but he

also may have the wrong chamber.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that when the Millennium

Fund was announced, this government was quick to praise the federal government.

My question today comes from a bill before the House of Commons, so the

member does, in fact, know what he is talking about. Sections that relate to it clearly

indicate that students, because of lack of opportunities, because of lack of jobs for

graduates, that the federal government's answer in solving this problem is to extend the

period of time by which people can declare bankruptcy on a student loan from two years to

ten.

Now, will the government join with us today in condemning this piece of

legislation, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has

brought to the attention of the House a bill, a draft bill which is before the House of

Commons, and provisions of the bill which he says ought to raise concern for those who are

involved in the whole issue of student debt, student indebtedness, and the whole question

of appropriate financing for students during their time in university.

Mr. Speaker, this is new information. The Minister of Finance has said

we will take a look at it. Indeed we will, and if we need to make representation we will.

But obviously this is a matter before the Parliament of Canada and I think I can say,

speaking on behalf of the government, it is not something which has come on the agenda of

this government. It is something we will be looking into, and we will make comment as we

deem it appropriate.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the information, the

question, and in particular in light of the answer that the Premier has just given, would

he consider his support for the Millennium Fund right now somewhat premature as a result

of the provisions that are contained in this piece of legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty obvious to anybody

who is listening to the debate in the House or outside the House, that for the Leader of

the Opposition to stand up and say: I have just gotten knowledge of a bill before the

federal Parliament, it has x, y or z information in it, will you join me in condemning the

bill, before anybody on this side has had any chance to see the bill, that is not a

reasonable proposition.

We have just responded to the Leader of the Opposition by saying: Yes,

we will look at the bill, we will take it under consideration, and if we deem it

appropriate to comment on it publicly or to make representation to the federal government,

that we will be glad to do.

The Leader of the Opposition knows that while we welcomed the

Millennium Fund, we did not welcome the fact that it did not take effect until the year

2000, and that is the reason this government has provided some $4 million worth of

assistance as an interim measure to students who have greatest need.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is somewhat startling - for the

Premier who several months ago talked about the need for a First Ministers' Conference and

this would be one of the highest priorities. What we see coming from the federal

government really is a slap in the face to students and the concerns that face them,

particularly student debt, student employment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplement; I ask him to get to his question.

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

I would like to ask the Premier this: The problems are not just the

federal government's but they are each government's. Is he aware that there were 1,200

bankruptcies in this Province last year, and over 400 of them were students with respect

to student aid and spiralling debt problems?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Leader of the

Opposition, by the change of tact in his question, has acknowledged it is quite reasonable

for the government to examine a bill before we comment on it or condemn it or praise it or

anything else.

With respect to the problem of students and student indebtedness, and

the opportunity for students to work, we are very much aware of that problem. That is why

we were very pleased to note, as the Minister of Finance did yesterday, that we have had

some very significant job growth in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; indeed,

9,000 more jobs this April, the month for which the latest statistics are available, over

a year ago. Indeed, the Evening Telegram , in an editorial today, has noted that

this is the third highest employment level ever in the history of the Province, that we

are now just 3,000 jobs away from a new historical record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the positive growth in

the economy, nevertheless we recognize that special and targeted measures are needed for

students. Indeed, the Member for Terra Nova has raised this ever matter in the House. That

is why we provided $7.5 million this year for student employment and that is why we

provided $4 million as interim assistance prior to the coming into being of the millennium

fund.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: If there are other measures that are ought to be

considered, we are open to considering them.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has missed the point. The

provincial initiatives announced in the provincial Budget and the federal government's

millennium fund will probably have the same impact as arresting the Estai did on

curbing foreign overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

The reality is this: That there is a piece of legislation coming before

the House of commons - there was a bulletin issued today by the Canadian Insolvency

Practitioners Association condemning this action because it happened without consultation.

It was only a year ago that this particular piece of federal law was changed again.

I am asking the Premier today: Based upon what I am bringing forward -

I can give him a copy of it - will he join with me in condemning this initiative and this

provision taken by the federal government? Yes or no, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is making

us aware of a bill that is before the federal parliament or a provision of a bill. Is he

telling us the bill is passed, or the bill is being studied by the federal Parliament? I

am asking the question to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: The legislation is before the House.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, it is before the House. The Leader of the

Opposition knows that when a bill, and when the provisions of the bill, are before the

House of Commons, they are there for consideration through first, second and third

reading. There will be a period of committee study. There will be representation by all of

those who will be affected by the provisions of that bill. There is very often, in fact,

almost always a degree of amendment and there will be an opportunity for those who want to

be heard, to be heard.

Once we have a chance to look at the bill, which is brought to our

attention, we will examine it and see what impact it has on students in Newfoundland and

Labrador. If we think the provisions are onerous or not helpful, we will comment to the

Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of the Opposition to stand in his place and

say, `I am making you aware of this, you do not have a copy of the bill, you have not seen

it yet, you have not studied it yet, but condemn it without seeing it,' Mr. Speaker, that

is not responsible and that is not the way the parliamentary process works or should work.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is obvious, Mr. Speaker, is that between the

federal government and its department, and the provincial government and its department,

the Department of Education, there is no communication on the subject.

This bill is intended to be passed by June. That is the understanding I

have been given, which is about two weeks from now. I would suggest to the Premier, I can

provide him with a copy of the impacts with respect to the Millennium fund and the bill,

which he has not sought to get himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his

question.

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

I can provide it to him.

I ask the Premier today, if he shares my assessment that this provision

should not take place. Will he stand with me and the Opposition and condemn this

particular piece of legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, anything that is occurring, that the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador opposes, we will publicly oppose no matter what

the source of the proposal, be it federal government, another provincial government or for

that matter the Leader of the Opposition.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: To expect that the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be cognizant of every piece of

legislation going through the Parliament of Canada and be ready to comment on it, or

support or condemn it, sight unseen, is not the way the parliamentary process works. That

is why, both in this House and in the National Parliament, and in every legislature in

Canada, and in every legislature subject to the British parliamentary tradition, there is

a process of first, second, and third reading of bills, there is a process of review,

there is an opportunity for public comment, there is an opportunity for study and there is

an opportunity for amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to complete his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, now that this matter has

been brought to our attention, we will examine it and comment, once we have seen the

facts.

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

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

If we were to bottle any and all of water for export we would create

more jobs and more benefits for the people of Grand Le Pierre and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a water shortage in more than eighty countries of the

world, and the World Bank predicts this is going to grow significantly. Even in areas

where there is no water shortage, such as Newfoundland, many people are drinking bottled

water.

If we were to market our bottled water I'm sure we would have no

trouble selling it to the world. We have one of the most pristine water supplies in the

world. We would have a great resource supplying many jobs and far more royalties than if

we were to export it as a raw resource.

Minister, have you spoken to your federal counterparts, particularly in

the Department of Foreign Affairs, regarding the export of water? If so, how do they feel

about the export of water from this Province?

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

Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let's get something clear here; the hon.

member opposite is talking hypothetically. What we have at this point in time is a

proponent who has suggested a proposal which will see the export of water. But, Mr.

Speaker, there is a process to be followed here, and that process first sees that

proponent registering under the Environmental Assessment Act. Once the proponent does

that, he then has to go through an environmental impact study. This takes time. Once that

is completed, then there is an environmental assessment study that includes a public

component, so that the public would have a say in this proposal. This is going to take

some time.

What the hon. member is talking about is very hypothetical. There is a

process to be followed, and this government doesn't turn thumbs down when there is a

process to be followed, Mr. Speaker. We let it take its course. That proposal may never

see the light of day, but the fact of the matter is there is a process in place and we are

allowing that process to happen.

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

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

"What we are looking at is the real question of the large-scale

export of fresh water, which we certainly have always taken a strong stand against."

This is a direct quote from the Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy.

"We are still opposed to the large-scale export of water, and that

includes by tanker." That is a quote from Sophie Legendre, a spokesperson for the

Department of Foreign -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his

question.

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

Minister, will you reconsider the possibility, hypothetically speaking,

of the export of water in bulk from this Province, and do what British Columbia had done

before they placed a moratorium on water export; that is, to ensure that any water to be

exported from this Province is to be processed and placed in a container?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing to reconsider.

There is no bulk water being exported from this Province. I don't know what we are

supposed to reconsider here. The fact of the matter is that with respect to NAFTA there

are some issues there, but even the federal government is talking to its trade officials.

There are as many opinions on this issue as there are people to give them. So, we are

waiting to hear.

Obviously we have no intention in this Province of allowing for the

export of bulk water to be bottled somewhere else, or to allow a company to come into

Newfoundland and export bulk water. That was never our intention. We would never agree to

something like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Many of the country's leading experts have said

that to export water as a raw resource may cause problems with NAFTA. I agree, there may

be some differences of opinion.

I ask the minister: Would she agree to wait until the NAFTA lawyers,

the federal experts, the federal governments of the NAFTA partners, who are now working to

determine an answer to this question, figure out their position and their answer, before

she continues to play Russian Roulette with our water rights and consider water exports in

bulk.

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

Technology.

MS FOOTE: As I said previously in an answer, Mr. Speaker, there is

a process that is underway. That process takes time. I am sure most people know that when

you do the Environmental Impact Study, when you look at the assessment process, it takes

time.

Yes, the federal government is looking at all of the issues surrounding

the export of bulk water. Yes, they have agreed to meet with the Provinces on this issue

later this summer. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be participating in those meetings.

There is nothing to wait for. We are going through a process. Let the

process take its course.

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

supplementary.

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

I ask the minister: Considering she referred to the hypothetical

proposal on the table yesterday, as for irrigation purposes - I have spoken to officials

in the Department of Environment and I see nowhere in that proposal for irrigation

purposes - will she clarify whether or not this water is for irrigation purposes, or was

it in this proposal for drinking water purposes?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the proposal is not specific with respect to

irrigation, but everybody knows that if you are looking at exporting bulk water there is a

possibility of a number of uses. One can be irrigation, one can be use in -

MR. T. OSBORNE: There is no (inaudible) of irrigation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - cooling down an oil refinery, for instance. There are a

number of uses for bulk water. But the proposal is not specific in terms of what use is

intended for the bulk water. Remember, in that proposal there are two components: One is

bulk water, and another is a bottling plant, Mr. Speaker.

Again it is hypothetical here, Mr. Speaker. There is a process to be

followed, and we are following the process.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very hypothetical.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier in regard to the Fishery Resources

Conservation Council. The Premier will know that this council is an independent body

representing industry, science and interested individuals, as well as fishers, with a

mandate to ensure, first of all, conservation of fish stocks.

Mr. Speaker, about a month ago, when the report came out, the Minister

of Fisheries condemned, not only the report for its, in his terms, lack of a seal cull,

but he also took the position that FRCC should be disbanded and destroyed, and apparently

has taken his concerns to the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa.

What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not the Premier, who

was a strong supporter of the FRCC when he was Minister of Fisheries, agrees with the

provincial Minister of Fisheries, or whether the position of the Minister of Fisheries

with respect to disbanding the FRCC is the position of his government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador put forward the position that he thought there

ought to be a more rapid increase in the cull of the number of seals taken off our coast,

given the size of the population, last estimated at about 6 million animals. What the

minister has said is, given the impact of the seal population on the recovery of the

depleted fish stocks, there ought to be a larger cull than that which has been taken thus

far this year. He also pointed out, the market can bear a larger share of the products

from these animals.

Now, this is entirely the position of the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador, and I would hope it is the position, as well, of the Leader of the NDP.

I was very heartened to read in the paper that we now have a

declaration, for example, by the Minister of Environment for the Province of Manitoba,

amongst others, endorsing the position of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

He has done a superb job of making our case, very clearly, very

powerfully; and, by the way, gaining support across Canada for the reality of the

Newfoundland and Labrador seal hunt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, any time any member of the House, let

alone the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, does that, we should encourage and we

should support the member.

I know that the Leader of NDP will stand in his place, in a minute, and

clear up any confusion and make clear that he fully supports the Minister in this

important work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

As is plain, the Premier did not respond to the question with respect

to the FRCC.

Since he is praiseworthy of the minister, Mr. Speaker, I wonder can he

agree that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was speaking for him and his

government when he said in the House on May 4: "But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see

the 6 million seals, or whatever number is out there, killed and sold, or destroyed or

burned; I do not care what happens to them."?

Is that the position of the Premier of this Province, Mr. Speaker? Or

is that a statement of a Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture who has gone wild, who is

out of control, who has lost it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. HARRIS: - and who is going to destroy the reputation of this

Province, and going to destroy -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked his question. I ask him to take his seat.

MR. HARRIS: - the seal fishery, and all the fisheries of this

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, for a moment there I thought we had a

card-carrying member of the FFAW sneak into the House of Assembly and attack the Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I was shocked to see the Leader of the New Democratic Party,

who otherwise will ask very sensible questions, attack the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture in that fashion when he is not in the House to defend himself. That is a

terrible thing for the Leader of the NDP to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, to the specific question of the Leader

of the NDP regarding -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition doesn't want me

to answer this important question. Regarding the specific question regarding the future of

the FRCC, the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council, it is the position of the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I know it is the position of the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture as well, that we want the FRCC, which is an independent body, to

work well, to do the job that it is doing on behalf of the fishermen of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and to provide an objective third-party comment on the state of stocks in this

Province, and to ensure that conservation remains number one.

I don't think there is anything inconsistent with that expressed desire

and the reality that was raised by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that when

the FRCC does not comment on a resource like seals - which are growing in number, which

are having an impact on recovery - and when they are not making a comment suggesting an

increase in that resource, I find nothing wrong with the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture raising that point. That is what he has done.

In so far as the FRCC itself is concerned, there is no question. We

want it to work, we want it to work well, we want it to take up all the issues, including

seals.

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

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Having assured the House that the Premier and his government do not

support the statement of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to disband the FRCC,

will he now condemn the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in

this House about the destruction of 6 million seals as an affront to the sensible,

responsible kind of government we should have in this Province? Because our reputation,

not only in this Province but throughout the world, is at stake.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no chance that I am

going to stand in this House, and there is absolutely no chance that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador would tolerate any individual standing in this House and calling

irresponsible, or condemning, the fantastic work that is being done by the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture on behalf of the fishermen and fish plant workers of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in this House knows -

and I would ask your tolerance - that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is a

gentleman of unusual passion, unusual persuasion, with a fond and strong attachment to the

the moment, he uses language that is colourful to make his point, if he is to be

condemned, then we lose one of our most effective voices.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: I know the Leader of the NDP would not want to lose

the pleasure of staring daily across the floor at the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture in debate in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and they relate to the new home construction

industry and the implications of HST.

I say to the minister, recently I have had discussions with contractors

and with members and representatives of the Newfoundland and Labrador Home Builders

Association Limited, and also with material suppliers. They all agree, to the person, that

a factor which is creating a crisis in the new home construction industry in this Province

is the imposition of the new HST.

I ask the minister: Will he consider getting involved, making changes,

making recommendations to the federal government as it relates to the input tax credit, to

allow an input tax credit to relate to the new additional 8 per cent as a result of the

new HST as it relates to the construction of new homes in our Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must be mistaken. Under the input tax credit rules, all

of the 15 per cent gets the input tax credit treatment.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Prior to the HST, Mr. Speaker, 36 per cent of the

7 per cent, under the old regime of 7 per cent, was in fact in place. We now have 15 per

cent. The additional 8 per cent does not provide a benefit to the purchaser in this

Province.

I say, Mr. Speaker, in the Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia -

in a way partners to the new HST regime - they have found a way to assist new purchasers.

They have found a way to give incentives to new home owners -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member to get to his question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I would ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Would he

consider the implementation similar to the other two Atlantic Provinces for the benefit of

our contractors, our subcontractors, and generally the public at large, any potential

buyer of a new home in this Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member should check his facts. All of the new homes that are

constructed right now get the full benefit of the 15 per cent input tax credit. Prior to

the implementation of the HST, the difference was that the labour component did not

attract the retail sales tax which at that time provincially was 12 per cent, but it did

attract the 7 per cent GST. Meanwhile, at the same time, the labour component had a 20 per

cent tax burden with the 12 per cent of the RST and the 7 per cent GST, and of course they

were compounded for an effective rate of 19.84 per cent.

What the hon. member probably is trying to relate is a difference now

between the current tax system at 15 per cent on the gross price of labour and materials

versus the earlier system which had a tax of 19.84 per cent on building materials and only

7 per cent on labour. The result of our analysis at the departmental level was that it was

less than 1 per cent, .9 of a per cent. The industry disagreed, they never got their

mathematics together, and in our view - and we stand to be corrected, we look for further

information - the HST should have no impact in terms of increased prices on the

residential home construction in the Province.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just one quick question, Mr. Speaker, in response

to that point by the minister.

Even with the return of input tax credits during the construction

process, the net impact has been a 2 per cent to 5 per cent cost increase. That view is

shared by the membership of the Newfoundland and Labrador Home Builders Association, it is

shared by contractors, and inevitably will be shared by any potential buyer. So, I say to

the minister: Why not join your Atlantic provincial counterparts and do something for the

welfare and the benefit of home buyers in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is not directed

to the welfare of home buyers of the Province; he is talking about the construction

industry which is seeking to get a tax advantage or refund.

Now all of the tax that is payable is input. The only issue to be

considered is whether or not the difference in the two taxes should result in any major or

substantial increase in the price of homes. Every analyses we have had done indicates that

it is less than 1 per cent. The Home Builders Industry, when they did their initial

analysis, said that it would be less than 2.5 per cent; and they were concerned that the

people with whom they do business, their subcontractors, would not pass on to them the

input tax credits. We said, and met with them repeatedly, that should not be the case. If

each of your sub-suppliers passes on the input tax credits, it should result in less than

1 per cent difference. The effect last year was that there were more housing starts in the

Province than there had been the previous year, and last year was the year in which the

HST was implemented.

Housing sales are up and down, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the impact

of the HST is minimal in terms of that, and the overall consideration that affects that

industry has to do with the general health of the economy rather than this particular form

of taxation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Presenting Reports

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have today for tabling, the annual report of Newfoundland Hydro. This

is the 1997 report that was recently completed.

Secondly, I have as well the 1997 actuarial report on the Uniformed

Services Pension Plan as of January 1, 1997.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition to the House on behalf

of some 1,200 residents of this Province, mostly constituents of the beautiful District of

Burin - Placentia West. The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sweareth;

WHEREAS a public announcement has been made that a substantial portion

of transfer payments to this Province from the federal government for health care has been

designated for full funding of abortions at the Morgentaler clinic;

WHEREAS we, who are taxpayers in this Province, protest and raise

objection toward the full funding of an elective procedure;

WHEREAS real and urgent health care issues in this Province - for

example: cardiology, renal disease, cancer detection and treatment - require priority over

inappropriate elective procedure;

WHEREFORE your petitioners pray and request that legislation be enacted

immediately to reverse this funding decision and redirect those health care transfer

payments where the most critical needs will benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments of the House's time to

convey my personal thoughts and feelings on this issue of abortion. I have no hesitation

in expressing my belief that the unborn child has an inherent right to life. As such, I

support the philosophy of the pro-life movement as well as its efforts to contain the

incidence of abortion in Canada. I know that many here in this House agree strongly with

my beliefs.

I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be part of a government where

different views are tolerated and encouraged. The party that I ran for in 1996 knew and

accepted me for my views, and as an elected member I have not been expected to divest from

these values and principles. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, each hon. member holds his or her own

beliefs surrounding this issue, and we must respect each others right to express an

opinion as citizens of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, while I have my own personal thoughts on the issue, I do

understand the government's recent decision to fully comply with the Canadian Health Act.

After a recent review of this issue, the provincial government concluded that it was not

reasonable to continue a policy which was clearly contrary to the Canadian Health Act,

particularly when we support the act on all other issues. The fact is, as a result of this

decision, this Province will no longer be penalized through a reduction to our Canadian

Health and Social Transfer payments.

Mr. Speaker, I can fully appreciate the distress many women and girls

experience when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Since 1971, over 2 million babies have

been aborted in Canada. That is an alarming number. Mr. Speaker, it equates to four times

the population of Newfoundland and Labrador. In my opinion, this suggests the need for

more people like myself, who support groups and individuals who advocate for life, to work

more closely with them to seek ways and means of providing non-judgemental support and

positive and loving alternatives to abortion.

Mr. Speaker, I share the birthright philosophy: the right of every

pregnant woman to give birth, and the right of every child to be born.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to present this petition.

In so doing, I am fulfilling the request of a number of my constituents who have strong

feelings on this issue and hopefully providing a voice in government for the unborn child.

Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to welcome Father Colton to our

Province, also Susan, Margaret, Edward, Gabriella, members of the pro-life group, and I

wish you God's blessing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the

Day.

MR. DECKER: Order

No. 2, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair had called Orders of the Day, but if there

is somebody who has a petition that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) over here. (Inaudible) support the

petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has called Orders of the Day, but if the

House is in agreement we can revert.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, you are quite right, Sir; you did call

Orders of the Day, and I called Order No. 2. If the Opposition wants to revert, and are

prepared to give unanimous consent, then we on this side of the House would be prepared to

do that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I saw the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair standing there. Our

petition can be presented on Monday. It is not urgent. We certainly consent to going back

to allow the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair to present her petition.

MR. DECKER: That is acceptable, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a

petition on behalf of the parents and students in Red Bay, Labrador. The petition reads:

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

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador, humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the government through their Small Necessarily Existing Schools

policy has reduced teacher allocations from 5.81 regular units to 5.50 regular units in

Basque Memorial All Grade School in Red Bay, Labrador, suffering a loss of .31 teaching

units for a 5 per cent reduction which will result in an increase in triple grading and no

variety in senior high programs;

WHEREAS this school will have to contribute 0.70 units of its SNES

allocations to Distance Education, Special Education, Guidance and Administration, thus

reducing the number of regular teachers in the classrooms;

WHEREAS less courses can be offered, and Level III courses have to be

offered to Level I and Level II students in order to accommodate them;

WHEREAS almost no one-on-one assistance will occur because of too many

grades in one classroom;

WHEREAS all students from K-12 will be at a disadvantage to become

involved in a very competitive society because of a lower quality of education, for we

have situations in our school compared to that of the 1950s and 1960s;

WHEREAS we feel that the provincial curriculum is not geared to these

types of classroom situations;

WHEREAS Basque Memorial All Grade School is not deemed a viable school;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the

government to undo these injustices and increase our number of regular teaching units,

whereby students can receive the quality and diversified education that is so desperately

needed if we are to graduate and become active members of this increasingly competitive

and challenging society;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

This is from the school and the parents in the community of Red Bay.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening in this school, I guess, is somewhat of

an unfortunate dilemma for the parents and the teachers there. When the idea of Small

Necessarily Existing Schools came into play, and a lot of these schools in the Province

were designated, this was one of them that fell within the criteria for a couple of

reasons. One, this community is isolated and is not within busing distance of any other

school within that region. Two, it is necessary in order to educate the sixty-some odd

students who are enroled within the program within that school. Therefore it should be

existing, and it should be existing to a standard that is equal and adequate to the rest

of the schools around this Province.

The people in the community feel that this is eroding at an opportunity

for their children, that they are not going to be able to avail of and access the quality

of education and courses and curriculum that they should be entitled to, and I think they

are well within what they are saying. I agree truly with what they say. Because when you

look at the number of units, the teaching time being reduced from 5.81 units - which is

just a bare minimum that they are operating with at present - and go down to 5.5 units,

and then you see their services for guidance counsellors, their time for distance

education programs, administration, the time that they put into special education, to deal

with the needs of the special children within their school, and that all comes out of

their regular teaching time, Mr. Speaker; once you add that all up it comes down to less

than five units to carry on the every day business of this school, to teach Kindergarten

to Grade XII, a full curriculum within the classroom. It cannot be done, Mr. Speaker, to

be justified to give them the level of education that they deserve.

What we are going to look at here is that you are going to have triple

grades in a classroom. You are talking about a little more that four teachers. In one

class you will have to have Kindergarten, Grades I, II, and III, all in one classroom, Mr.

Speaker. You would have Grades IV, V, and VI in one classroom, Grades VII, VIII and IX in

one classroom, and Grades X, XI and XII in one classroom.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: I ask for leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: This is the kind of situation that it creates for

children who are in this school, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that this is any kind of

quality of education. If government is going to show a commitment to rural schools in this

Province, to continuing their existence and providing an education for the children who

live there, they have to make it adequate and they have to make it a quality education.

That means giving them the teachers that they need to be able to

deliver the courses and giving them curriculum that they need to prepare for post-graduate

school and other career options. I ask that they be given the support and given the

increased units that they need for their schools, so that they can continue operating and

delivering a satisfactory program to the children there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by the Member for Cartwright

- L'Anse au Clair.

Mr. Speaker, I have been raising questions in the House in the last

several weeks relative to the conditions of educational access and educational opportunity

in School District No. 2, which includes the area that the member is addressing today, the

area of Red Bay.

Mr. Speaker, last evening on CBC radio, there was a discussion with one

of the parent groups relative to this very same issue.

Mr. Speaker, we have to ask the minister what he is going to do in

situations like this. In this school board district, over 80 per cent of all classrooms

are either double classrooms or triple classrooms, in other words, two grades in one class

or three grades in one class.

Mr. Speaker, what we have in some cases throughout School District No.

2 is a substantive decrease in the quality of education because these children do not have

equal access and equal opportunity. Last year, this particular school board, School

District No. 2, closed eight schools. They have done their best to accommodate the best

interests of their children. This year they propose to close three more schools.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at what is needed to be offered in Red Bay, I

can say to the member that it is impossible to offer a viable curriculum that will have

equal opportunity, with the number of teachers that have been allocated. As an experienced

teacher, I know that it cannot be done. I have taught at the junior and senior high school

levels over many, many years.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to offer honour's math to students of

ability, if we are going to offer chemistry and physics, if we are going to offer the

proper literature courses, unless these children come into St. John's or Corner Brook or

go to Montreal, wherever, for post-secondary education opportunities, they will not be

able to advance on an equal footing with other children in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that distance education does help, but it

does not replace having teacher in the classroom in all cases.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for the minister to look seriously at

District No. 2, and look at scrapping the currently existing teacher allocation formula.

That is what is needed in District No. 2. We need to scrap the formula. The twenty-three

to one is not going to work. It is prejudicially affecting the curriculum in District No.

2. It is time that the minister acknowledge that, work with the school board, work with

the parent councils, do what is right and make sure that a child who is growing up in Red

Bay has an opportunity equal to a child in Corner Brook, Grand Fall, Mount Pearl or

anywhere else in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we know the government should do more. We are asking them

to hear the petitions of the parents and, on behalf of the children, acknowledge that more

can be done and more should be done. Don't leave it to the school boards. As the minister

responsible for teacher allocations, do what is right, scrap the existing formula and

start looking at what we need by way of support personnel and teachers to make a viable

curriculum potentially possible for all these smaller rural Newfoundland schools.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just some brief comments with respect to the petition presented. First

and foremost, Mr. Speaker - and I would hope the hon. member might pass along these

comments to the parents in Red Bay - we had been dealing with the school board.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the government has abandoned

the formulas for District No. 2 a long time ago. The fact of the matter is, in a school

like Red Bay, if we were using the same formulas that we use in St. John's, Corner Brook,

Gander, Stephenville, Grand Falls - Windsor, and even in St. Anthony, there would not be

5.8 or 5.7 units in Red Bay, there would be three. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker,

formulas have not applied in Red Bay. That is what small necessarily existing schools are

all about.

The number of units, Mr. Speaker, was arrived at with respect to a

discussion between departmental officials. The officials of the school board had nothing

to do with the formulas.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that people are now suggesting that some

of the units in the school cannot be counted. Well, they are all counted, because every

teaching person who shows up in the school will be assigned by the school administration

to do whatever is required to meet the best interests of the students. So it is not an

argument that anybody can use to suggest that, if you are the administrator or the

guidance counsellor or the special education teacher, for some reason you have to pretend

they are not in the building. They may be there, they may have a certain title, Mr.

Speaker, but certainly the hon. member who just spoke in support of the petition, having

been an administrator for thirty years in the system, knows full well that it does not

matter how a teacher shows up in a school. Once there, the school based administrators are

free to assign them to do whatever is required in the best interests of the students.

Mr. Speaker, there is a guaranteed opportunity for students in

Newfoundland and Labrador, whether they are in St. John's, Corner Brook, Gander, St.

Anthony or Red Bay; and it is this, it is simply this: That having gone through the K to

XII system, regardless of where you complete Grade XII, you will have been exposed to

enough course offerings that you can meet the post-secondary entrance requirements for any

institution in this Province.

It does not guarantee everybody equality. It has never meant that

everybody should have exactly the same program offerings, regardless of where you are, but

everybody is guaranteed - and this is the case in Red Bay - that in that school, if they

take the courses that are offered and if they are successful in meeting the requirements

and pass, they will have met the minimum requirements to go on to post-secondary education

in any institution in this Province.

That is the only guarantee that any government in Newfoundland and

Labrador, or anywhere in the country, has ever been able to give students in rural

communities and isolated settlements, and it applies in Red Bay today.

So, it is clear that we have already deviated from the formulas a long

time ago with respect to District 2, other rural schools and all the ones that are

designated as small necessarily existing schools.

Mr. Speaker, we have suggested to the school board, that when they are

finished their final decisions for next year, if they need to do some things with their

designations, if they need to make some other adjustments, the school board will work with

them to give them the maximum flexibility that they need to take their current allocation

of teachers and make sure that the best interests of all of their students, in all

thirty-four of their schools, are adequately and appropriately met for the next school

year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. DECKER: Order No. 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 2. It is moved and seconded that I do now

leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole

on Supply. Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, we are doing the Executive Council. We

did not finish it, so I call Executive Council.

CHAIR: Order 2, Committee of Supply Estimates, Executive Council.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have some questions here. I am not sure to who is designated to

provide answers, but in any event I will ask the questions.

Under Public Service Reform, page 25, 2.8.01: Appropriations provide

for coordination of Government's Public Service Reform initiatives. I would be interested

in knowing what initiatives, as we are putting in $485,400, when we did not have any

initiatives last year, nothing. I would like to know the specific breakdown. I do not know

whose designation it is. Is it the Minister of Education?

I am wondering if that would be the Reform Initiative that is trying to

eliminate the Public Service Commission now and give it all to the departments, or is

there some other scheme or plan they may have there, or a similar - what do you call them,

the same thing? An antonoym, is it, that they might have there to use in place of those

words?

There is a fine chunk, $344,400, on Salaries. The whole head there,

2.8.01, is $485,400. So I would be interested in knowing what the initiatives are, and

then I might have some more questions pertaining to it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I discussed proceedings for this afternoon with the Minister of Finance

a few minutes ago. He is out of the House for a little while, but will be back. The

undertaking that I gave is that I would make a note of each of the issues that was raised

and make sure he was aware of them, so that he would not have to wait for Hansard for a

day, or two or three, down the road. He will try to give an undertaking to give answers as

we go through later on this afternoon.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just move along. I am sure, if it slips his mind we will be back

on this again. I know we have another ten or twelve hours to get questions in, and we

should be able to drag the answers from the minister in that period of time.

MR. FITZGERALD: You are taking note of (inaudible) the questions

that will be coming out, the questions for which answers have not been given? Is that the

way it is going to be?

MR. GRIMES: I am taking notes now and when the minister is back in

later today he will answer some of the questions.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh.

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

I wonder if we could agree that the microphones for the Minister of

Education and for the hon. the Opposition House Leader be left on, and there could be a

continuous dialogue between the two without the Chair having to recognize the two of them

every two or three minutes. If that is acceptable to both members, then I will make the

necessary instructions.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, that is an excellent idea, except with

the answer the minister just gave me, it might make that useless, because he sort of

indicated that we are not going to get any answers, that it is going to be all questions.

He is only going to take notes of the questions and the Minister of Finance, the President

of Treasury Board, responsible for Executive Council, is going to give us answers. So I am

not sure if the Minister of Education needs his mike on or not, I would say, unless he is

going to tell us something we want to hear. If he is not, I would rather have his mike

off.

MR. GRIMES: By all means, Mr. Chairman, I think we should leave it

off. If they leave the mike on for the Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, I might not be

able to blurt out some of the things I want to say under my breath, so we better turn it

off.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not have a problem with it, I say, Mr. Chairman,

not at all. In fact, I do not have a problem if he turns on the mike of the Member for

Humber East who is trying to get into our conversation here; no problem whatsoever.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes that the hon. Minister of Education has

stated, for the record, that he will be taking notes. He will not be answering the

questions but he will be taking notes, and the information will be passed to the Minister

of Finance when he arrives.

That was taken into consideration when the request was made of both

hon. members but this, I believe, is a little bit more of an expedient process. It worked

for me quite well in the last sitting and I would like to try it again. If we find that it

is not working, I will ask for one of the microphones to be turned off and we will go back

to the old system.

MR. SULLIVAN: Agreed, Mr. Chairman. It worked quite well yesterday

with the President of Treasury Board in the response for Executive Council here. We will

certainly try anything. If it works we will even suggest that it continue forever.

Public Service Reform; I am sure I will hear from the minister in due

course on that. The next item here - we have been following these through with each head

to facilitate things. I know my colleague is pretty eager to get up. He may want to

revert. He has some priorities other than mine. When I get a chance again, when the

minister - rather than re-cover all the ground again I will -

I will just touch on another head and then I will move on and let my

colleague from Bonavista South - he has some specific areas here he would like to address.

Under the Women's Policy Office, there was a little extra money

expended in Salaries over what was anticipated, but I can see the budget is sort of back

to what it was the previous year. I am just wondering whether there was an additional

salary just put in for that specific year, for a particular purpose, and is not there now;

or whether it was put in and there is a vacant position now that they are not intending to

fill.

Transportation and Communications; we spent 30 per cent less than we

budgeted last year in that specific area and now it is back up again to what it was

before. Whether that has been an historic amount, it has been at around the $40,000 mark.

If it is, we would certainly like to know. If not, why is it up there if it is not a

necessary expenditure based on historic performance here in the Budget?

There is a significant increase in Professional Services. We are seeing

almost double what was budgeted last year. We are seeing more than that. We are seeing

more than twice as much budgeted this year for Professional Services. I am just wondering

what that increase might be, the nature of it, what particular need might be there to

justify that. I say to the minister, I am not questioning the justification of it. I am

asking a question. When I hear the response, then I may or may not question the

justification of it.

Purchased Services once again was down last year, $39,000 over what was

budgeted, and it is back up again by $27,000 over what was actually spent there. It is a

very similar question to what I asked there in 05 and in 06: What might be the nature of

that?

Property, Furnishings and Equipment seems to be more of - it is an item

in there. It is only a minimal amount so I am not really hung up on that one because they

budgeted some and if it was not utilized then it may be in next year. That is not a large

number to get excited over, I say to the minister.

Allowances and Assistance has been on a similar basis. I would assume

that is - Grants and Subsidies is another area that they pointed out they provided. So

Allowances and Assistance has been steady. Who might those allowances and assistance be

provided to, basically, for information purposes? If there has been any change in the past

on that, or whether we are just following the normal course in that specific area.

In those two heads, I am sure, rather than go too far afield with too

many notes and too many questions for the minister... We don't want to overwork him when

we will have an opportunity and lots of time in due course when the minister is able to

respond.

My colleague now may want to address or certainly comment on this poor

Budget that is put forth by this government, the one that does not address some of the

inequities out there in our society today; one I actually mentioned yesterday, I say to my

colleague. It does not really seem fair. I will have a comment on this before I sit down.

For instance, people have been out there in the public service, and the minister said

yesterday: Well, that is a collective bargaining issue.

I said: That is why I am asking the President of the Treasury Board

that question, to consider that people out there working today, ten years, twenty years -

I know someone who is working over twenty years. There could be more than one, there could

be many, over twenty years, and they are still temporary, giving a full week's work. Can

you imagine? A full week's work for twenty years. I am sure, Minister, in the collective

bargaining it has been an issue, I say, in the past, on this particular thing.

We just want the minister to show some compassion, some sympathy, for

people for instance out there who are going to work every day for ten, fifteen and twenty

years. Somebody else is going to work in the same place of work, is doing the same work,

probably for a lesser period of time, and they are entitled to benefits to which this

other person is not entitled. There is something wrong with the system when you work for

twenty years, when you get out of hospital under doctor's care, you cannot draw your

seventy or eighty days, whatever they had built up in sick leave there. It is important.

They are not given any fee like, for instances, nurses (inaudible) 14 per cent in lieu of

those benefits. These other people are not. Those are some of the things.

If my colleague there is not too impatient, I had some questions asked,

and rather than the minister having to go back over them with you, maybe if we will just

look at 2.8.01, Public Service Reform. Maybe the minister might take a moment on that one,

and on 2.9.01, just to let us know whether that reform is a move to curtail the functions

of the Public Service Commission and reform that and get rid of it. What does the minister

have in mind under that particular heading?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the hon. member,

I was outside for a few minutes.

First of all, with respect to his questions concerning the temporary

employees. I want to thank my hon. colleague, the hon. Minister of Education, who did such

a fine job in my absence of keeping track of the numerous and detailed and of course

always intelligent and articulate questions posed by my colleague opposite.

Just to continue for a moment, I don't disagree that there are certain

benefits that are not accorded to all our employees, but frankly we are bound by our

collective agreements. Inasmuch as we do not reduce benefits that we think are excessive,

neither do we, on the other hand, unilaterally increase benefits. We reclassify them, we

try to maintain uniformity across the government service.

I just say to the hon. member that -

MR. SULLIVAN: There are anomalies, you know, out there.

MR. DICKS: That is right, there are. We try to address those, and

those are matters that I will be drawing to the attention of my officials. They are quite

taxed right now with the different areas of collective bargaining. I would say there may

often be areas where benefits could arguably be greater. On the other hand, there are

areas where they are beyond what are offered in other provinces and we do not unilaterally

reduce them.

I am aware of his concerns and I have asked my officials to brief me on

what, if any, position there is at the bargaining table. Aside from that, I really cannot

divulge any particular matters that are subject to collective agreement bargaining at the

present time.

The hon. member asked some questions with respect to the categories or

the expenses and Estimates under 2.8.01. The Public Service Reform is the initiative that

the government started last year to address some morale problems in government, to look at

more efficient modes of delivery, and to - and I wouldn't say for the first time, but on a

more formal basis - seek input from managers and other groups, including right down to

front-line employees, as to how they think our services can be better offered, and also

how we can provide better services to the public, including training and incentives to our

employees.

This is basically a new expense or Estimate category for us. I think I

indicated the other day that we have a program coordinator, an executive director, a

program development officer, a personnel officer, a communications officer and a

secretary. That group is headed by Mr. Phonse Faour, who was the Deputy Clerk of the

Council. He is on secondment to do this. This is an initiative that really is part of the

program review we are doing. You can change the programs you deliver, but if as part of it

you do not re-instill some form of review of your own managerial and employee systems, you

probably are not going to be very effective in the end.

That is what that group is for. These are people who are basically

seconded from other government departments. As far as I am aware, there are no new hires.

These are all temporary assignments. I think that is fairly clear.

MR. SULLIVAN: The salaries that pertain to those other areas from

which they have been seconded would be reduced in that salary line accordingly?

MR. DICKS: Yes, I would expect so.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are there any new positions in this specific area

that have been added?

MR. DICKS: As far as I am aware, for example, the Acting Deputy

Clerk of the Council, in Mr. Faour's absence, is John Cummings; and John is the Associate

Deputy Minister of Justice. He is on secondment from Justice. There are no double entries.

We carry the people through. When you are on temporary assignment to a position, you keep

your old salary unless you are in the new position for a period of time - I think it might

be beyond four months - and then you acquire the salary of the new position for the time

you are there.

So the answer in short is yes, we don't do double entries on salaries

but a lot of times when you move people you backfill. For instance, there is no new

Associate Deputy Minister of Justice while Mr. Cummings is the Acting Deputy Clerk. So

yes, in essence.

The only reason say I that is, these are all temporary assignments but

that is a little misleading in the sense that a temporary assignment could be two or three

years. In Mr. Faour's case, I believe a large part of his time prior to this was spent

helping out at regulatory reform as well, where we tried to get rid of a lot of the

anomalies we had acquired over the years due to politicians' - ourselves and others -

excessive zeal to regulate the lives of those who do not wish to be regulated.

In any event, 2.09.01, you asked why there was a salary change here. It

is essentially the same amount as last year but there was, I think, a slight overrun here

last year from what was projected. Why that would be, I don't know. I think it is pretty

much within the range. We had budgeted $319,000, we spent $341,000. Just looking down

through it, it does not appear to me that there is anything extraordinary here. I do

notice that there was some temporary assistance and overtime of approximately $15,500. So

that might account -

MR. SULLIVAN: In overtime?

MR. DICKS: Well it says: temporary assistance and overtime. So that

might account for the bulk of it, I think. We don't have that level of detail, but it may

have been that somebody at some level might have been off on sick leave, maternity leave,

or something like that. That person will continue to receive his or her salary during that

period of time and we pick up the extra expense through additional staff.

The other question the hon. member had, I believe, was with respect to

2.9.01.03, Transportation and Communications again. In answer to his question: Yes, I

believe we generally give the Women's Policy Office approximately $40,000. They do a lot

of coordination with women's groups around the Province. As I mentioned earlier in

response to his questions on several occasions earlier this week, we try not to penalize

people who spend less than they are allotted, to combat that phenomena of people wanting

to spend it all just in case they don't get it next year. Given the scope and nature of

the duties, and the advice we expect to receive from them, we believe $40,000 is a pretty

fair budget allocation.

Under 2.9.01.05, Professional Services; again, this particular group

really gives us very broad-ranging advice concerning a whole lot of government programs.

For example, as recently as the other day I met with members of the Women's Policy Office

on pension issues that they were concerned about, and they meet with members of the public

and so on. Sometimes what they do is seek consultants who develop policies, and get advice

on general initiatives government may have, particularly of course as it regards women's

issues. So we give them about $80,000 a year. I don't know that the $82,000 is budgeted

for any specific research or policies this year, but last year they only spent $35,000. So

again, we believe that is a reasonable budget request.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. My question was: Has it traditionally been in

the $45,000 range? It is up to almost double now. Is there some extraordinary item that

you may anticipate this year over past years? Has it historically been in the $40,000-some

range?

MR. DICKS: Just looking at the Budget details, I would expect it

has probably been in the range of about, I would say, something under $100,000 each year;

$50,000, $70,000, $100,000. I would expect it has a lot to do with the range of issues

confronting the Province. Last year, for example, we did quite a bit of consultation on

the Strategic Social Plan, and frankly that is an area in which you have a lot of gender

concerns and issues for the most part because women very often are the group in society

that have the greater custody, or spend a greater time caring for young children. So when

you are looking at our general social problems and social concerns in social services and

health, you often find that those issues uniquely impact on single females. So there is a

lot of consultation with groups. We often hire consultants to give us advice as to how

other provinces have tried to deal with this and so on.

To specifically answer your question, I honestly don't know whether the

- it has been down around $40,000 or so. I think it is admirable that they didn't go off

and spend the full amount. In the overall scheme of things, and given the nature and the

necessity of the advice they offer, I believe $80,000 or so was a fair budgetary

allocation.

The Professional Services here, .06, that amount is to cover the cost

of posters, pamphlets, newsletters, and entertainment. Whether that could be some other

figure I don't know, but that is the amount we have traditionally given them. As you know,

there is quite a lot of literature produced by that office for distribution. We have a lot

of transition homes around the Island which deal with women in very difficult

circumstances, unfortunately, in many cases finding themselves out of their homes at

difficult times of the year in extreme conditions, and there is a lot of coordination

through this Office as well.

I don't believe the hon. member had many other questions, other than

just a little greater level of detail on the $12,000 and so on. The $12,000 in category

.09, which was one question he raised, is funding for various projects dealing with

volunteer women's and community groups from across the Province, dealing with transition

homes. In some cases where we don't have transition homes, they also deal with the local

Status of Women councils and so on. I hope that answers the majority of your questions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I was worried we might not get to Government House.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board if he would be kind enough to share with me what the total

salaries of Government House are in the Budget of this fiscal year.

MR. DICKS: The (inaudible) salaries?

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

MR. DICKS: I didn't hear the adjective. The which salaries?

MR. FITZGERALD: The total salaries for Government House.

MR. DICKS: Sure.

MR. SHELLEY: And a breakdown of each one.

MR. DICKS: Yes, absolutely. Would you like to hear the details now?

The private secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor receives $95,543. This year as well there

is an extra pay day, so that is an additional $3,675. The secretary to the

Lieutenant-Governor receives $27,344, and an additional $1,000 this year for an extra pay

day, which is really not any extra money, it is just an incidence of timing. Perhaps what

I will do is just give the actual salaries all the way down.

Twenty-two thousand dollars for the secretary to the assistant deputy

minister; to the gardener, $30,593; a chef, $26,645; environmental services supervisor,

$23,533; maintenance repairer II, $26,499; chauffeur, $20,826; seamstress, $18,018; four

domestic workers, each at the salary of $18,892, for a total of $367,357. The extra pay

period for this year, for each of those individuals, ranging from a low of about $693 to

the high for the private secretary of $3,675, totals $14,131. There will be salary

increases this year in the amount of $10,100, step progressions of $248, and some

temporary assistance and overtime of $20,300, for a modest total of $412,100.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, on page 9 of your Departmental Salary

Details it shows the Lieutenant-Governor's residence for the total activity of $374,276,

but on page -

MR. DICKS: Could you refer me to the numbered category, because I

am using a different reference?

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 1.1.

MR. DICKS: 1.1.01?

MR. FITZGERALD: 1.1 of Government House. It shows the total

activity there for salaries. The total number of approved positions is 13, the total

amount of salaries is $374,276. In your Executive Council report, the Estimates of the

Budget, it shows Salaries of $412,100. What is the discrepancy there? Why the difference,

Mr. Minister, of in excess of $30,000 in those two figures?

MR. DICKS: I am sorry. The reference I have is $412,100 for the

Budget. Last year the actual amount spent was $375,000, and the original budget last year

was $401,300. Are those the figures to which you are referring? Those are the actual

salaries.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am taking the salaries from two books. I am

taking one from the Departmental Salary Details, and I am taking the other one from your

Estimates of the same year, 1998-1999.

MR. DICKS: 1998-1999.

MR. FITZGERALD: In 1998-1999, under the Lieutenant-Governor's

Establishment in the Estimates, it shows a total of $412,100, in 1.1.01.01, under

Salaries.

MR. DICKS: Right.

MR. FITZGERALD: If you look at 1.1 under Government House in your

Departmental Salary Details, it shows the total activity for those thirteen employees of

$374,276. I am wondering why the difference of in excess of $30,000 there?

MR. DICKS: Yes. That was part of the detail I gave the hon. member

earlier. Our permanent staff are $374,276. If you read across the line, the two reconcile,

$412,100. If you look to the total in the right-hand column... There are five columns. If

you look -

MR. FITZGERALD: Which book are you into now?

MR. DICKS: This one to which you referred, the Departmental Salary

Details.

MR. FITZGERALD: What page?

MR. DICKS: On page 7.

If you look at the Estimates and compare it with this, it is just a

matter of how they are accounted for. The total for Salaries is $412,100, if you read

across the line. Now it is just a matter of how you categorize it. For example: Permanent

and Other Adjustments of $27,624 includes the extra pay period this year. You see our base

pay is $374,276, if you add in the extra pay period this year for $14,131, and then you

add in this year's salary increase which they would receive of 2 per cent, that gives you

another $10,000; that gets you up to $24,000. There are some modest step progressions of

$248, so that gets you up - and I am just having difficulty reconciling it exactly, but

that gets you up in the vicinity of about $26,000 or so. Then, in addition to that,

Overtime and Other Earnings there are $10,200.

What we have here as well, in a more detailed

summary that I have, is

temporary assistance and overtime adjustment of $20,300. So, looking at the overtime and

other earnings, I would say they are expecting temporary assistance probably in the order

of about $10,000, and that may be included in these amounts here.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, did you say the overtime and other

earnings was $20,000 plus?

MR. DICKS: Yes. There is also a figure in here for temporary

assistance.

MR. FITZGERALD: It shows $10,200 on page 7, in Overtime and Other

Earnings.

MR. DICKS: Yes, that is right.

MR. FITZGERALD: So, where does the $20,000 come from?

MR. DICKS: You also have temporary assistance. They may hire

temporary people down there from time to time to assist. The difference is, these are

totalled differently from the figures I have, but they all total the same; it is just a

matter of how you categorize it before you get to the end. You have the figure A, B, C, D,

E, so here they have added A, E and F and I have B, C and D, or what have you, but the

total figures are the same. The detailed accounting I have given the hon. member is more

detailed. If I may just repeat: There is $14,000 in there for an additional pay period;

there is $10,000 for salary increases; there is $20,300 for temporary assistance and

overtime. The base I started with was $367,357, and the base they started with is

$374,276, but the total is still $412,100.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I do not know how many people have taken

a look at this Budget, especially the Executive Council, under Government House. I do not

know how many people, how many members of this House of Assembly, have sat down and looked

at the difference in salary for the private secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor.

Mr. Chairman, if you look at the salary of the private secretary to the

Lieutenant-Governor, you will find that from 1996-1997 salary detail up to the 1998-1099

detail, the private secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor had a 40 per cent pay increase.

MR. DICKS: Let me answer that.

What the hon. member should understand is that the person in the

position is now a different person from the one who was there in 1996. Mr. Wayne Mitchell

is now the private secretary. Mr. Mitchell has been in government service for a number of

years. The rule in the public service is that you are transferred from position to

position and you retain the former salary that you had was higher than the one to which

you go. As the hon. member knows, Mr. Mitchell was the Chief Electoral Officer, and prior

to that time had been deputy minister in several other government departments; which ones

elude me right now. When he went to Government House, his salary was $95,000. Had he not

held those other positions, his salary for this position would have been lower, because of

a lower rated position. So, in effect, you are red circled when you are transferred to a

lower paying position.

The rationale in government is that it gives the Premier and Clerk of

the Council latitude to move people around without having to reduce their salaries so

there is no particular stigma attached to being transferred, and also to allow the Premier

and government some latitude to move people where their skills are needed. Because the HAY

system is a reflection not only of your skills but also of the size of the budget and the

number of employees you have.

Unfortunately in government, had that flexibility not been given,

people would be loathe to being transferred, if they were going to a position that was

lower rated. So to give maximum flexibility within the executive, the rule under the HAY

system, be it good, bad or indifferent, is - basically what you do is attain the salary of

the highest position of responsibility that you achieve within government.

It is not a 40 per cent increase for the private secretary. It just

happens that the person there had a higher salary. Next year, if Mr. Mitchell moves on to

another position, the next incumbent might only have a $70,000 or $80,000 salary, or

whatever he or she may bring to that position.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Minister.

I am not aware of the pay scale or the progressions for the public

service, but does that mean that if this individual stays in this particular position for

ten years he will continue to get his $95,000? Or does it gradually go back to what that

particular position would normally pay?

MR. DICKS: No, the first. An individual in the executive of the

government... It is common employment practice, it applies in unions as well, they call it

red circling. If you are in a union, or in most bargaining situations, or in a government

position, or even in the private sector, normally if you are asked to go to another

position, you keep that salary.

MR. FITZGERALD: So the salary goes with the individual rather than

staying with the position?

MR. DICKS: Well, the two are calculated. If you go to a position

that has a higher salary than the one you are receiving, you would go on a different

scale. Now, having said that, it gets confusing. The HAY system is rather confusing. You

get on a different scale. You might move into a position and the incumbent before you

might have had a salary of $60,000. You might be getting $50,000. When you go into it, you

might only receive $55,000 because you are on a higher scale. But, all other things being

equal, two individuals in the same position should generally hold the same salary, if they

have the same level of government service.

What sometimes happens is that an individual has held a position in

government that is of higher salary, so when they go to a position with a lower salary you

do not reduce their salary. The rationale is that you may need someone who has particular

skills to put into it, and a part of the consideration should not be: Well, I do not know

if I should transfer that person there because he or she will receive a lesser salary.

You just want to have the freedom to put the right person in the right

job. We do not, as a practice, reduce someone's salary when they move to a position that

might be lower paying. Even when we move them to another position where the incumbent was

getting a higher salary, they do not necessarily acquire the same salary as the person who

was there. But if it is higher rated, they get on a different pay scale and gradually move

up once they are there.

MR. FITZGERALD: So does that position gradually move down, or does

he stay up where he is and progress along with other raises that would come at the deputy

minister level?

MR. DICKS: Yes, the person will get the ordinary pay -

MR. FITZGERALD: I think (inaudible) approximately a deputy

minister's salary.

MR. DICKS: Yes, the person would get the ordinary increases but

they would not get any step increases if they are over-rated in that position, because

they are on a certain salary scale.

MR. FITZGERALD: So if a deputy minister here today received a

raise, this particular individual would not receive a raise in line with the deputy

minister's position, if he is still occupying this position right here as a secretary to

the Lieutenant-Governor?

MR. DICKS: No, my understanding is that he would still get the same

general raise that a person would get in government, but he would not necessarily get the

step increase.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, step progression.

MR. DICKS: Step progression, yes. Because in this position there

would be no step progression per se, because they are already at the end of that process.

MR. FITZGERALD: I can understand that, I guess, Mr. Chairman.

MR. DICKS: I apologise; it is a little complex, but the HAY system

is rather -

MR. FITZGERALD: It is the position that probably bothers me, when I

look and see a secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor getting a $33,000 raise.

MR. DICKS: Were that the case -

MR. FITZGERALD: Then, if you look down through the column and you

see the lowest paid people, when you look at the gardener and the chef and the seamstress

I... I do not know what happened to the seamstress II - that position seems to have

disappeared - but up until last year there was a seamstress II.

MR. DICKS: Fiscal restraint.

MR. FITZGERALD: If you look at those positions which are still

existing, those were the people who did not get a raise, but the Secretary to the

Lieutenant Governor got a 40 per cent increase, over a $33,000 raise in one year.

MR. DICKS: Just to make it clear: This person did not get a raise

or any step increase this year. Frankly, the majority of people at Government House -

there are, I think, thirteen. Only two are getting a step increase this year, because the

majority of people there are at the top of their scale. So, there are no step increases at

Government House other than for two individuals. Everybody down there gets a percentage

increase the same as any other government employee.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Maintenance Repairer II and the

Environmental Services Supervisor, one at $26,499 and the other job at $25,533, are those

two new positions or is it a new name for an old job?

MR. DICKS: I honestly do not know. The Environmental Services

Supervisor is a new term for me, but we have 1,500 different classifications in

government, so that may well have existed for some time.

Maintenance Repairer 11 - these are people who basically work at

Government House and help maintain the premises. Whether or not that is a common

classification across government, I do not know. I suspect it is. Certainly, we have

maintenance people all around government and I suspect that one is an Environmental

Services Supervisory. I suspect we might have a few of those in the Department of

Environment. I cannot say with certainty.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I guess the raise, the 2 per cent that

was brought forward in the agreement just recently, has not been factored in those

employee estimations for 1998/99. They have not been factored in?

MR. DICKS: Yes, they have been. The actual salary increase this

year is $10,100 for all those positions combined. In other words, as I said earlier, the

base this year is $367,000 for all the salaries. The 2 per cent increase on that would be,

because of timing, $10,100 this year. That is what gets us up to the $412,000, in part.

MR. FITZGERALD: If you look at some of those figures for Government

House, many of them remain the same, but when you get down to the Secretary to the

Assistant Deputy Minister you see a $5,000 raise which is one position, which would

certainly be more than 2 per cent over last year. Then you come down to the Chauffeur, Mr.

Speaker, and the salary there went up another $2,000 a year. While the Domestic Workers,

of which there are four, remain the same. The Gardener remains the same.

MR. DICKS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, on a

point of order.

MR. DICKS: I trust the hon. gentleman is not suggesting that the

Chauffeur is driving up costs.

MR. FITZGERALD: Driving up costs?

MR. DICKS: A thought!

MR. FITZGERALD: I am asking questions of why some of those pay

scales are the same. The minister indicated that the 2 per cent is factored in, but they

remain the same as last year, identical to what is on the 1997/98 estimates. Then we come

down to two other positions where we see a $5,000 and a $2,000 raise. I was wondering why.

MR. DICKS: I am not really sure to what the member is referring.

MR. FITZGERALD: Secretary to the Assistant Deputy Minister.

MR. DICKS: Are you referring to page 9 of the Departmental Salary

Details?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

MR. DICKS: The Secretary to the Assistant Deputy Minister, $22,788?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

MR. DICKS: The Secretary to the Assistant Deputy Minister this year

will receive $22,788 as a base, a step progression of $35, an extra pay period of $876,

and will receive a 2 per cent increase on top of that. That is consistent with the figures

I have here. Is the hon. member comparing this to some figure that was there last year or

this year?

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I am comparing it to figures that

were there last year.

MR. DICKS: Yes, I noticed that the incumbent this year - the person

was on temporary assignment to the position. I do not like to use names of individuals

other than the executive of government. I do not think it is fair to the individuals

concerned. These amounts are fairly modest and fairly straightforward and subject to the

normal rules of government. The individuals concerned have not gotten any increases other

than their normal step progressions which apply only in the case of two individuals, and

have a modest total of $248 of the total amount of $412,000.

There is, of course, as in any government service for people who are

not at a managerial level, the provision for overtime. Other than that they get an extra

pay period and a modest salary increase. I don't think there is any cause for alarm that

Government House is being unduly compensated.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm still not clear if the

Lieutenant-Governor pays income tax. Does the Lieutenant-Governor pay income tax on his

salary?

MR. DICKS: I think so. I know the Governor-General doesn't pay

income tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: It's changed now, the Clerk advises me. There was a time

when - even now the Queen herself I believe submits an income tax in England. The

Governor-General used to get it, but my recollection is that I think the

Lieutenant-Governor does pay tax on his income. It comes from the federal government, so

I'm not aware of the practice, since that is arranged and paid by the federal government

and not the Province. I'm sure the Lieutenant-Governor will be delighted to enlighten us

all, and I'm sure he keeps his own house in order, as it were.

MR. FITZGERALD: It's our house, I say to the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I know, I know. I'm not here by appointment, I say

to the Opposition House Leader.

Minister, what you are saying is that the Lieutenant-Governor's salary

is paid by the federal government, and the Lieutenant-Governor's keep is paid by the

provincial government.

MR. DICKS: His staff is.

MR. FITZGERALD: And we pay the expenses of the house?

MR. DICKS: Yes. Just let me clarify. In areas where the federal

government has appointees - these would be the Lieutenant-Governor and federal court

judges, Supreme Court judges - the federal government pays the salaries of its own

officials that hold office. I'm not sure really if you can call them officials as such.

They are probably office holders. Judges are members of the judiciary. They pay the

judges' salaries, benefits and all those sorts of things. The Province finances the court

system, so we would not pay the judges but we would pay the secretaries of judges, the

court priors if we still have them, and so on. We pay for the maintenance of the court

houses, and we would be responsible for the police and those people who attend the justice

system.

Those people who are direct appointees of the federal government at

this level are paid by the federal government, and we pick up the ancillary expenses for

accommodation and so on.

In addition to that, the federal government as well pays some amount to

the Lieutenant-Governor to help defray some entertainment expenses, I understand.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Lieutenant-Governor pays for entertainment

expenses?

MR. DICKS: For some of them. They give him an allowance, in

addition to salary, to defray some entertainment.

I should say, for the public record, the office of the

Lieutenant-Governor is not really a sinecure. I'm told by incumbents of that office that

many of them pay for the expenses, in some cases of Government House, and certainly their

own entertainment, at a level that far exceeds what - we don't pay. The last

Lieutenant-Governors have been very generous in providing from their own means supplements

to provide for entertainment. These are Girl Guide groups and Boy Scouts. They have been

very magnanimous.

Frankly, it's not a position you can take on without expecting that to

some extent you will have to pay for some of the many things you would wish to do out of

your own pocket. The people who take it are to be admired in making their personal means

available in providing a very, what I think, and the hon. member may not share my view,

what is still a very important office, and providing a very ceremonial role and adding a

certain dignity to all our proceedings, be it here in the House or generally in society in

the Province.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, has your department seriously looked at -

I know I've brought it up in the House many times, and I will continue to bring it up, and

I'm very serious when I say it - or ever considered having an office provided for the

Lieutenant-Governor, and having that house turned into some other place, I guess, is what

I'm trying to say?

I hear the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation talking about

the need for a new museum, and I hear the minister talking about the need for a new art

gallery, the need for somewhere to put the archives in this Province. Has your office

considered that seriously at all, or is it a situation that we have adopted the plan to

maintain Government House and keep it forever and a day?

MR. DICKS: Let me say that we examined that issue during Program

Review. The conclusion we came to was that - and let's take the example where you say to

the Lieutenant-Governor: It's nice to have you but we are not going to provide you with a

residence as such.

So the Lieutenant-Governor then would have to find some other place to

live, and would also then have to provide some place to entertain. We are going to turn

that into a museum or provincial archives. So then you go to the Newfoundland Hotel, the

Delta or the Holiday Inn and you start renting rooms for a reception at $5,000 or $8,000 a

day. Then you have to provide the staff and the other things that go with it to do it. You

very quickly would find that the cost of providing the same level or nature of receptions

as the Lieutenant-Governor now does, would probably come close to or exceed the figure

that we have.

Secondly, and this is, I think, the critical consideration, the usage

for that building, which is probably the most historic building we now have on the Island,

that and our old Assembly - it is not suitable for a museum, it is not suitable for

archives. The number of renovations that you would have to do there to install air

conditioning, to acquire new and different forms of lighting, to control the humidity and

so on, the cost of it would be extraordinary; and in doing so I think you would ruin the

uniqueness of that residence. Yet, at the same time, if we evict the Lieutenant-Governor,

tell him or her to go elsewhere and provide all of these at additional cost - which I

think would approach what is paid here - you would still have this residence to maintain

without an appropriate usage. You would still have to employ, to some extent, a gardener,

as we do with Pippy Park and the staffing up there. Then you decide, well, let's lay off

the domestic workers, let's not clean it if we are not going to use it, and you would

quickly find it would go into disrepair.

I would say, given the nature of the building and the office of the

Lieutenant-Governor, I find nothing particularly objectionable about having the

Lieutenant-Governor in residence and hosting the sort of receptions that the

Lieutenant-Governor and His Honour do. I frankly looked at the economics of it, and were

we not to use it as the Lieutenant-Governor's residence there is no other usage that

suggests itself that would be as appropriate. To transform it into some other type of

usage, there is none that clearly comes to mind, and the cost of doing so would be

extraordinary. At the same time, we would still have the cost of maintaining it and have

duplicated the expenses elsewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I suppose we could put townhouses down there or

something, cut it up and divide it up, but somehow it does not appeal to me. I think there

is still something to be said for our history. I am sure the French occasionally examine

whether Versailles is worth keeping or Sans Souci and Potsdam, but most people with some

sense of their own heritage come to the conclusion that some things are worth maintaining.

I am sure my colleagues share my view that Government House, given our more recent

history, perhaps less within the European nations, have the same view.

MR. FITZGERALD: What happens in other provinces, minister,

provinces like Ontario and Alberta, where the Lieutenant-Governor does not have a

residence, the province does not supply a residence? What happens there? Where does the

Lieutenant-Governor entertain and provide those services in those particular provinces?

MR. DICKS: Well may I say, with all due respect for our colleagues

elsewhere in the country, very few of them, if any, have the same rich heritage that

Newfoundland and Labrador does. Government House itself stands as a monument to

government's foresight in spending. When that was built, I think the request originally

was for 500 pounds or something to build a new house for the Governor. It turned out to be

5,000 pounds or something of that magnitude. So I think it is an object lesson to us all,

that one should watch one's expenditures and so on carefully, but at the same time you can

see that an overexpenditure in one age, whether it be Versailles with Louis XIV or

Government House back in the 1820s or '30s, in the end may leave a result that other

people, our descendants, will in due course be proud of.

Frankly, I don't know that Ontario had a residence that was worth

preserving, but no doubt these societies make their own decisions on what the best use of

the building is. I don't recall the Lieutenant-Governor in Ontario having any residence

that was of particular note. I say our problem here if - the hon. members, you and others

may share it - that the Lieutenant-Governor should not be in that building. I don't think

there is another appropriate usage that one can find for that building and given the

nature of the fact that you want to entertain and have the Duke of Edinburgh Awards and

things like this, having the Lieutenant-Governor in residence, I think, adds something to

the whole. Certainly there is no cost-savings to taxpayers by evicting the

Lieutenant-Governor and trying to convert it to some other usage, at least none we could

find.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is important that I announce the questions for the Late Show.

The first question is: Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer

provided by the Minister of Health and Community Services on the Atkinson Report. That is

from the Member for Ferryland.

Mr. Speaker, I'm dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board re my question on new home construction. That is from the

Member for St. John's East.

Mr. Speaker, I'm dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Premier

re my question on watershed management. That is from the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just one last question on Government House,

Minister. From listening to you and explaining all the details, it's not hard to realize

that you feel Government House is a bargain. You feel it is something that is part of our

heritage that we should maintain, and for $500,000 it's money well spent. I totally

disagree and would argue with that. I think there are better ways we can spend $500,000.

If we talk about the thirteen jobs that are provided, if somebody gave me or you $500,000

I think we could employ a lot more people and pay them a much better salary than some of

the people who are being paid here.

It is not the point of doing away with thirteen jobs, but I feel

personally that, yes, if we want to maintain the ceremonial role of the

Lieutenant-Governor, that we should do that, but I'm not so sure we can continue to afford

to maintain a residence and spend $500,000 a year when the need for other things is so

great right here in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will pass to one of my colleagues to

continue questions.

MR. DICKS: I would just like to reply to the hon. member's

comments. There is always a different point of view on these issues. I think when one

looks at Government House you have to be careful to realize that even if one were to close

it, or to ask the Lieutenant-Governor - unless you want to change our system of government

- to move elsewhere, you would not save all that money. A lot of these expenses would

still subsist.

As much as one might view the Lieutenant-Governor as an unnecessary

expense, you know, there are people who might say that renovating the stadium in Bonavista

last year when the Queen was here in case it rained, or paving the road down to Bonavista

to accommodate all the people who go there to see the Queen - I mean, we could have very

well said: Thank you very much, Your Highness, but we would rather not have you this year.

We are going to put a little thank you note on t.v. But, we do these things.

I mean, I was asked a question the other day: Why were the expenses so

high last year? Well, it was a Cabot year. We do things, we celebrate our history, and

this is a celebration of our history, and we provide expenditures. Other people may say;

Instead of renovating the stadium in Bonavista, maybe we should have put it into the

hospitals. Maybe we should have. Maybe we shouldn't have paved the road. These are all

decisions that you make. As much as one can spend it on essential services,