June 4,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 21

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings of the day, I would

like to welcome to the public galleries eight Grade VI students from C.L.

Sheppard Elementary School, in the District of Humber Valley, accompanied by

their teacher, Mr. Chris Dennis, chaperons, Penny Hewitt and Wendy Brake, and

bus driver, Rod Abbott.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have in the gallery sixty Grade

V, VI, and VII students from Whitbourne Elementary, in the District of Harbour

Main - Whitbourne, accompanied by teachers, Noel Bartlett, Margaret Delahunty,

Wendy Kennedy, teacher assistant, Shirley Rio, and bus driver, Eugene Nicholl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today on

behalf of, I think, all members of the House of Assembly. Members opposite can

and do speak for themselves, but on this occasion I claim the right to speak on

behalf of all members of the House of Assembly to thank Members of Parliament

who last night fulfilled the unanimous request of members of this House and

dealt with the question of the amendment to Term 17 in a manner and within a

time frame that certainly complied with the request respectfully submitted by

members of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador when we passed a

unanimous resolution here a few weeks ago on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, I think the passage of the amendment last night

is historic and represents the first step in allowing us to complete the

education reform process to which we are all committed. Members have noted the

overwhelming size of the vote last night in the House of Commons but, having

noted that vote, we recognize as well that the process in Parliament is not

completed. Indeed, there is a role for Members of Parliament, and that is the

appropriate title, Mr. Speaker, who reside in the Senate because they, too, are

part of the parliamentary process. It is a bicameral system and just as we, in

this House, recognize the appropriate role of members of the House of Commons in

exercising their right, and indeed, exercising their duty to examine this

question, so, too, we recognize the right of members of the other place, the

Senate, to exercise their right and duty to examine this question.

Mr. Speaker, I would convey through this House and through

you, to members of the Senate the exact same sentiments that we conveyed, I

think, unanimously, to members of the House. We ask that the question be

examined in a timely fashion. We understand the need and right of members of the

Senate to fulfil their obligations and duties. As members of the Canadian

Parliament, we ask that some recognition be given to the time frames under which

we operate; indeed, we are now into the month of June and we have an education

system to have in place, to be effective and to be running in September. We ask

for understanding that this Chamber will need to deal with and consider

legislation implementing reform before we rise for the summer and legislation

that will give effect to the amendment, to the purposes expressed in the

amendment that was passed by Parliament last night.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador made clear in a debate here in this House that gave

expression to the unanimous resolution that we intend to see, within this

Chamber, a non-partisan spirit at work on this question. We sought, we received

and we acknowledge the co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition and the

Conservative Party and all the members of his party who sit with him in the

House, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Indeed, the Leader of the NDP

in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, frequently talked about the great support within

his party for the cause of reform, when we were in Ottawa. I want to acknowledge

the support of the Independent member who sits in this Chamber, as well. We said

then that we sought a unanimous effort by the House, the Leader of the

Opposition and others laid out a number of criteria that captured the spirit of

education reform. We acknowledge that those criteria, the five points of the

Leader of the Opposition and others were all part of that spirit. Mr. Speaker, I

want to say today, now that Parliament has dealt with the question, that we

remain committed to those principles, that we will bring forward at the earliest

opportunity, the most appropriate opportunity, perhaps after the Senate has

dealt with the matter in the next week or two, legislation that we will keep our

commitment to consult with the Leader of the Opposition and to consult with the

Leader of the New Democratic Party in the preparation of that legislation, and

that we will do our best - we will do more than our best, we will ensure that

the reform that is forthcoming is absolutely and totally in every way, shape and

form, faithful to the proposition that was put before the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador in a referendum and approved by the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador in a referendum. We can do no less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we repeat again a plea,

because it really is a plea, for some recognition and some understanding in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that in this debate, which has gone on for

many years, there are always going to be voices that can never be reconciled,

the voice of those who seek the status quo, no change whatsoever. That voice can

never be accommodated because reform will proceed. The voice of those who seek a

change far beyond that which was approved by the people themselves in a

referendum, that voice can also not be accommodated because it is inconsistent

with what the people have said in a referendum.

What we need, Mr. Speaker, at this time, is some leadership,

some desire to build consensus, a desire to heal, and more importantly, at the

end of the day, what we need is a focus where the focus ought to be, and that is

on the quest, on the desire, and on the need for reform of our education system

for the sake of our children, and, Mr. Speaker, to that we remain totally

committed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a historic moment. The House of Commons has

spoken, and for all intents and purposes, Term 17 has passed any constitutional

hurdles in Ottawa. The Senate can only have a suspensive veto of six months at

most, and I am quite confident that will not be the choice that the Senate will

take. So, for all intents and purposes, it has passed the hurdle in Ottawa and

now it is back here on Newfoundland soil again, and the responsibility comes

back again now to the Premier and his government.

Our caucus here were all present and voted unanimously to get

the House of Commons and Senate to move forward. We have done our

part in

ensuring that. I say to the Premier again, to remind him as he referenced, we

did lay down certain conditions that we want to see delivered and we will be

doing our utmost to ensure that there is interdenominational schools in this

Province where people of any religion can attend, and that there is provision

for uni-denomination schools and neighbourhood schools. And we will be watching

closely now, for the Premier and his government to move expeditiously in getting

it out and to giving it the careful consideration that is needed in the

legislation that it is not going to be moved through haphazardly on a day's

notice.

It did have a very rapid movement in the House of Commons; we

had a very rapid process of moving this amendment through the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, outside the confines of this House of Assembly, Mr.

Speaker. After May 31, they closed the House and announced there could be a

referendum and then they closed schools and announced there will be one; the

wording came much later and they had it before schools opened. We want to see

legislation on specifics and we want an opportunity to ensure that the

appropriate decisions are made that are going to be permanent decisions and best

decisions to serve us and generations to come and we, as an Opposition, will be

doing that and ensuring that the Premier is accountable to what he indicated

would be delivered in this and we will certainly do our duty to ensure that that

does actually happen, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to acknowledge the passage of Term 17 in

the House of Commons, and without counting the chickens before they are hatched,

assume that passage in the Senate will be as speedy and as expeditiously dealt

with as in the House of Commons.

In doing so, I would like to acknowledge and praise the

leadership role of the Premier in bringing this matter forth to Ottawa on a

non-partisan basis and involving all members of the House in urging the passage

of Term 17. I think the delegations trip to Ottawa and the symbolic notion of

the three parties represented in this House together, asking the party leaders

and caucuses in Ottawa to deal with this matter and being there to explain their

positions to the leaders and to the caucus, people who were available to talk to

us, was important in explaining the circumstances here and seeing that its

passage took place. So, acknowledging that, I would also like to pass to the

next phase, which we anticipate quite soon.

Notwithstanding the statements of the Premier, both in the

House today and previously, there seems to be widespread public confusion about

the intentions of government. If one reads the papers and listens to the media,

one wonders where they were on September 5, whether they actually read the

referendum wording and knew what was going on. There is no doubt that every

person

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I support the notion of reform in this

Province, and it is important that the intentions of government be expressed in

legislation as quickly as possible so that those who are concerned that the

government will not do what the referendum required by way of reform are

assured, and also that those who oppose the referendum but also have rights to

schools of their denomination have some reassurance as well that that will be

possible under the wording of Term 17. I think it is a time for reconciliation

within this Province, particularly among those who so strongly opposed the

referendum process and the change to Term 17.

I look forward to a speedy passage in the Senate so that this

legislation can be presented to the House and to the public for the kind of

scrutiny that the Leader of the Opposition has suggested it deserves, so that we

can all have a look at it and be satisfied that the new Term 17 has been

followed properly, and that we can get on with the business of reform at the

level of the schools, and at the level of program, and at the level of needs of

students in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Premier.

Term 17 just passed, and the Premier made reference to it in

his statement. I ask you, Premier: What are your specific plans now to actually

implement the education reforms that our people want and our children need?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the intent of government is

to do as we said we would do during the course of a debate here on a motion

urging the House of Commons to proceed with this question, and that is to

prepare legislation, to consult the Leader of the Opposition, to consult the

Leader of the New Democratic Party, and then put the appropriate legislation at

this time before the Legislature and to allow the normal legislative process,

including the review and the opportunity for comment by all of the interested

groups, to occur; and hopefully to see speedy passage of that legislation which

is required at this time.

I believe there have already been some consultations with the

House Leader for the Progressive Conservative Party indicating that that is the

intent and the plan of the government. Indeed I have indicated as much to both

the Leader of the Conservative Party and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

I think the appropriate course now - and I would certainly be

happy to hear the advice of the Leader of the Conservative Party - is to allow

the Senate process, which I think will get under way in a matter of days, to

occur, to respect the right of the Senate to deal with this matter, and then to

prepare ourselves, upon passage of the matter, I would hope, in the Senate - the

Senate has dealt with the matter - to prepare ourselves to proceed with

legislation here in this Chamber.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The previous government was going to reconvene the House in

January before it passed it to deal with legislation, so I don't think that

would be an impediment to dealing with legislation here in this Province. I

think that would be responsible, and some advanced planning.

Actually, the Premier tells us he will introduce legislation

here in this sitting to reduce the number of school boards and to establish a

school construction board. In the Red Book and elsewhere he has promised

widespread consultation on all aspects of education reform. Now, will the

Premier send this legislation to a Legislation Review Committee now so people

can see what is in it well before decisions are made?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

is referring to the Red Book. I don't have my copy handy, although I generally

try to keep it close at hand. I am sure the House Leader opposite has his right

there. If he will turn to the

section on education reform, the Leader of the

Opposition will see that what we have committed to do is to consult with the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, both on the question of school viability

rules and on the question of busing. That's what is in the Red Book. It was very

much a part of the public record of the last election campaign. That, indeed, is

a process that will be initiated by the Minister of Education and there will be

public consultations, I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition.

In the meantime, what we do need to do, as the Leader of the

Opposition has just noted, is to introduce legislation to give us the means to

put in place ten boards from the current twenty-seven, to move to an

interdenominational school board system and also to move to a single

construction board rather than the current process based on a denominational

consideration. That has to be done right away because we need, of course, as the

Leader of the Opposition knows, to be up and running and in business for

September.

On the questions of viability and busing, we committed

ourselves to a public process, there will be a public process, and we will be

quite willing to share with the parties in the House, in advance of the tabling

of any legislation, that legislation. My anticipation would be that discussion

can occur either later this week or early next week, and my hope would be that

the Senate will deal with the matter in a reasonably quick time frame, so that

we can get on with our own legislative business here in this Chamber.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has said he intends to introduce legislation on

reduction of school boards and on a joint school construction committee in this

session; in fact, he said before the month ends. Now, I ask the Premier: Has the

legislation been prepared and, if so, would the Premier provide me with a copy?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The legislation is in the drafting stage where the basic

principles that we are asking the government, through the Cabinet process, to

agree to have been pretty well established, but we are now getting the legal

fine print that everybody in the Legislature knows belongs in a piece of

legislation. We certainly are going to honour the commitment that the Premier

provided to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, and to the Leader of the

New Democratic Party last week, that as soon as we have a draft piece of

legislation in legislative language we will provide it to the hon. members for

their consideration before we table it in this Legislature.

The bill that will give rise to it is already on the Order

Paper, Mr. Speaker, as Bill No. 8, which in fact gives rise to the ten school

boards instead of twenty-seven and the single construction board. We did not

feel it was necessary, Mr. Speaker, to have extensive public consultation about

those two interim arrangement matters because the understanding of everybody in

this Legislature, and certainly of the government, is that there is unanimous

consent for those two issues. The way the boards will actually function in

determining the types of schools that will exist in September of 1997, since the

next school year is already fully planned and organized, that it is that whole

issue and that larger piece of legislation that will go through extensive public

consultation and extensive debate here in the House. The question would then

appropriately be, whether or not a committee of the House of some sort should

also take that piece of broader-based legislation out for public hearings of any

sort.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly want to have an opportunity not to receive a

draft legislation one day and then run into an all night sitting and try to get

legislation through in a day or two. There is not a big amount of time, I say,

left in this

schedule here, from the time it is drafted until it has to go

through. During the month of June, we only have three weeks left and it is

important, I think, that we see it early.

The Premier has indicated that he will introduce it to reduce

school boards from twenty-seven down to ten for this fall. Now, there is some

confusion about how the transition will work. We do know that teaching personnel

are being hired now for those schools, but we don't know how badly needed school

repairs, renovations or any construction money is going to be allocated as we

approach this transitional July 1 deadline.

Now, I ask the Premier: What decision making strategies are

in place to facilitate a desirable and responsible transfer?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Officials of the Department of Education have actually been

working with a transition team, I guess is the right language they have been

using, which has representatives on it from the School Board Association for

Newfoundland and Labrador, from the Superintendents' Association for

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Business Managers' Association, Mr. Speaker, from

the different school boards, and they are dealing with those very practical

issues. Our officials have indicated to them that the ten school boards could

expect to receive the budgets or the pro-rated portions thereof, of the parts of

the twenty-seven boards that will be merged into their boundaries. They are

quite comfortable, as I understand it, in the discussions, that there is quite

an orderly and sensible process underway whereby the school boards who already

have the system arranged for next September will fully know within a matter of

days, what monies they can expect to expend and which monies will go to the ten

boards on the basis of the parts of the five or six, in some instances, that are

being put together to reduce from twenty-seven to ten.

So there is a structure in place, Mr. Speaker. They are

meeting regularly and they are continuing to have dialogue on those very

practical transition issues, and all of it will be announced as soon as we are

in a position to put the legislation here.

I am expecting, as well, that it will be announced again by

consent and approval of the School Board Association, the Business Managers',

the Superintendents', and those people who actually have run the system in

Newfoundland and Labrador for the last number of years.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister made reference to other prepared legislation

that we know is not as urgent as those two specific items. I ask the Premier -

or the minister may wish to answer: When does he expect this draft legislation

to be ready, so we can have adequate public scrutiny and debate here in this

House?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we are working as quickly as we possibly can. The

issues seem to be two very important interim issues. The only thing that is

coming forward in the draft legislation now is the issue of going from

twenty-seven school boards, that are separate denominational boards, to ten that

operate interdenominationally on a shared basis, and also a single construction

board instead of giving the money out on a pro-rated per capita basis to the

denominations, as is currently the structure.

Those are the issues that are involved in this draft bill; we

have yet to present the draft to Cabinet. We certainly have to go through the

Cabinet process to get approval for that; it will be then provided to the

Opposition Leader and the Leader of the NDP as soon as it is through the Cabinet

system, so that they can have it for their scrutiny before we introduce it into

the Legislature.

We do recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we are under some pressure

of time, but again, with all due respect to everybody in the Chamber, we fully

expect that this particular legislation and these two items will likely pass

this Legislature very quickly with unanimous consent, because there is nothing

in it that is contentious. It is an interim bill.

The major issues with respect to the five items that the

Leader of the Opposition raised when he agreed graciously to go to Ottawa with

the Premier and the Leader of the NDP to secure passage of Term 17, those items,

Mr. Speaker, are contained in the amendments to the Schools Act and the

Education Act that will not come before the people of the Province or the

Legislature until next Fall.

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Education. Is the

minister considering, or has he made a decision, to reinstate or approve

first-year university courses for those areas in the Province, those colleges

which he has recently cancelled?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been no change with respect to the government's

position regarding first-year university in the colleges under the auspices of

the Central Newfoundland regional college system or the Eastern college system

since the announcement was made almost a month ago. The government will not be

providing any grant in aid for the provision of first-year university for any of

the campuses outside of St. John's, Corner Brook and Labrador West.

Both colleges, Mr. Speaker, have gone through a process of

trying to ascertain student interest and student willingness to pay an enhanced

registration fee to the college above and beyond their tuition fee to the

university. They are now finalizing some numbers. They have been told by the

government, through myself as the minister responsible, for over three weeks

now, that if they have the appropriate numbers, and if they can raise the money

themselves and not ask the government for any money, they are more than welcome

to go ahead and offer first-year university. They have to come to a

determination themselves as to whether they have enticed the appropriate number

of students to register and that they have actually attracted the sufficient

amount of funds to make it pay for itself.

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

supplementary.

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

So, what the minister is saying is, if the community

colleges, such as Grand Falls, which floated out the possibility this weekend

through news reports of introducing a $350 fee on top of tuition fee, that if

they can raise money, the community colleges, the government will support it. In

other words, what the minister is saying, and I ask him: Is the minister saying

that they support a discriminatory tuition fee, where you may see a situation in

one part of the Province where you will be paying $350 and in another part of

the Province you may only need to pay $100? Is that what the minister is

supporting?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, but we certainly anticipated

that someone in the Opposition might try to take that kind of a slant with it.

What we did was suggest to the people of the Province that unless the government

could provide first-year university in all the locations for the same price, the

same registration fee, and the same tuition, that we had come to the conclusion

that we could not do that so we cancelled it as a budgetary measure even though

the people in the area wanted to access the program.

The people, Mr. Speaker, from those areas came forward and

said: we want the right to pay voluntarily, a registration fee on top of the

tuition fee rather than encounter even much greater costs by going to St.

John's, Corner Brook, or a university on the mainland. They came forward and

said: if we volunteer to do this, because we still think it is in our best

interest, it still saves us a lot of money and still gives us an opportunity

that we otherwise would not have in our regions of the Province, would the

government allow it to happen? We said: it is not our preferred route. We have

stated our case, that we would like to have consistent fees across the Province.

We could not reach that in the Budget so we cancelled the programs. So we are

not encouraging or condoning anything.

We now have a group of people who are coming forward saying:

we want the right to pay this additional registration fee rather than pay a lot

more money than that, Mr. Speaker, to go to other locations. We have taken the

view that rather than deny them, rather than turn around and say: no, even if

you want to volunteer to pay some extra money and still save a lot of money by

not going to St. John's, Corner Brook or a mainland university, then we said: if

you want to do that and if you are agreeing to do that, the government is not

suggesting that, the government has cancelled the program. They are coming back

and saying:

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - please let us reinstate the program and pay

the extra money.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, no matter what slant anybody

puts on it, this is a situation that has been created by the minister. Everybody

in the Province knows what the preferred route of this government is, and that

is to close community colleges.

Wouldn't the minister agree that what we are seeing here,

because of the actions of government, is that we have put people in institutions

in the position where they have to institute user fees for post-secondary

education in the Province. Isn't that actually what is happening, minister?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all. What has

happened is that the government has stated clearly for the people of the

Province what kind and what level of educational opportunities can be afforded,

in our view, within the education budget consistently across the Province, and

that did not include first-year university at campuses outside of St. John's,

Corner Brook or Labrador West.

The people themselves, the students and the parents in the

other locations have come forward and said, rather than take that as a decision,

they would like to have the opportunity, through their own means, to provide for

a first-year university opportunity in those other locations. If they came up

with the money, Mr. Speaker, and if they come up with the necessary number of

students who are willing to participate in that type of program, we have

indicated to them that we would give them permission to go ahead and do so.

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

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

for the Minister of Social Services.

In the department's memorandum to regional managers dated May

16, it states that additional assistance granted under Regulation 8, for reasons

other than to top up rent and mortgage payments, would be discontinued

immediately. Has the minister and officials now completed the notification

process? Can the minister inform the House how many recipients of social

services have been told that their emergency funding of sixty-one dollars has

been cut immediately by the government?

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

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

As I previously mentioned, the memo that was sent out by our

district manager was sent to the Opposition to inform you of the changes that

have been allocated from the Budget. Part of my direction was to inform all

those people who are receiving the sixty-one dollar supplement to be notified

and they have been notified; a memo has been sent out as of May 31.

With respect to the number, it is approximately 11 per cent

of our total caseload or 4,000 cases.

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

supplementary.

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

The department now provides assistance to individuals who

live with non-relatives as boarders to a maximum of $372 a month, and the $61

has been provided to most eligible persons for personnel care items. Does the

removal of the sixty-one dollars apply to boarders who live with non-relatives,

I ask the minister?

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

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

That is but one category that it, in fact, applies to; and I

think for interest, as I previously mentioned, it applies to only 11 per cent of

our total caseload. So while some actually receive it, the majority of

recipients do not receive it; it is a discretionary allocation and meant as a

supplemental amount.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the minister, that 4,000 cases

across this Province at sixty-one dollars, this is a significant source of

funding for these very needy families.

I would say to the minister on the issue of the boarders: Is

the minister saying that boarders who are now accommodated with non-relatives

must negotiate their new boarding rates if they wish to have funds for personal

care items? In other words, does the minister expect those who operate boarding

homes to absorb the sixty-one dollars or does the minister expect the individual

boarders to do without personal care items?

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

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

As I previously pointed out, this Budget was about making

choices and the choices we made, were made in effect to minimize the impact it

would have on the least number, and that is why we chose this particular area.

We are not denying that it will have an impact. We are very

aware that any type of choice that we make will have an impact on some people;

it is the nature of the service we provide. We had to make tough choices, we

decided to make the choices that would affect the fewer number of recipients and

not affect the total social assistant recipients' basic amount.

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

supplementary.

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

In essence, of course, the government is balancing its

Budget, in part at least, on the backs of the poorest people in the Province,

and if you receive sixty-one dollars in emergency funding, then you are at the

very bottom of those people who have fallen through the economic net.

I say to the minister, I am going to switch to talk about for

the moment, the changes in school busing policies in St. John's. It means that

many parents who live in St. John's and depend on social assistance will need to

buy bus passes for their children next year. In most cases this would mean an

extra fifty dollars per family if there are two children.

I ask the minister: Would she consider using Regulation 8, to

offer assistance to those parents so that their children can have equal access

to educational opportunities coming this September?

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

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

As my hon. colleague knows, we do not provide those sorts of

transportation costs. If you look at the number of children who are receiving

busing costs in the city, there is a significant portion of children who walk

back and forth to school every day. Not every child has to access the bus.

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

supplementary.

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

In other words, the minister and her colleagues have denied

the very poorest families in our society, particularly in St. John's, the

opportunity to educate their children because many of these children live at

distances where walking is not an alternative.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

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

I ask the minister: Is the minister aware that school

absenteeism is higher in poor families, and her failure to offer assistance will

only further compromise the access that these children need to equal education

opportunities. Will she assure that there is equal opportunity and equity in the

policies that are being followed by her department?

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

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

There are many determinants in health and poverty is

certainly one of those, and the issues that you have raised could be considered

but there are also a number of other issues.

There are also many other clauses within our policies that

allow our frontline workers to offer assistance on an as-needed basis and they

will be dealt with on an individual basis.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture. In his absence, maybe I can ask the acting minister or the Premier.

I wonder if the minister or the Premier, would provide the

House with an update on negotiations between crab processors and harvesters, and

would he also indicate if he himself expects to see an active crab fishery this

summer, here in the Province?

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

MR. TULK: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is

out of town today on government business; he will be back tomorrow, I can assure

the minister. I don't have the answer right on the tip of my tongue but I will

certainly call over and get the information for the hon. member and give it to

him within a matter of minutes.

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

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

My question today is for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

Municipal operating grants have been cut from $50 million in

1989 to $31 million in 1996-97. The planning

section of Municipal Affairs has

been almost wiped out which is going to cost municipalities more money.

Assessments to the towns have increased and the minister is considering major

changes to the assessment process. Has the minister or his department had

representations from towns regarding problems caused by this year's Budget? What

will he do to help, and what does he expect the towns to do?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the first question was: Have I

had representation from municipalities concerned about this year's cut? Yes, I

did. I had a serious amount of representations made to me last year, because

this year's cut was handled last year, I remind the member. In fact I had 291

councillors at Holiday Inn before Christmas giving me what I would consider the

biggest blast I ever got in my life. So that is the answer to the first one.

The second one was: What does the minister plan to do about

this? I have written all municipalities on behalf of the government and told

municipalities if they find themselves in a crunch, in a serious situation where

they cannot operate because of cuts from the MOG or other measures we have

taken, to notify me immediately and I will try my best to assist them where I

possibly can.

Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember what the third

question was.

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

a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: The last question was: What do you expect

the towns to do?

Mr. Minister,

Section 3.2.03 of the Municipal Affairs

Estimates budgeted $100,000 for regional corporation agreements. The minister is

committed to regional governments or regional counties, I know that, but will

the minister inform the House of any recent discussions with the Newfoundland

and Labrador Federation of Municipalities on regional governments, and where is

the White Paper on regional government promised last Fall?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In fact, within that

$100,000 estimate we are hoping to be able to ask the Federation of

Municipalities, with members of my staff, to do some work on the regionalization

concept, so the Federation of Municipalities can be involved in the whole

process from day one.

The White Paper is completed and I have told the Federation

of Municipalities that I would provide them with the first copy, and after I

provide the Federation of Municipalities and give them a week or so to browse

through the White Paper, then I will make the White Paper available to the hon.

member and anyone else in the House who wishes a copy.

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

a supplementary.

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

Mr. Minister, is it government's intention to force regional

governments by making it financially impossible for the smaller towns to operate

on their own? Will the towns see further downloading, municipal operating grants

being cut altogether, and provincial assistance being wiped out? Is government

basically trying to do through the back door what they could not do through the

front door?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the regionalization concept

from day one was a concept that we talked about through the Federation of

Municipalities and with municipalities around the Province. The regionalization

idea is to provide efficiencies for municipalities, where they could come

together and actually share services to save money. The hon. member apparently

has taken the exact opposite approach to the regionalization concept. He is

insinuating that regionalization is a plan by government to downsize on small

communities and I suppose ultimately to force them out of existence; that is

absolutely incorrect.

We are not doing that as a government. With the new ministry

that we have created for rural development around the Province, and myself, in

the next two to three years we are going to be doing everything we possibly can

for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. By the way, Mr. Speaker, in some cases

there will be questions coming from the other side on what we are doing to the

urban areas of Newfoundland to try to offset some of the impacts of what is

happening in the rural areas.

So the answer to your question is, absolutely no, and I would

not stand in this House, and sit as a member of this government, as Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if I even though there was any shred of

credibility in what the hon. member is proposing here today.

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

a supplementary.

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

Mr. Minister, my questions are based on past experiences with

your government, or the Liberal government. What I am asking is: Is it

government's plan to financially strap the smaller municipalities to force

regional government? I never asked if the government was going to download

basically further for the towns to save money. I know if you get a regional

government in place you may end up saving money in the long run, but the

question was: Are you going to force regional governments by cutting

municipalities to the bone? That is the question.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the galleries a delegation

from fourteen Commonwealth countries, accompanied by a Member of Parliament from

Australia. They are in the City to attend a Fellowship Programme - '96

Commonwealth Foundation, hosted by the Protected Areas Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to report that the Social Services Committee of

this House has considered and has approved, without amendment, the Estimates of

Expenditure for the Departments of Health, Justice, Social Services, Education

and Training, and Environment and Labour.

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

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present the report of

the Resource Committee. The Committee has reviewed and approved, without

amendment, the Estimates of Expenditures of the Departments of Mines and Energy,

Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Development and Rural Renewal, Fisheries and

Aquaculture, Industry, Trade and Technology, and Tourism, Recreation and

Culture.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I have to table, pursuant to

section 55, paragraph 3 of the Financial Administration Act, a list of

commercial loan guarantees. This is an update of a list that I filed on May 23,

and it has a further loan noted there to Mr. Vincent Hughes in the amount of

$50,475.99.

Secondly, I have as well the list of the temporary loans and

the Treasury Bills that have been issued under

section 48 of the act as well.

This is the update since I last reported and it includes, in each case, three

overdraft amounts and three Treasury Bills issued on May 16, 23, and 30, and May

13, 16, and 22 respectively.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I

shall move that a further Estimate of Expenditure related to a contingency

reserve in the amount of $30 million be referred to a Committee of Supply.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to the House of Assembly,

and it reads:

To the Honourable House of Assembly of Newfoundland in

legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, since it has a monopoly in the

delivery of an essential commodity in this Province, is not at risk of becoming

non-competitive; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, having made some $27.8 million

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

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

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

whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity

rates.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions that has been

brought before this House in the last - well, since this session has convened.

It is a prime example of the concern out there in rural areas today with the

possibility of the users of Newfoundland Hydro, Newfoundland Power - users of

electricity, being hit once again with another increase in utility rates, in

electricity rates.

One of the reasons that Newfoundland Power is using, as to

why it is coming forward to the Public Utilities Board at this time is because

it has not had a rate increase since 1992. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that

there are many, many people out there today who have not seen a raise in their

pay cheques and have not taken home any extra money since long before 1992.

Mr. Speaker, this particular utility made a profit last year

of some $28 million, and considering the work environment and the state of the

provincial economy now, I think that is a pretty tidy profit for any utility or

any business to make today.

Mr. Speaker, when we hear the Minister of Social Services

talk about taking back the $61, it was put forward to some - I forget what

percentage she talked about, if it was 70,000 recipients; but when we look at

this $61 being taken out of emergency funds and when we look at the help that

was at one time provided by the Department of Social Services for people to pay

their utility bills, and now, that that has been taken away, then this is going

to put a further hardship on many of our residents out there today.

Mr. Speaker, not only does Newfoundland Power not deserve an

increase but I suggest also that we should probably even look at some of the

services that we are being charged for as consumers over and above the

consumption of electricity. I think if the demand charges on meters, which

industry today and probably some of our recreational areas as well, especially

if you use electric heat, the cost that may be incurred for a couple of months

over the Winter is being paid for by consumers all during the twelve months of

the year. If you hit a particular demand some time during that twelve months,

then Newfoundland Power's justification is that because they have to supply that

amount of power for one or two occasions, when it peaks for one or two occasions

during the year, then there is a possibility that that same thing will happen

again, and the consumer will have to pay the greater amount. Many, many times

that that may be the only peak that you will reach for the twelve month period.

Mr. Speaker, we look at the cost of erecting poles to provide

the service, a cost, once again, passed on to the consumers of this Province and

a cost that we don't have any choice for. If you go today and get Newfoundland

Power to erect a light on a pole, Mr. Speaker, the first thing they want you to

do is sign a fifteen-year contract. You have to sign a fifteen-year contract in

order to get them to put a light on a pole in your garden. Now, if you decide

that you are going to move away from your property or if you decide that you are

not going to be occupying it for certain months of the year and you want that

light taken away, they will take the light away but you are still indebted to

Newfoundland Power to pay for whatever rental is used to come up to that period

of time that they feel was needed in order for them to justify putting a light

on that particular pole.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: So, Mr. Speaker, I call on the House to

speak out for the rate users in this Province today, to come forward and help

the sick, the suffering and the low-income people of this Province and speak out

against the rate increase that this utility is looking for.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising in support of the petition presented by the

Member for Bonavista South. This is one of many petitions that are coming forth

on this issue and I know hon. members opposite will groan and moan because the

public is actually petitioning this House to do something about the problems

that this government is leaving on the doorsteps and on the empty tables around

this Province.

What is happening in this Province today, Mr. Speaker, is

that organizations such as Newfoundland Power are increasing, increasing,

increasing their costs, their profits and their ability to take money out of the

families in this Province and on the other hand, the government, aware so many

people are on social assistance, is in fact cutting back on how much money

individuals have who are on social assistance.

Members have mentioned earlier, this sixty-one dollar

so-called emergency funding that is being removed from social assistance but,

Mr. Speaker, most of the families I know who are receiving this sixty-one

dollars, are receiving it each and every month because each and every month is

an emergency and those individuals need that money; and by taking that back,

they are taking back money that would otherwise be used by these families for

necessities. One of these necessities, of course, is heat and light in their

houses.

Newfoundland Power complains that it has not had a rate

increase since 1992. Well, its cost of borrowing is gone down considerably since

1992 so they didn't need a rate increase, at the same time, Mr. Speaker,

individuals on social assistance haven't had a rate increase since this

government came into office in 1989, and the value to them of the money they

receive on social assistance has been decreasing by inflation every year ever

since to the point where, now they are receiving 17 per cent less than they

received in 1989 if you take the real purchasing power of the dollar into

account.

So what we have, Mr. Speaker, is the royal squeeze being put

on people of this Province who are forced to live in dire circumstances, which

are being made worse by this government's actions on the one hand to take money

away, inaction on the other, to prevent the kinds of increases that Newfoundland

Power is seeking.

Now, we know that there is a Consumer Advocate in place and

we know that he has been given certain powers and certain abilities to carry out

his duties, but there needs to be, Mr. Speaker, a wholesale review of the

approach that the government is taking to utility rates in the Province, and a

re-examination, a revisiting of this notion of whether or not a utility

generation and distribution ought to be in public or private hands. Perhaps we

should have a new debate about hydro generation and distribution in this

Province, and consider whether or not it is time to seek the public turning

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro once again into a public corporation, owned by

the people of this Province so that rates can be controlled directly by the

government and proper use of this type of a facility can be engendered by

government policy.

What is happening here, Mr. Speaker, is that a private

utility, because it is a private utility, needs to have more money, needs to

have more income in order to justify its return on its investors, more than

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is required to have in order to justify its

return to its investors which is the government and to pay off its debts, so we

have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where people across this Province are objecting,

and rightly so, to the increase in cost while, at the same time, they don't have

funds available to meet their needs for themselves and for their families.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition yet again on school busing

and the school-busing issue.

The petition that I am presenting is on behalf of the

residents of the community of Shea Heights. We find out today from the Minister

of Social Services, that they will not be giving money to students in families

who are in receipt of social assistance, for school busing, that these children

are intended to be made to walk.

Well, I think this is a disgrace. This government, the Tobin

Government has yet again attacked the people who are least able to make up for

their budgetary shortfalls.

This petition that I present, the prayer of the petition,

reads as follows: The cost of Metrobus services can be burdensome on a family

already trying to live within a limited financial means. There would be very

little cost to the Province of continuing the school bus system in the community

of Shea Heights on its way to or from the community of Blackhead. The Metrobus

schedule, in some cases, does not coincide with school bus hours, and students

who have to take the bus from Shea Heights to St. Mary's would have to make a

stop on Water Street and get a transfer to head in the other direction to get

the bus to school.

The lower income families and middle income families of our

Province have suffered enough with the cutbacks in education, the

discontinuation of public exams, the closure of colleges, and discontinuation of

first-year university courses. I think that we have to start to re-evaluate what

we are doing here in the House of Assembly, and I think a fine place to start is

to reinstate the school busing services or to subsidize Metrobus services in

lieu of school busing that is received in other areas of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I stand to support the petition presented by my colleague,

the Member for St. John's South re the school busing issue. While he has a

peculiar situation in his district, it raises the petition, and the spirit of

the petition raises a larger issue, and that is the one, really, of equality for

school busing no matter where you live in the Province, that if the Province is

going to participate in providing funding for school busing, then it should be

provided across the board equally.

Mr. Speaker, as the member has referred to in his district,

there are places in my district as well which will be affected by government's

recent decision. They have based their decision on the fact that a Metrobus goes

down the main road in my district and that people can automatically hop on that

bus. But what it will add to kids who are in Kindergarten, five, six or seven

years old, is they can hop on the bus - they will have to get on it by 7:00 a.m.

or 7:30 a.m. if they want to get to school on time. They travel some twenty-five

to thirty kilometres from, say, parts of the Goulds, where they are going to

have to be bused out to places like I.J. Samson, Bishops College, etcetera.

The decision that government has made obviously is a

budgetary decision, but the reality is that it could cost more in the long run.

There are many students who travel the bus system in this city, and they travel

it for one reason, because they have no other way or option but to travel it.

Many students whose parents, through no fault of their own, find themselves in

receipt of social assistance, cannot afford and will not be able to afford, not

today or tomorrow, to get on a Metrobus - the costs associated with that. Now,

while that may seem trivial to members in this House, let me assure members in

this House that it is not trivial to parents or students who are in a position

where they cannot afford $2.50 or $3 a week, or $20 a month, to send their kids

on a school bus. I think that is the general issue, the more specific issue that

the member has raised, and the situation that constituents in his district find

themselves in.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the petition and

urge government to take a second look, and where there are exceptional

circumstances that the Minister of Education move quickly to correct those

circumstances, as I am sure he will.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a second petition to present. This petition is on

Crown lands, and the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to petition the

House of Assembly to voice opposition to the change in Crown land fees.

Many of the people who are occupying Crown land in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador put sweat equity into the construction of

their properties and clearing of their lots. Many of these people have done

without in order to maintain their Crown land properties, and many of the people

who are in question here that are occupying Crown lands probably do not have the

means, and even the people who do have the means, to be given a five month

period to come up with the balance to purchase their Crown land is an undue

burden, even on middle income families.

These families have probably had other plans for this money,

repairs to their homes, repairs to their cottages, perhaps even to take a

vacation or to send one of their children to university. The fact that they have

to come up with this money by October 31 has certainly placed a burden on them.

In the event they decide they want to pay it out over a five-year period,

instead of paying a $75 fee, they are now forced to pay probably a $500 or $600

fee every year. The families that cannot afford to do this are placed in a

peculiar situation in the fact that they may end up losing their Crown land. The

government will probably take back their cottages, sell them or what have you.

This change in fees to Crown land, and the regulations to

Crown lands, I think, is unjust and unfair to the citizens of Newfoundland and

Labrador. While we agree that there has to be fiscal restraint, and we have to

look for new ways of generating revenue, I think this goes much too far and

places too great a burden on these people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here in support of this petition as brought forward

by my colleague, the Member for St. John's South. This is a very important issue

and an issue which has certainly sparked some public debate, certainly in the

last number of days. These proposed increases, both for leases for recreational

cottages and leases for residences, have been met with outrage by

Newfoundlanders, who, as my hon. colleague mentioned, have put many hours of

hard work, hard labour, into the development of their cabin properties.

I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that indicated on the

lease for recreational cottage, on

Schedule C in Paragraph 4, it states that the

rent reserve as set out in the lease shall be subject to review every five

years. The last time the rent was reviewed with respect to leases for

recreational cottages, was approximately fifteen or sixteen years ago, and that

increase was from fifty to seventy-five dollars. Therefore the question has to

be asked, when ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, of which there are

many who enjoy their Summer homes on such leases, these leases for recreational

cottages, when ordinary Newfoundlanders enter into these lease contracts on the

understanding that the rent will not be reviewed for a period of five years, and

if it is, the precedent has only been a twenty-five dollar increase in the last

fifteen or sixteen years, one has to wonder whether or not this is bargaining

and contracting in good faith.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is not and that there has been

a violation of bargaining in good faith by this government in the proposed

increases to rentals with respect to leases for recreational cottages and

residential leases. What this government is doing is forcing people to buy out

and purchase their freehold interests, something which these individuals, when

entering into these leases, had no wish to do, no desire to do whatsoever. They

were quite comfortable with paying the fifty or seventy-five dollar annual

rental. In good faith they entered that arrangement only to find out that their

plans and their good wishes were being foiled by what this present government

now intends to propose.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I support the petition as being

brought forward by the Member for St. John's South and I would hope that this

government will take into account the points that have been made by literally

hundreds and hundreds of Newfoundlanders who now find themselves in this

particular dilemma.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I didn't know if there was another speaker on the petition,

but before we move to Orders of the Day, I wanted to rise on a point of order. I

gave today a notice of motion to move $30 million contingency reserve to be

called on Thursday. I have conferred with my learned critic, the Leader of the

Opposition and we seem to be moving rather quickly through the Estimates. So

before we call the Orders of the Day and move into Committee of Supply, I wonder

if we might have the leave of the House to have the motion called today rather

than on Thursday in order to have it referred to the Committee of Supply in the

event that we move that far along during the course of debate in Committee? So I

think we have the consent of my friend opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to do that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply and that I do

now leave the Chair.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Barrett): Order, please!

Adjourned debate on the Executive Council.

Estimates, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday when I adjourned debate I was responding to some

questions raised by my colleague the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He had

posed some fifteen questions, if my notes are accurate. I will have very

detailed responses to them shortly. I had expected to have them by 3:00. They

should be here within the next ten to fifteen minutes. I see a grey envelope,

that may be for me.

In response to the first question, it had to do - and I did

not note the sub-heading - with consolidated fund. I believe the question was,

why the amount for pensions was higher this year than it was last year? The

reason for that is last year government had an efficiency measure of rolling

back pensions so that the contributions to the pension fund were more last year

than they are this year. That is the reason for the increase, not for an

additional number of people.

Back to where we started, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps what I could

do is when I get the more detailed reply I will rise and respond to each of the

questions that my friend raised. I think essentially we dealt with them

yesterday in generalities. After I get an opportunity to reply, I think, if he

has any further (inaudible) I will respond then.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I resume where I left off, there are a couple of

things, minister, I asked yesterday. One was on the Classifications Appeal

Board. The Classifications Appeal Board is eliminated this year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not a sub-heading.

MR. DICKS: No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is one of the

questions raised by the hon. member. The allocation for the Classification

Appeal Board is now in the Public Service Commission. That allocation has been

moved there. That is why it does not appear in the Estimates for Executive

Council. I should have the amount and the sub-heading for the hon. member

shortly.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So the cuts to the Public Service Commission are even greater

than we realized, I might add. So I guess we don't need a Public Service

Commission when we only hire an occasional person. They are hired within the

department under Human Resources.

Also, I asked a question yesterday on the area on social

policy analysis and strategic social plan. In those two areas there were very

significant increases, 2.2.04 and 2.2.06; there were significant amounts of

money in those two specific areas. I am wondering if the minister could explain

why that would be so high.

MR. DICKS: I can reply, I will have the details. Two

people were moved in there; one was Kim Ploughman. Her salary wasn't in it last

year. Another person is there under temporary secondment from another area of

government. If the hon. member can refer me to the subheading again, I will tell

you who the second person -

MR. SULLIVAN: It is 2.2.04, under Social Policy Analysis.

MR. DICKS: Yes, 04. One was Kim Ploughman and the other -

I am sorry, I don't have that detail; I should have it shortly, but there were

two people. One was moved in there from another part of government and another

one is seconded there temporarily. I have made note of that and I will be able

to give you the exact information shortly.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, and while the minister is doing that,

under Strategic Social Plan, 2.2.06.05, Professional Services, $100,000 -there

was $100,000 in that area?

MR. DICKS: Well, I replied yesterday that the Minister of

Social Services would be giving the exact detail of that; that is to allow for a

public consultation process to take place. She will be announcing the detailed

allocation of how that money is to be spent when she releases her plan for the

public review of the paper on the Strategic Social Plan.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. I will get back to the minister

shortly.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I ask the minister for his co-operation for a few moments

while the Leader is out of the Chamber doing a public relations exercise; all

part of the process.

I want to ask the minister a couple of questions relative to

the collective bargaining process. I was following my notes, and it is on

2.3.06. If I could just ask him about the process, about the numbers of

collective bargaining units that are up for bargaining processes this year, what

the status is, and what the minister and his officials expect to be - in terms

of the process and completion date and the potential impact it might have on the

Budget.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In reply to my colleague's open-ended question, as we

discussed briefly yesterday, all of the government's collective agreements

expired as of March 31 of this year, so we are in the process of beginning

collective bargaining. Part of that process involves taking the various

collective agreements to Cabinet for review.

Some time ago, over the late Winter, we met with the various

managers from government departments and agencies to determine which issues they

felt should be reviewed at the table. There are a number of items that cause

concern from various points of view.

One, of course, is fiscal, that our managers feel we could

have greater efficiency in the workplace at less cost to government if we had

some changes to the provisions of the collective agreements.

Secondly, we have approached it from the point of view of

general benefit provisions where we might make some efficiencies, based on what

we now pay to our workforce.

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, we have to look at general issues in

order to facilitate our plan for government. We do hope, and do intend, over the

near term, probably within the next four to six months, to carry out a program

review. No doubt, one of the issues which will arise is the extent to which work

that is now performed by our officials and our employees could and should be

better performed by other means. This might include contracting out in some form

or fashion.

These are the sorts of things that have been brought to us.

We have not as yet formulated a detailed plan to bring to our table for

discussion. The other issue we have to deal with, as well, in collective

bargaining or in a secondary process, is the whole question of pensions in

government and how we might better deal with the liabilities that have

accumulated there over the years.

So, essentially, Mr. Chairman, in answer to my colleague's

question, we expect that this year will be fairly intense for a number of

reasons. We have all of our collective agreements that have expired, which is

unusual, since most collective agreements have various expiry dates. For

historic reasons, mostly financial ones over the past couple of years, in

meeting its budget targets, government has had negotiations with its collective

bargaining units that have coincided with the fiscal year. I am pleased to say

that in the last couple of years those fiscal measures have been reached through

agreement rather than legislation, so it is our intention to pursue collective

bargaining.

There was a time, I think, when people came to the table, if

you were representing a union, expecting that you would receive more each year,

greater benefits and greater salaries even though one might work lesser hours.

Certainly the temper of the time has changed. The people to whom we answer, our

public, the voters of the Province, look for and expect us to get greater value

for money because they simply don't want to pay more taxes. We have to find a

way to continue to deliver essential services that the public want in a more

efficient manner, and one of those ways is to see what inefficiencies exist in

our workplace, including under our collective agreements.

We hope to do that, and we expect that it will be a long

process. I believe one of my colleague's questions was when this process will

end. I cannot say that. I can tell him that at this stage we have already had

some degree of exchange of views at the bargaining table, but because of the

Budget process, the election and so forth, it was not in the detail that

normally takes place, where the two parties sit at the table and exchange

positions. For the most part we have not arrived at that point, but we hope to

do so shortly. I expect that we will probably be dealing with this over the

Summer and into the Fall. We are looking for an early resolution, but that may

be unduly optimistic. What we hope to achieve is a fair resolution for all

parties, including the people who work for us and who have the fortune to be in

collective bargaining units.

His third point, if I recollect, was whether or not and how

this will influence the Budget. We have not made any provision in the Budget to

either increase or lessen the salary vote from last year, except to the extent

that we have lessened the number of people who work for us. In our Budget is the

figure that we would pay to our workforce given the normal step increases

without salary increases and without roll-backs. Having said that, that may not

be the position we take at the bargaining table. We have chosen rather not to

legislate but to negotiate any changes, including any reductions that we believe

are supportable at the bargaining table rather than to cancel it here in this

House.

I think that fairly summarizes our position at this point in

time, and I would be pleased to answer any further questions my colleague has.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

If I could ask the minister, on page 24 under the French

Language section, 2.3.15, I note that in last year's Budget the allocation for

Salaries was $247,000. Then, in the revised it went to $114,000 - it dropped

down substantially - and then it is up to $159,000. I am wondering what the

reason for that would be.

Also, in the area of Professional Services we had $3,000

allocated last year in the Budget. In the revised, that went up to $56,000, and

is now up to $103,200. Does this mean that there has been extra personnel hired?

What would be the reason for the increase in the Budget? Are we doing more for

the francophone population - not that we should not do more for them, but - what

would be the logic of that? Are there special programs that are being offered to

the francophone population of the Province?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, it is quite the opposite, in fact. It is a service being

offered to the anglophone population, which makes them a little more compatible

with our francophone population. The Professional Services provision there is a

Budget item to provide part-time language instruction for officials within our

government. As the hon. member, I am sure, is aware, the Public Services

Commission has run a french language program which has been available to members

at a certain level in government who have to deal with people from other parts

of the country and, to some extent, people within our own Province whose mother

tongue is french. Early on in the term of the previous government it was decided

that this was a worthwhile program to pursue. It was recently extended, I

believe, last Fall, to provide part-time french language training around the

Island, in places like Stephenville. I believe it also exists in St. John's,

Corner Brook, and other municipalities throughout the Island. The intent of that

is to provide a degree of facility among our civil servants in the french

language. And these are people who, as far as I am aware and suspect, would be

anglophone and not francophone, the presumption being that francophone people

are reasonably conversant with their mother tongue or father tongue as the case

may be. So the amount has increased for that reason; it wasn't budgeted in last

year's Budget, it was $3,000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) former Premier, too.

MR. DICKS: Well, the former Premier didn't have a tutor.

We have a french language group. I know the ladies concerned, I believe there

are two full-time employees whom - I don't know if I should name them in the

Legislature, certainly fine people to deal with and very good instructresses if

that is the correct term, and they have done yeoman service, although it is an

notice the Clerk is smiling, because he has had the benefit of some instruction,

as have I, on points.

In any event, there is a french language service available

and my recollection is that the Premier was not in a position to take much

advantage of it because of his busy

schedule and was more to the benefit of the

other people who have contacts with those in other parts of the country. But I

wouldn't want to create another myth such as the Premier's chauffeur and all

this sort of thing that was recently traded, there was no, and I wish to state

clearly, no Premier's tutor. So, at least as far as I am aware - unless the

mythical beast was paid in some other category that does not exist in our

Estimates.

Having said that, I would point out to members as well, that

under the subcategory, there is also a cost savings because we recover a portion

of that from the Federal Government. This program is cost-shared 75-25 which is

why, at the bottom of the subhead, you will notice a recovery in excess of

$100,000. So given, we believe, the important nature of trying to provide a

bilingual service where necessary, although we have a very small francophone

population, we do have visitors and we believe at the intergovernmental level it

is necessary and certainly more than a courtesy we believe, and given the fact

that it is subsidized substantially by the Federal Government, it is a program

that we expanded on a part-time basis, one that we believe is worthwhile, as I

said, and during this year we hope the House will have the wisdom to vote for it

to continue.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

On the issue of french language assistance for members of the

House of Assembly, has there been any consideration given to expanding access to

that beyond those who are in Cabinet, to all members of the House of Assembly,

so that there can be equal opportunity for all hon. members to avail of french

language instruction?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly admire my hon. colleague's ambition in this area.

I am sure it is one that members of the House share. I should say that it is, to

some extent, a matter of the time available for the two instructors we have. I

certainly wouldn't be opposed to the notion and if any member of the House wish

to pursue it, I am sure we could take it up with our staff to see if they have

any time. As it now stands, I believe the Speaker is eligible, Cabinet Ministers

and senior executive of government, because those are the people who currently,

at least, are in a position to have a degree of linguistic interchange with our

fellows and ladies elsewhere in the country.

Whether or not we can justify it for the taxpayers extending

it very much farther, given the fact that other members of the House might not

have the same requirement, might be one that we should consider, but certainly,

to the extent that we have staff and have time available, it is one that I am

prepared to consider.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

If I could ask the minister, if he could turn to page 28,

under

section 2.7.01 and if we could look at Purchased Services for the Women's

Policy Office, we note that there has been an increase in last year's Budget

$34,100 to $33,600 in the revised Budget and that jumps up to $221,000 for

Purchased Services in this fiscal year. I am wondering what rationale the

minister could offer for an increase here which is in the vicinity of about 600

per cent?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes, I have had several comments, Mr.

Chairman, and if the hon. member will forgive me, I have a lot of notes here so

it is a little difficult for me to move quickly through them, but I believe his

question was with respect to 2.7.01.06 enquiring about Purchased Services in the

amount of $221,000.

My note says, and I believe it is substantially correct with

one omission, that this is for the design and printing of posters, pamphlets and

newsletters. It says, also included is a provision to cover the cost of official

entertainment. I doubt that - I agree and the hon. member shakes his head, and I

agree with that.

My recollection is that included in this amount is the amount

for the campaign dealing with domestic violence. This understates the importance

of what is being done here. While it says: design and printing of posters,

pamphlets and newsletters, the amount that is allocated is for a program to

create and increase public awareness of domestic violence and essentially try to

lessen that problem within our Province. One of my colleagues who could probably

give a little more detail and information on it, may be here shortly and I will

ask her to speak to the issue. My recollection is that that also includes an

amount for staff. I believe there is a co-ordinator and there may be a

secretarial position. It is just that I don't have the exact detail, but

certainly, to the best of my recollection, I am fairly firm in my recall on the

matter. Certainly, that is where we have allocated the amount for the campaign

on domestic violence, and other than advertising, I believe it also includes

some staff which may be in there as well but that's what that is for.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader, we

agreed yesterday we would go back and forth with a series of questions and

answers, because we are waiving the rules. I noticed the Member for Signal Hill

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to yield

for a moment to my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was trying to give the Opposition House Leader a break from

asking questions for a couple of times. I appreciate that there has been an

agreement to allow questions and answers to take place because in that setting

it is easier to have a dialogue with the responsible minister. I am going to say

a few words at the outset but then I would appreciate the same type of response

situation with the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

One of the common criticisms of government, particularly when

budget cutting is in place is that they don't start - is that they should start

at the top and complaints that they don't start at the top. Perhaps, in looking

at the overview of Executive Council, which I guess is the top by any

definition, it seems that when there is an overall program and budgetary

expenditures up in the nature of something like 10 per cent - I note that the

Office of the Executive Council has a budget which is greater than the actual

expenditure in the previous year. So instead of having a decrease of 10 per cent

or more, in fact there is a slight increase in program expenditures or

expenditures for Executive Council.

I note as well that the government was over-budgeted by $4

million in this particular category last year, budgeted for $23,400,000 and

actually spent - the revised estimate is $19.4 million. I wonder whether the

Minister of Finance can tell us by how many million dollars he has over-budgeted

this year? Is this a place where government asked the Minister of Finance to

have a large cushion for decisions that might be made during the year so that

the Premier and the Cabinet can have some flexibility without having to come

back to the House for further expenditures such as the new plan of having the

$30 million contingency hanging around to allow government to make decisions in

the interim without the necessity at least of consultation with the House?

There are a number of areas, and I will ask the - I will

leave it to the Minister of Finance to address that overview first. As I said,

the people who criticize governments, the people who are perhaps the farthest

distance from government, who don't have a window into details of the Estimates

will look at this and say here they are, the people at the top paying the big

fat salaries to the Executive Council, to the senior bureaucrats, and the people

who are helping to run the government are being looked after very handsomely

while at the same time, there are reductions in social assistance payments - in

particular, ones that we are quite familiar with, the $61 allowance being

removed and the fact that there has been no general increase in those kinds of

rates since this government came into office, the general rate, despite

inflation. I ask the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to

comment on that, and while I am at it, I perhaps could also ask him to comment

on the circumstance in the office of the President of Treasury Board

whereas,

although the expenditures in general for the office of the Executive Council in

the last year were $4 million under Budget, in the office of the President of

Treasury Board itself, there was, in fact, an increase over Budget of $100,000

for salaries.

I note that the expenditure proposed in the President of

Treasury Board's office is quite modest by comparison and it may reflect the

different attitudes of the minister in this instance versus the minister before,

but it seems that this minister can get by on $123,000 for salary

whereas the

previous President of Treasury Board needed double that amount in order to be

able to conduct his affairs. I am not implying that this President of Treasury

Board is far more efficient than the previous one, but perhaps there could be an

explanation as to why there is a $100,000 increase over the Budget in that

particular area?

There are a number of other points that jump right out at

you, Mr. Chairman. When one looks at such items under the Treasury Board

Secretariat as Information Technology Management and we see an increase in

expenditure from slightly under $600,000 in the revised estimates for 1995-96 to

$1.2 million - oops, I am sorry, I underestimate the revised estimates on Page

23 of the Estimates, $125,000 spent last year on information technology and now

there is $1.2 million, so there is ten times the increase in the office of the

Executive Council on Information Technology Management.

I don't imagine, Mr. Chairman, that all comes from certain

efficiencies such as perhaps the Minister of Social Services is discussing with

the President of Treasury Board now, where they decided they would

cross-reference to the Department of Justice and the Department of Social

Services and the people in the penitentiary so they would not be giving them

social assistance while in the penitentiary when, at the same time, it costs

$100-odd a day to keep them there. I understand there have been some

efficiencies undertaken in that regard, but I don't imagine it involves the

expenditure of $1.2 million for information technology.

When one looks, in fact, through the office of Executive

Council in general, we see substantial expenditures in the area of information

technology. Now, I know the government last year sold off the Newfoundland

government computer agency known as NLCS for a paltry sum of $9 million, so I am

wondering when we see these large increases in the Estimates for information

technology, if we are seeing the result of that in higher costs paid by the

government for information technology and information technology management,

which is essentially the use of computers and computer services.

If I may, I will leave those questions to the minister and

hope he will be able to deal with those, and I have a few others after that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have leave of

the House to answer the question the hon. gentleman asked this afternoon? I

promised I would supply him with the information - the Member for Bonavista

South. Will the Committee give me leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. the Government House Leader have

leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. TULK: It is a letter addressed to me from the Deputy

Minister. It says: `Re the status of the crab price negotiations, the FFAW,

representing fisherpersons and the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador, FANL, representing crab processors, commenced negotiations on the 1996

crab prices several weeks ago.' We know that. `This past week a mediator was

appointed by the Minister of Environment and Labour. Subsequent to meeting with

the mediator both parties resumed negotiations but these negotiations broke off

on May 30 after the FFAW rejected the most recent price offer from FANL, and no

definitive date has been set for the resumption of negotiations.'

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe the three issues were raised by the hon. the Member

for St. John's -

First of all, he says with respect to the general Estimates

of the Executive Council that it has not been cut. In fact, the revised

Estimates, or the Estimates last year, the Budget last year, was $23,426,000; it

is down to $19,957,000, which is slightly more than was actually spent last

year. So I think the general Estimates work very well, and I think it has been

proven in the past that the Executive Council has governed itself rather

efficiently.

As to whether or not there is a slush fund, or whatever the

hon. member termed it, I am afraid that we don't have those things in the

Provincial government. I don't know if the hon. member is aware of them

elsewhere, but if he knows where they are I would love to find them, because we

could use that money for Treasury and other better purposes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Slush fund?

MR. DICKS: I am sure the hon. member said it in jest, and

I take it in that fashion.

The reason we have Estimates, of course, is to say exactly

where the money is being spent, and we vote on it, so I doubt that one is going

to find any or very much latitude in these.

The second question, or the third question rather - I will

come back to the second afterwards - had to do with the IT budget for

government. I explained yesterday that what we have done is to consolidate the

amount for planning, and, to a large extent, try to control the IT expenditures

of government. What we have is a commitment to NISL, or whatever it is called

now, to spend $17,500,000 per year. Our concern is that the money be well spent

and that it not be over-budgeted. Some years it has been in excess of that, and

at other times our concern is that some programs and areas that individual

departments have gotten into have gotten a little bit out of hand, and I believe

that was, without naming the department, there was certainly a controversy or a

note made to the Auditor General's Report last year, I think it was, indicating

that there were problems with the computer systems in one of the government

departments.

Our concern is that - IT being a very seductive notion - that

we be very careful about how the monies are spent, and that if a person can

adequately perform their duties with an existing computer, or computer system,

that we not just automatically upgrade it because there is a new Windows '95

program, or something like this. But in government it is necessary for us to

have appropriate networking among our computer systems to make sure they are

compatible, and that is the reason the amount is there. This is essentially an

amount to properly plan an IT program for government and to control the

expenditures. That is one area that we scrutinized very carefully in the Budget,

and I believe that we will continue to do so.

His final question had to do with my particular office. I

said yesterday, facetiously, that I was trying to struggle by with a level of

staff. Essentially, several years ago there were two departments and there were

six staff, two executive assistants, two political secretaries, and two

departmental secretaries. Now, I have half of that; I have one executive

assistant, one political secretary, and one departmental secretary. Frankly, it

is very, very difficult to get by on that. My predecessor, Mr. Baker, had two

people essentially handling the Treasury Board and the Finance agendas, and the

various paper that comes through. As the hon. member may realize, some of the

sorts of things we do generate a lot of paper, and there are a lot of controls.

The sort of things we do in terms of collecting accounts, monitoring retail

sales tax, reviewing and dealing with the many requests we get for exercising

ministerial jurisdiction to forgive interest and penalties, and things like

that, go through an awful lot of hands. In fact, I am trying to rationalize that

system so we have fewer hands for it to go through but we still have appropriate

controls.

In essence, there are two comments called for, I believe. One

is that, as he says, my salary request is modest. Frankly, I could probably

justify another secretary. At this stage, I am going to see if we can do without

one. Secondly, the reason the figure was higher last year, $264,000 rather than

$162,000 budgeted, was that three people retired from that office, the minister

and two of his secretaries. So the extra amount there above and beyond the

salary vote was for various severance that was paid, I am told.

I think that deals with the three questions raised by the

hon. member.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I think it does deal with those questions. Particularly,

I am interested in this expenditure on Information Technology Management. It is

very easy to be overwhelmed, perhaps, by the proliferation of new technologies

and programs and processes that are available, and it certainly seems that

within government the demand for the latest in equipment and the latest in

technology seems to be very great. It seems, at least from my experience and

what I have seen, that no sooner do staff and systems get up-and-running and

integrated and working, than someone comes along and suggests that this is now

obsolete and you have to have a whole new batch of these types of systems. So

if, indeed, the government through this information technology management, is

able to exercise some sort of control over that kind of wild expenditures that

can take place in information technology, then I think it is money well spent. I

suppose, if one looks at the figures, it might be around 5 per cent of the

information technology budget being used to manage it. Hopefully, it will

achieve more than 5 per cent in possible ways of expenditures and we look

forward to seeing the results of this effort in the next year.

I was only being slightly factious in talking about the

reduction of expenditures and the fact that at the top it seems there is a

reduction from Budget, yes, but that means one of two things, either they

over-budgeted last year or that there was a built in flexibility with respect to

expenditures. I do see that the important thing in this particular instance is

what was spent last year, the $19 million, there is no decrease from the amount

that was actually spent. Perhaps the minister may comment on the relationship

between - once you have gone through the budgeting process and are now looking

at last year's Budget and this year's Estimates, do not the revised Estimates

play a significant role in determining what the actual expenditures are?

Otherwise, we are merely encouraging all government partners to spend every cent

that has been budgeted less they lose money in the next round.

There is a tendency in government, for managers, in

particular, to make sure they spend their money. Perhaps the minister can

comment on that issue in relation to the amount of money that will be spent in

the last thirty days perhaps of the fiscal year? Is there a substantial

expenditure of budgeted money in the last thirty days? Do we see people rushing

out in the last week or so to make sure their budget is spent? Is the minister

taking any measures to try to reduce that kind of apparently wanton expenditure

of government monies in the last

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I suggest to the Government House Leader that

if there is a difference between money being spent on March 31 versus April 1, I

would say a fair amount of that goes on in government, in the last thirty days.

I am just wondering whether this minister is on to that. Is he aware of that and

what measures is he proposing to take or has he already taken to ensure that

that is not the case?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: This is a serious question, I say to the

Government House Leader, as to how one exercises effective control over

government expenditures. When one gets to - eleven months gone in the fiscal

year you see that you are under budget - is there something that government can

do? Is there something that this minister did during the month of March to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I realize he was only elected on February 22

and appointed to Cabinet several days later but nevertheless, the question is

whether or not anything should be done, can be done or has been done by the

minister to control that kind of last minute or last several weeks of the fiscal

year kind of expenditure that may, in fact, be able to be put off for another

year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If there is one thing that we will not be accused of, it is

that we have been prolix or prolific in our expenditures. As the hon. member

knows, we -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) expenditure money. I told you

to wring it out just like water out of a cloth.

MR. DICKS: Well frankly, we did that last year. If the

hon. member will recall, most of our heads of expenditure are below where they

were last year. We took steps last Fall, late last Winter, to freeze, for

example, reclassifications, to freeze all furniture and all IT spending in

government which are, by-and-large, discretionary items.

I think one has to do it judiciously, though. If you take the

point of view that where money is saved, you automatically cut it down to last

year's level, what you do is, you also encourage people to spend what you do

give them. If a department comes in and makes a good case that it should have

$10 million, $5 million or $2 million more than last year, I think we should

authorize that; in this case, fine. The Executive Council, I think, is

commendable. They had a budget of $23-odd million and they only spent $19

million. That is the way we want people to operate. If they come in and say:

Look, we have transportation and communication, we may spend this amount, and

they make a good case for it, we say: fine, we will give you that, but make sure

you control it and don't spend anything you don't need. That is the way people

should manage. Merely because money is available, if used prudently, it does

mean you spend it merely because it is there.

If anything, I believe this last year was a good example of

how solid, fiscal management by our managers and under the prudent and closer

provision of the political authorities, can result in a Budget being brought in

on budget; and that is something we intend to do this year as well. Having said

that, you do need a degree of flexibility. People need that at the departmental

level; we also need to have it in a general sense, as I mentioned in the Budget

Speech.

It is very difficult for us to determine exactly where our

revenues will be each year. There are also expenditure-driven programs such as

in social assistance and to some extent our drug costs, things that we don't

directly control. We budget, we try to estimate, but if a mother shows up with

three children without a place to live, we don't say: we are very sorry, to pay

you would exceed the social services Budget. We pay from what we call

user-driven programs. If someone needs a social service that we provide, we

provide it to them whether we budgeted the money or not. Now we attempt to do it

as prudently and as accurately as we can but it is impossible to predict with

absolute certainty how many people will need to place demands on our services,

be here to pay our taxes or be here to be counted for equalization purposes. So

we do all this and we try to, and I think do an admirable job of budgeting very

closely to actual need.

Even if we were, for example, to be off by $30 million, that

is less than one percentage point on either expenditure or revenue, and that is

pretty fine. I think most people would acknowledge that, given the scope, nature

and size of the Province's Budget, it is very difficult to predict with extreme

accuracy much more than 90 per cent. In fact, in this case, if we were to be $30

million off - and this was another question raised, and I address it because it

is inherent in the hon. member's question - that if we were to be off by $30

million, that is less than half a percentage point of our combined expenditure

and revenues.

So as I say to the hon. member, and I know he is aware of

this, budgeting is a difficult exercise and it is one for which I do not take

credit. I believe our officials do a very good job of predicting revenues and

controlling the process. I would say to him, in cases where people have spent

less, or departments have spent less last year than this, we should not

automatically cut them down to that amount. To my mind, that suggests the way a

department should work and what we have to remove in our system, and which I

hope to address during the program review process, is to the incentives to

spend. Those are not because they are in the Budget, part of it is the fact that

people's positions and personal pay is often dictated by the size of the

departments and their budgets; and that is something we have to control. We have

to get our officials to the point where if there are to be either rewards in

terms of promotion or salary increase in our public service, they won't come

because you spend more.

There has to be a new ethic and that has to be that promotion

and a person's perceived ability will be based on one who provides essential

services in an efficient manner and spends less than a colleague might. Those

are the people whom I would certainly look to promote and not those who spend

the money because it is in their budget. I believe that is a new ethic that the

public certainly wants us to espouse and one that I know members of this House

themselves have echoed from time to time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the comments of the minister in that regard. It

is important that in managing government, we ought to avoid certain of the, as

the minister calls it, incentives to spend that have been part of government

ethic over a certain period of time. I agree that we really need to ensure that

dictating one's salary, for example, ought not to be the operative ethos in a

government bureaucracy.

There are a couple of other expenditures that I wonder if the

minister can explain. Under the Administration of the Economic Renewal Agreement

which is spelled out on page 26, the minister has allocated $340,000, in fact

the largest expenditure there for Professional Services. I wonder if the

minister could outline how and what particular Professional Services are being

spelled out here, what kind of people are they going to and by what process is

it determined whose professional services would be engaged for this type of

activity?

If I may just repeat for the President of Treasury Board, on

Page 26 in Professional Services, $340,000 is allocated for the administration

of the Economic Renewal Agreement, and the question was whether or not - this is

a very large amount, in fact the most significant amount in that particular

vote. I wonder if the minister could explain what professional services we are

talking about, why he has chosen to use that as a form of administration, and by

what process will the people who are to give these professional services be

undertaken? What is intended there?

It is a new vote and it is for the economic renewal

agreement. This is the $100 million that everyone accuses the Premier of

spending during the election campaign. He spent it three times it has been

suggested, and now we are going to have professional services of $340,000 to

determine how it is really going to be spent. I am wondering who the Minister of

Finance intends to engage to offer these professional services, how he intends

to find out who they are, what kind of professional services are we talking

about, and why is it not done through the normal administration of government

programming?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said at the outset, it is unfortunate that we did not have

another $100 million to spend during the election campaign. We will certainly

spent whatever money we can find for economic renewal, particularly where it

cost-shared 75/25.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will have to save something for the

next election.

MR. DICKS: Well, we will have lots more by the next

election, with the improvements in the economy that will take place because of

our fine, efficient, and wonderful administration.

In answer to the member's specific question, I should say

generally, I am sure the hon. member knows that what this is, is under

federal/provincial agreements, there is an amount allocated for administration

of the agreements. There is usually a federal/provincial committee that sort of

- well, you need the transfer of funds and all these sort of things to negotiate

these things. Professional Services in the amount of $340,000 is for consulting

services that may arise for specific projects during the fiscal year. I presume

those may include, for instance, some engineering services. It is not at this

point detailed but you may recall that we have budgeted, I believe, $22 million

to be spent of the total of the project monies this year, or the total $100

million. We are going to look to flow it over a three to five year period. We

have budgeted this amount on the basis that there may be some consulting

services necessary.

One that springs to mind, for example, is Corner Brook. There

is $5 million there for the forestry centre, or whatever portion we may flow. I

suspect that some of this may relate to those consulting services. Well, of

course, you need plans, engineering, and this sort of thing. Sometimes they are

budgeted as a part of the cash flow of the individual project to the extent of

its construction. The other thing, it may be general consulting services because

we are doing things in tourism and aquaculture, in these areas as well.

My note says it is for that purpose, that we may need

consulting services of various sorts during the year. I would say to the hon.

member that we do this generally, for instance, in departments such as Works,

Services and Transportation as well, for any projects, various professional

amounts, most of what you see for professional services, and even purchased

services often are contractual services of various consultants. In finance it

would be actuaries, for example, in justice it would be lawyers, engineers and

things like that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am a little surprised to hear that because it appears that

the appropriation is spelled out for the purpose of administration as opposed to

the operations themselves. I would think that if you were doing a project for

the construction of a forestry centre that part of the cost of building that

would be the architectural fees or drawings that are associated with it. This

appropriation refers specifically to the administration of the agreement and I

am wondering what consultants would be involved with the actual administration

itself.

The question is whether or not - the appropriation does not

refer to the programs themselves, and one would expect that architects' fees

would be part of the cost, for example, of constructing a centre. This

appropriation refers to administration specifically, and I wonder whether or not

Professional Services related to the administration of the agreement. It seems

to me to be a rather large sum for a fairly narrow type of appropriation. In the

administration of the agreement there is already a salary there of $81,500, and

I am just wondering if the minister has enough specific detail there to say

whether not that is actually administration that costs $340,000 in the one year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Chairman, that is a general amount. I

point out to the hon. member that these amounts are done in conjunction with the

federal government; it is cost-shared 80/20, as he knows. These amounts have to

be contracted for.

The only thing I would say is that - and the hon. member is

right to a point. In terms of a specific engineering project, most of those

monies are generally allocated, for instance, within the Department of Public

Works; however, in terms of general consulting services, for example, if you

want to go ahead with an aquaculture project, or how the money should be spent,

those sorts of things, those are things that do not necessarily get formulated

in the department. When you are talking about economic renewal programs, it may

involve general views as to, for example, what type of aquaculture; should it be

in the ocean or on land; things like this.

All I can say to the hon. member at this point, as far as I

am aware none of this money has yet been allocated. These are negotiated with

the federal government. They do, in virtually every case I am aware of, set

aside a certain amount of money for consultants' reviews should they so desire

them, but at this point it has not been budgeted for any specific items.

I will certainly be prepared to give the hon. member a report

a little further into the year, but at this stage the money is set aside in

accordance with our agreement with the federal government but with no specific

consultive service in mind that I am aware of.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I may deal with a specific instance and then a general

question regarding employment within the Office of the Executive Council, on

page 27 of the Estimates there is an allocation of $324,000 in Salaries for the

Newfoundland and Labrador Information Service, which is down from last year's

Budget but up by about $45,000 or $65,000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Page 27 - up by $65,000 from the actual

revised Estimates of 1995-'96.

Could the minister indicate why the increase from the actual

expenditures for last year for Newfoundland Information Services? We seem to

have lots of information coming out of the fax machines, and the Newfoundland

Information Service last year at a cost of $375,000. Why do we need an extra

expenditure up to $435,000 in order to continue that service? That is a specific

question.

While we are talking about hiring, or adding positions, or

filling positions within the Executive Council, perhaps the minister can give us

an explanation of the operation of the Public Service Commission in relation to

filling these positions. Now, I asked specifically yesterday a question in the

House about filling two positions, one of which is in the Executive Council and

the other is in the Department of Social Services. The question related to the

use of the Public Service Commission in conducting the job competitions.

Now, I was advised yesterday, after making inquiries to the

Public Service Commission, that these competitions were not being conducted by

the Public Service Commission. It had some role; they were contacted, they may

be liaising or some other phrase like that, massaging them or something, but

they are not actually conducting the competitions.

I know we have had the Public Service Commission in place for

many years. It is designed to enforce the merit principle within the public

service. It is designed to be an arm's length organization governed by

legislation, and not so close to a particular minister, or to the Executive

Council, as to perhaps be influenced by them. Of course, the Report of the

Public Service Commission emphasizes, as it did in its Annual Report for

1993-'94, the foundation of the Public Service Commission legislation is the

merit principle which provides for the identification, appointment and a

promotion of employees based on the best determination of job-related

requirements. It is suggested that adherence to this principle supports a hiring

and promotion process that is free from political, bureaucratic and personal

patronage. And it is the Public Service Commission, that arm's length

organization, that the public certainly has confidence in, that is not under the

direct influence of a particular minister or within the department. I want to

ask the minister two questions; one is, with respect to Newfoundland and

Labrador Information Services: Why do we need extra people, apparently, under

Salaries? And how is that person hired? Is that person hired through the Public

Service Commission, the arm's length body set up by legislation with thirty-five

employees designed to enforce the merit principle within the Public Service? Is

that person and are all persons under the Executive Council hired in

competitions, through competitions organized and carried out by the Public

Service Commission?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just point out, for the purpose of the record, that

from my point of view it is somewhat erroneous merely to refer to the revised

estimates and not the budget. In this case, the budget for last year was

$538,900 the budget for this year is $435,600, a substantial reduction. The

revised figure that was spent last year is $376,100. So, as I said earlier, what

we try to do is to allocate on the basis of a case that a department or agency

may make to government as to what its needs will be. We then expect that the

department or agency will manage its resources properly to spend as little as

possible to get the job done. What we don't do is penalize someone for a good

performance. In this case, where we reviewed their performance and saw that last

year they had a budget of $538,900 spent less, we reviewed and thought, well,

you got by, you did a commendable job, we are going to budget you $435,000. In

accordance with the department, we agreed you did not need to spend the whole

amount. But I really don't accept the principle that several members have made,

in addition to the hon. member, that merely because somebody spends less than we

budgeted last year that we should budget them no more than they spent. I think

the problem with that is if you adopt that as a principle all you will do is

encourage people to spend every nickel. So I think that has to be pointed out

fairly for the record.

The second point has to do with how staffing takes place.

This is Government Information Services. What I can do is tell him that there

are a number of people there. Frankly,offhand, I don't know whether or not these

are filled by the Public Service Commission. I think these may be recruited. It

may be advertisements that appear, they may be Cabinet appointments, I am not

sure. These are the public relations officers, for the most part, who advise

government. There is a director there, a program co-ordinator, a publications

officer and two word-processing equipment operators. That is Information

Services, and then there are several people, director of public relations and it

looks like a couple of public relation specialists there. So that is the

essential part of it.

It did raise the second part of the member's question which

had to do with the Public Service Commission and its role. The Public Service

Commission right now is in a period of transition. It is a statutory body. It

has an obligation to ensure that all hiring done in government meets the merit

principle. That is one that this government espouses and one that we intend to

continue. We have no desire to change the legislation to do away with that

principle. However, the fact remains that the Public Service Commission has

thirty-three employees. In doing our Estimates, we tried to fairly consider what

its staffing should be and what its role should be when we are going through a

period in government with very little, if any, recruiting. I frankly don't

believe that the number of people we have there, thirty-three, was appropriate

to the current needs. What we have done is, we have appointed a committee of

four deputy ministers to review the role of the Public Service Commission and

report to us the proper manner in which the merit principle, as espoused in

legislation, both done by this House, can be met, and the proper function, the

number of people and the type of organization we need to make sure that the

Public Service Commission fulfils its mandate.

What I am concerned about is that we have duplication. We

have Human Resources personnel in the departments. As members may know, if they

have ever been in the Public Service competition, you have a departmental

representative, someone from the Public Service Commission and you may have

someone from personnel. What we need to preserve and need to find a way to

efficiently address is how we can ensure that when government hiring takes place

it is the most meritorious candidate. That may be either through a direct

process of hiring, through a process of review or some other. At this point,

what we said to the Public Service Commission, and Mr. Olivero being the

Chairperson, is, report back to us, tell us what efficiencies you can achieve.

You know the direction of government, it is certainly not going to be

expansionary. You will probably have a lot less hiring to do in the future. What

is your view as to how you might best perform this role? What should be the role

of the Commission, vis--vis general government departments and its central

agencies, and as well, we have four senior deputy ministers to sit on a board to

review this.

My recollection is, Peter Kennedy is there; David Oake is

there, a former Secretary of Treasury Board, who also in Development, and the

other two individuals will be (inaudible) certainly provide the names.

At this point in time, what we have directed is that the

normal process of government hiring be adhered to until any changes that might

be warranted are reported on and take place, so hopefully we will have that done

over the next month or so and I will be in a position to give some fair

indication to the House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I raise the question for a couple of reasons. Obviously, the

public has a great deal of interest in making sure that access to whatever

positions that are available in government are widely available and that the

merit principle is adhered to, and I think that to date, people's expectations

are, that can best be handled by an arm's length type of commission such as the

Public Service Commission. We seem to have proliferated within departments our

own human resource specialists in departments an