June 6,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 23

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the gallery from Frampton

Elementary School in Monkstown, three students, two Grade IX students and one

Grade IV student. They are accompanied by their teacher, Ronald Buckle and

chaperon, Betty Dunphy.

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 to the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

I ask the minister if she would confirm if the Province pays

the cost of operating twelve tourist chalets around the Province at an

approximate cost of $4,500 each?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think it is twelve. We do pay $4,500 but I am not

sure of the exact number. There are two ways, actually, the Province contributes

to visitor information centres. I think four are run by the Province, the ones

that are at Port aux Basques and the Gateway ones and the others are run with

grants of $4,500 yearly to the various associations and Chambers of Commerce

that run them, but I am not sure of the exact numbers.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At Witless Bay, there has been a tourist chalet that cannot

open this year, one that had been receiving increasing numbers of enquiries, and

a tremendous job was done there by students in manning it, with an ecological

dig, boat tours - a tremendous opportunity for tourism in the area. However,

they can't open, because they need $2,000 to be able to operate it. So I ask the

minister: Is it possible to see that the department can assist, in some small

way, for the provision of $2,000 to ensure that a tourism chalet that served a

very important purpose in a growing tourist area can be opened this year?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, already my department is working

with the group who run that tourist chalet and have been trying to get this

problem resolved. I believe that is one of the tourist chalets that get the

$4,500 a year, but it is well recognized, the unique problems that they are

having this year in opening. I think this is a problem whereby several

communities in a region were attempting to do a very good job here. If I

understand it, is that not the one that maybe St. Pierre is involved in also and

have not come on-stream this year? I may be mixing up two here but there are two

tourist chalets that we are working with at this time because we recognize they

have special difficulties. I will certainly continue to do that work and we are

doing it as quickly as we can.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, apparently not, there is a letter from you, Minister,

indicating that there will not be any direct financial support to this facility

this year. In light of the department having spent in the hundreds of thousands,

really, to go out around the world actually, to encourage people to come to our

area, I just ask the minister - a very small portion, probably only 2 per cent

or less than 2 per cent of what was spent just on Bristol, if it could be used

to have something to provide to those people when they come here to our

Province. Will the minister ensure that, since it is important to have chalet

and information available to direct people when they come to our area?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I think actually the tourism

chalet that I am referring to is the one that leads down into Marystown and down

to the South Coast, but this one that you are referring to, I am also aware of.

It is the other one, actually, that has the more difficult problem to solve. I

will take it under advisement. I know that we do not have any other funds in our

budget and we are trying to treat everyone as equitably as we can. But my staff

have been working with the group there to try to find a way, within the

community and through other means, that will solve their problems for them. I

cannot commit money that I do not have but we are endeavouring to do everything

we can to help in that area and I commit to you that I will continue to do that.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice and the Attorney

General for the Province and it regards the Trans City affair.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Attorney General in

the Canadian Parliamentary system is recognized as the head of the Bar, is

assumed to be a member of the Bar, and is, indeed, the chief legal officer of

the Crown with duties of representing the Crown in court in all matters in which

rights of a public nature come into question, how is it that the present

Minister of Justice and Attorney General can act independently and objectively

on this issue of reviewing the Court of Appeal decision, and in responding to a

request for a judicial inquiry when, as Cabinet Minister in the two previous

Liberal Government administrations, he was an active participant in all

decisions surrounding the Trans City affair?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has some

reason to suggest that in my previous position as a member of Cabinet, I did

something which is illegal or wrong, I challenge him today to put his case

forward and we will deal with it. As of this moment, the court which dealt with

this matter, both the Trial Division and the Appeals Division, said there was no

grounds for any punitive damages. That has been decided. And, if the hon. member

knows something that he wants to make public, do it today and we will deal with

it, and if I have any reason, I will no longer sit in this place, but I am quite

confident in saying there is no action on my part whatsoever which interferes

with my ability to carry out the role of Attorney General in a completely

impartial manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of

position. The present Attorney General for this Province was a Cabinet minister

in the previous two Liberal Government administrations. He is presently the

Minister of Justice and the Attorney General for the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. A request has been made for the conducting of a public judicial

inquiry. We had a response yesterday that there will be a review of the most

recent decision from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Appeals Division.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of the integrity and the respect for the

position -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: My question: Should he not now dismiss

himself from any further involvement or consideration of any aspect whatsoever

of the Trans City affair?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will not answer that question

until the hon. member lays his evidence on the table. What evidence does he have

that I, or any other Cabinet minister, did something which is illegal and which

the courts already decided against.

The hon. member cannot hide behind his position in this House

and make accusations which are totally unfounded, with no basis whatsoever. If

he has the basis, put it forward. If he doesn't, then I would suggest that he

stop this line of nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

Mr. Minister, you attended a meeting last night with 250

people who are quite upset with the new policy with respect to the Crown land

pricing policy. Will the minister commit in this House to lobby Cabinet to make

changes to the policy, addressing the concerns that he heard last night and, in

particular, the concern with respect to the time frame of the new policy?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the meeting

last night, I will bring back the concerns that they have, and bring them

forward to Cabinet, and deal with them in that manner.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation. During the recent Budget, the Budget shows an expenditure

under the estimates for the Labrador Highway of some $4 million. Can the

minister inform the House if, indeed, the design work has been done, and when we

might expect to go the public tender for this particular project?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the design work for this project

and a number of the others are in progress. I would expect it to be able to go

to tender by the middle of July. We are anticipating and estimating that we will

be able to complete that work during this summer construction season.

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

South, on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As well in the Estimates we were informed that there was

approximately $6 million in provincial funding for work to be done throughout

the Province in capital works this summer. Can the minister now furnish the

House with the list of work to be done, and again inform us when we might go to

tender on this particular work?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a public

announcement on the allocation of the funds for the provincial roads program at

the transportation dinner taking place tomorrow, the last day of Transportation

Week in the city. The projects have been decided on, and I will be releasing

them publicly.

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

South, on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it rather strange that we are not going to get them in

the House, but anyway -

As well, Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years there has

been a large public outcry as it relates to the laying of calcium chloride on

the unpaved roads that come under the jurisdiction of the department.

Can the minister inform the House if the tender has been

indeed called for this work and if so, has it been awarded; and if it has been

awarded, when will this work commence?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I missed the early part of the

question and the specific work that the member was referring to. I would ask him

to repeat it, please.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: It is concerning, Minister, the calcium

chloride for the unpaved roads in the Province. I think there is some funding,

we were told, in Estimates this year. I just wonder if we have gone to public

tender, if not, when we intend to go; and again, what is the department's date

for the laying of this calcium chloride?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the member indicated, of

the $6 million that he referred to in the provincial roads program, $500,000 was

reserved for the calcium chloride program for gravel roads in the Province this

summer. Tenders have been issued for obtaining the calcium chloride. I don't

have the specific date when the tenders will close; however, again the tenders

were issued at such a time that the material will be available for normal

distribution during the peak summer months.

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

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

My questions are to the Minister of Education. The indoor air

quality at Donald C. Jamieson Academy in Salt Pond, Burin, is making children

sick. As a result of the alarming high carbon dioxide levels and low humidity,

children are experiencing severe headaches, nose bleeds, extreme fatigue, nose

irritations and other respiratory problems. The poor air quality problems were

confirmed by a study completed by the Department of Environment and Labour's

Occupational Health and Safety Division in February.

Is the minister familiar with this emergency situation at

Donald C. Jamieson Academy, and what measures have the minister taken to address

these problems?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we have been aware of the report for a little while now,

that was done through Occupational Health and Safety. There are matters as well,

Mr. Speaker, where there have been studies done on other schools in the Province

indicating that there are different limits of air quality difficulties being

experienced in some schools.

We are convening a meeting very early next week, actually, to

see whether or not the situation at Donald C. Jamieson is the worst of the

matters that we have to deal with, because we have a limited budget. We

understand that if there is a very serious threat to health, to the point that

the public health people and the Occupational Health and Safety people, Mr.

Speaker, would recommend the actual closure of the facility if it is not dealt

with, then we will have to look at some emergency way of dealing with that over

the summer. The meeting to make those kinds of decisions is scheduled for very

early next week with officials from the Department of Environment and Labour and

also our own officials in the Department of Education.

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

supplementary.

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

Dr. Catherine Donovan, the regional medical health officer

for Eastern Newfoundland, has expressed great concern, I say to the minister,

for the health of the 560 children who live each day in that school environment.

In fact, we have correspondence to that effect.

The school needs a new mechanical ventilation system. Our

children in Newfoundland and Labrador shouldn't have to suffer needlessly, I say

to the minister, while we go through a bureaucratic process that involves his

department, other government departments, the IECs and DECs. Dr. Donovan says

this issue must be addressed before this school opens in September.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. H. HODDER: I ask the minister: When will you cut

through that red tape and make a decision? It is necessary to have it done

before these children go back to school in September of the next school year.

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

MR. GRIMES: I thought I had answered that, Mr. Speaker,

to the point that that is exactly what we are doing. There are no delays, no red

tape. There are a number of schools in the Province that have some air quality

difficulties. There is always a financial limitation as to how many of them the

government could address at any one time. If the situation at the Jamieson

School is the worst one and has to be done, and the students cannot possibly

return there in September without the correction, then it will be dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, the meeting to determine as to whether or not

that is the exact situation, is being held next week. There will be no

additional risk to the students. There is no way to do the work, if it is

required to be done, while they are in school for the next two weeks. It will be

done if it has to be during the summer when there are no students in the school.

There will be no further health risk, there is no delay, Mr. Speaker; it is

being done on a timely basis with the understanding that if the correction is

absolutely necessary then it will be done in the summer period when the school

is in recess.

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

supplementary.

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

I say to the minister, that the levels of carbon dioxide are

five times the normal acceptable levels at Donald C. Jamieson.

I ask the minister if he would talk to the officials at the

DECs. He and I know, and the public of Newfoundland knows, that there are $4

million to $6 million sitting in the DEC account. Will he express to the DECs

the desire of his government to access that money so that the children of this

Province can have a safe, healthy school environment come this September?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue is being dealt with to the credit of the

Denominational Education Councils with respect to this matter. They have

indicated to the government that they are certainly willing to see the monies

expended in the most reasonable fashion to correct difficulties in the schools

that need capital expenditures; and I applaud them for taking that approach.

The monies voted this year, the $4 million, Mr. Speaker, will

go to the construction board rather than be allocated on a per capita basis to

denominations. From the monies of the $4 million, plus any monies that the

councils themselves will make available sometime during the year, if this is the

priority I am confident it will be dealt with. The meeting to determine whether

or not this is the priority in the Province and has to be done, will occur early

next week.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. On many occasions I have stood here in the House and relayed the

concerns of the people in the district of Bonavista South as it relates to Route

235, where the school children have to get on a bus, go to school and for many

mornings during the week are not able too eat breakfast, because of the

condition of the road.

I wonder if the minister would inform the House today if

there is any money being brought forward in her budget to do upgrading and

repairs to Route 235?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the details of the provincial

roads program, as I indicated earlier, I will be announcing tomorrow. I would

say, for the information of members of the House, that given the amount of the

provincial roads program, the $6 million, that government is very constrained in

the amount of upgrading work that it can do. There are a number of projects that

are carryovers and commitments from last year. Primarily, in addition to that,

what we will be focusing on, is doing essential projects such as bridge work and

culvert repair. Those comprise the majority of the projects that I will be

announcing in the details of those tomorrow. I will have to simply leave it

until that point to announce the specifics of which projects, in which

communities, will be undertaken.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. I

can't interpret what I am hearing from the minister. The House is expected to go

to a luncheon club to find out what the capital spending is for her department?

I say to the minister, this is not a social club, Minister.

That should be done right here in the confines of this House. We shouldn't have

to go out and take

part in some social activity to find out how the people's

money is being spent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Now, I say to the minister: If she is not

going to say if there is any money to be spent on Route 235, I also ask her

about another road in my district, which leads to the only provincial park. This

government has closed down two sites in the district already; there is one

provincial park that serves the whole area. The road from Bonavista South to

that particular park is in such a deplorable condition that you can't even pull

a trailer over it, I say to the minister. I ask the minister: Is she going to

bring forward any money from the budget for her department this year to upgrade

this particular road?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will be

sitting in advance of the luncheon to which I referred. It is my intention to

bring the details of the projects that I will be announcing to the House, and

announce it as a Ministerial Statement tomorrow morning.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology.

I ask the minister: Will he provide the House with the report

on his meetings today with the Marystown Shipyard workers' union and, can he

tell the House the significance of these discussions today?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't report on the

discussions today. They are fairly significant discussions. I met, this morning,

with the unions and management and I will be meeting with them again right after

Question Period, but I can't report at this time on the outcome of the

discussions.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: I ask the minister: Is it true that National

Defence is now ready to award a contract on the QUEST of the Marystown

Shipyard? Is the Marystown Shipyard, which is owned by the Provincial

Government, in any position at this time, to sign a contract on the QUEST ?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, these are all part of the

discussions. Certainly, Marystown, amongst five other bidders across the

country, bid on this particular vessel. We have had some indications from

Ottawa. It will require a significant performance bond to be posted by the

Province. It will require a significant outlay of cash to operate the yard over

the next years to execute on this project. These are part and parcel of the

discussions that I am having with the unions, with management, with the board

and with Cabinet.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: I ask the minister if he can provide us with

details of the preconditions that the Shipyard and Cabinet must meet before they

can sign a contract or accept work on the QUEST .

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, in the

fullness of time, all shall be told.

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

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

My question today is for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, regarding the Goulds bypass road.

As the minister knows, this issue about the bypass road in my

area and in the area of Kilbride, certainly on the Southern Shore, has been

ongoing for some three years. Can the minister say or indicate today when her

department will be making up their minds on whether or not that road will

proceed?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as the member is aware from

previous conversations that we have had, this issue of the Goulds bypass road is

now with the Department of Environment and Labour for an environmental review

and a decision by that department. So I am not in a position to be able to say

when the decision will be released from environment on their environmental

assessment of the Goulds bypass.

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

Kilbride.

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

I am sure that while the minister indicates that she may not

be in a position to tell the House if or when that Goulds bypass road may or may

not proceed, I am sure that she has met with the environment minister on a

number of occasions. Six weeks ago we were told that the decision would be made

within ten days. I ask the minister: What is the hang-up? Is there a particular

problem dealing with that road, that her department is looking at - or that the

Department of Environment and Labour have requested from the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, when the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation last dealt with this issue it was in the context of

further consultations between my department, the Department of Agriculture and

Agrifoods and the Department of Environment and Labour. This was the process

that we had agreed to in a public meeting that took place, that was called by a

group of farmers from the Goulds, some months ago.

So, at this time, the department and the Minister of

Environment and Labour have conducted the consultations and explored some of the

additional information that we were requested to look at by the farmers and that

I presume, from his perspective as the Minister of Environment and Labour, he

wished to pursue. Again, at this time, he has gotten that information, it is now

back within the Department of Environment and Labour and with the minister for a

final decision.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: A final question to the minister, very

quickly. Does the minister, without getting into the details of whether or not

that road will go ahead - we will assume that it will be going ahead - does the

minister see construction activity on that road beginning this construction

season?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the plans, I believe, at least

as I have been aware of them since assuming this responsibility, have been for

the actual design and project to begin in the Fall if it receives the required

approvals. So I would anticipate again, if the Department of Environment and

Labour does issue an approval for this project, that the project would start up

in the Fall in terms of the design work.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, nearly two years ago, a senior official in the

Department of Health said in relation to fetal alcohol syndrome that from a

health care perspective, this is an entirely preventable affliction, yet,

nothing has been done to combat this serious problem in our society. When will

the minister adopt a reasonable and corrective approach to the promotion of

healthy lifestyles and ensure that his government understands the true nature of

a healthy public policy and that these matters are not the sole responsibility

of the Department of Health?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member will probably recall, if he saw the Budget

Speech a couple of weeks ago, that one of the areas where we put an extra $2

million, in terms of resources this year, was into the area of community health.

That translates, really, into saying that we are putting money into areas of

education, health prevention and into areas of promoting healthy lifestyles and

activities that would, amongst other things, see a decrease in the level of

incidence in the syndrome to which you just referred.

So, clearly, the Department of Health, in concert with the

expectations of the public, is resourcing the community health boards, at a

level as never before, in a positive direction. We are proceeding to address

that issue and other issues by putting, as we have done in the Budget, an extra

$2 million alone this year into community health initiatives which will deal

with that and other matters thereto related.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

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

Again, to the Minister of Health: The minister sat in Cabinet

what his colleague, the Minister of Justice, removed one-half of the RCMP

patrols across this Province on our highways. The RCMP say that this will result

in more accidents. The minister sat in Cabinet while another colleague removed

the requirement of inspection of vehicles. How can the minister say that he is

promoting a healthy public policy while he condones such ill-advised and

unhealthy public initiatives?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not aware of any information that brings any correlation

into being with respect to the decrease in Mounties on the road and a deficiency

in the physical, mental, or spiritual health of anybody in the Province. I think

the hon. member has put forward a question based on a concocted view that the

question might have some validity in some people's minds. In point of fact,

taking Mounties off the road will not cause an increase in either an unhealthy

population or in any other thing I know of that has to do with health. I would

really like to ask the hon. member what is the point of the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

When this conversation is finished across the House, we will

proceed with the routine business of the House.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the

report of the Public Tender Act exemptions for the month of March 1996.

Petitions

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to present a petition to voice

opposition to changes in the Crown land fees. As many members in the House are

aware, we held a public meeting last night and we had a tremendous turnout.

There were almost 300 people there, with myself and my two colleagues, as well

as other members of the House who attended that meeting. The minister was there.

The minister had previously stated in this House that, in his opinion, even on

the radio show yesterday, that he could see no opposition to the changes in

Crown land fees. Well, I am sure that last night, if that was any indication to

him, he left that meeting with a very clear understanding that there is a strong

voice of opposition to the changes in Crown land fees.

As I have mentioned many times in the House on this

particular issue, many people in this Province, the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, are unable to come up with the large sums of money that government are

demanding for the purchase of Crown land. Even over a five-year period, based on

the 20 per cent fair market pricing system, many people in Newfoundland and

Labrador are unable to come with that money over a five-year period, and these

people have a genuine concern of what is going to happen to their cottages.

So, I am proud to present this petition to the House today

and I hope that the minister will take heed from the meeting last night, and the

many, many petitions that we will be presenting in the House on the Crown lands

issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition presented by the Member for

St. John's South.

There was a private member's resolution voted down in this

House yesterday and there were members on that side who stood in this House and

said that if there were any hardship to be caused by this policy it would affect

very few people.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Government Services and Lands

last night, attended a meeting with, we are saying 250 people - that is a

conservative number; it was closer to 300, but we will say 250 - and the people

were demanding public consultation, which is what was in the resolution. They

wanted the minister to come back to Cabinet and ask Cabinet to review the policy

to basically extend the time frame where people would have to come up with the

money to foot the bill for their grants.

The minister was at the meeting and the people were pretty

upset, and he saw it, and the members of his staff were there. My intention at

that meeting was to have information flow back and forth type of thing, but we

did not get into a lot of question and answer because most of the people got up

and made statements, and asked why there wasn't public consultation before this

policy was brought into being.

I suppose the minister did his best with the number of people

there. As I said, there were a lot of emotions flowing, there was a lot of

conviction in the room, there was a lot of passion in the room. I know one

individual got up, a gentleman; he was a pensioner at 65 years old. He sold his

house here in St. John's and moved to the Hodgewater Line in his cabin. He had

his wife with him; she was 71 years old. They figure that it is virtually

impossible for that man to come up with the money, anywhere from $1,500 to

$2,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: He sold his house?

MR. J. BYRNE: He was renting, actually. I should not say

he sold it. He gave up his house in St. John's and moved out.

MR. GRIMES: You said he sold it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, I made a mistake, I say to the

Minister of Education. If he was so committed to this policy beforehand, maybe

he should have been at the meeting last night. The Minister of Education has

made quite a few mistakes, and he has been on the hot line quite a few times

this sitting, Mr. Speaker.

Back to this petition: The people who stood last night and

spoke at this meeting - one gentleman from Bay Bulls wanted to know why his

lease was renewed back in '85 for $75 and was renewed again in '95 for $75. If

the government was having problems with raising the money, why didn't they have

an increase at that point in time, a legitimate, reasonable increase? That

wasn't the case. He brought up a very good point. If he has a lease now, with

respect to the legality of it, how can he be forced, basically, with respect to

the time frame of October 31, to apply for a grant? He was saying that possibly

the Crown Lands Act should be changed, and he asked a question to the minister,

if the Crown Lands Act was changed, and it wasn't changed to meet that

condition.

Again, as I said, when you call a public meeting, you really

don't know how many people are going to turn out. I was personally expecting

that if we got 100 people to that meeting it would be a great success, but as I

said we got at least 250 people. Since that meeting last night I have had a

number of calls in my office. I got one call from an individual just before

lunch, from Port au Choix. They had a meeting up there with respect to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose district is that in?

AN HON. MEMBER: Chuck's district.

MR. J. BYRNE: Chuck.

Anyway, they had a meeting with 100 people and they did not

have anybody there to answer any questions, and he was wondering if I could go

up and have a meeting, or call a meeting in Deer Lake, so that the people from

the Northern Peninsula could come down to that, so the people in the Deer Lake

and Corner Brook area could attend that meeting; and he was quite upset. He said

that the people at the meeting were quite upset. There are all kinds of rumours

flying around, and they don't have the information, so they were hoping someone

would clarify the situation.

I suggested that he call the meeting, he contact the

minister's office, and have the minister's staff go out and at least address the

questions that they have. I told him that I could not make it while the House

was sitting, and maybe that would be a good idea to try to get the situation

cleared up for those people. He said that at that meeting the people were really

upset. He has been at public meetings before, and he never saw anybody being so

upset.

I remember the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island

yesterday in this House stood on his feet and said there were going to be very

few people affected by this, there were going to be very few people have any

hardship with respect to this new policy. I had three people from his district

come to me after the meeting last night and ask what the comments were of the

Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island. I suggested that they get a copy

of Hansard and read for themselves, because I would not want to put words in his

mouth.

They were quite upset that the member on that side of the

House, and all members on that side of the House, defeated that resolution

yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would just

like to say I support the petition and I am sure there will be a very large

number of petitions coming forward in this House.

Thank you.

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

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

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition from the

residents of Calvert, Shea Heights, Mount Pearl and St. John's, who wish to ask

this House to voice their concerns relative to the change in the Crown land

fees.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the critic, has already

talked about the meeting held last night, and we would like to thank the

minister for turning up to a meeting called by the Opposition in the House. It

was very courageous on his part. People didn't get any answers but they

certainly had the minister available to them and the minister gave them the kind

of answers which they had expected to receive. In other words, they didn't get

anything at all.

Mr. Speaker, the minister yesterday, accused the Opposition

of disseminating misinformation, of not giving the correct answers. So the

minister himself last night went down to the meeting and he stood in his place

and he said he was going to give the correct answers. Well, at the end of the

meeting, there wasn't one, single person in that audience who was convinced that

the minister had any answers whatsoever, and there wasn't one, single person who

stood in his place last evening and agreed with the comments made in this House

yesterday by the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island; not one, single

person.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering, who is in tune with the

population? Where is all this dialogue that is supposed to take place? The

minister went down last evening, not one, single person said: I am in agreement

with the minister; not one. The minister in fact, I understand - I didn't attend

the meeting because I had another meeting on in my district - but I understand

that the minister didn't exactly get a very warm reception. We give him credit

for going. With more experience, perhaps he will stay home, but it certainly was

a courageous thing on his part. It is not very often we get ministers to come

out to meetings that are called by the Opposition.

However, the point that we want to bring forward today and

say to the minister: Did he hear what people said last night? Did he listen? Oh,

you have to listen in order to be able to hear. So we are saying to the

minister: Did he really take note of what people were saying, and is he now so

determined that this is the best way to grab $6.2 million from the people

unexpectedly? They had no idea until the Budget came down as to where the tax

grab was going to be.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board stood in his place

and said: I want to announce today there are no tax increases in this Budget,

and the members on the opposite side weren't content to go and thump their

desks, they all stood in their places and applauded with their hands. They said:

This is a wonderful thing, no tax increases. Then of course, we read the fine

print. Maybe the fine print was also in the Liberal Red Book, it wasn't

consultation, it was insultation. So basically, we have to read the fine print

because in the fine print, to the cabin owners in this Province, it said: Oh, by

the way, our contract with you, which you thought was for twenty-five years or

fifty year, that is not true. We are going to change it. We have the power of

the Legislature to go and change things, so we are going to say that what you

thought you had as a contract, no longer is in existence. That is the kind of

government we are, we change the rules as we see fit.

The minister responsible, last night went down to the meeting

and try to convince the people down there that this was all in their best

interest, that they had a moral duty to agree to what he was saying and that

this is a wonderful opportunity to get ownership of your piece of land.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know the calls that we have been getting

in our office - I have a lengthy letter here with an invoice attached to it and

came from a resident in my district. It is two pages long. I would love to have

time to be able to read it to the House in total but I can only tell you what

this says to this gentleman. It outlines his contract and then says what the

government now expects them to do. There is a big difference between the two.

So we say to the hon. minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - do what is right, change your mind and

start really consulting with the cabin owners of this Province.

Thank you very much.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to support the petition but I cannot say that I agree

with everything that the Member for Waterford Valley has said. I think that the

minister was certainly courageous in coming to the meeting but I think he was

also interested in what people had to say and wanted to hear what people had to

say. I would not want to discourage him and other ministers from coming to

public meetings to hear what the people have to say. I also agree, though, that

it is important that they listen and that they take the concerns back to what

appears to be a bit of an ivory tower over on the other side; a group of people

in decision making roles, who are so out of touch with the reality of life for

ordinary people in the Province that they make these kinds of changes and

regulations without consideration of the fact that the people who are affected

by them are affected quite drastically by them.

I think the minister, to be fair to the minister, got his

eyes opened as well as his ears opened a little bit last night when he heard

people who are genuinely passionate about the little bit of ground that they had

and the effort that they put into building a cabin or cottage on that ground, in

many cases over a long period of years.

I had occasion last night, and I did not in the House

yesterday, but I told the group last night that in my own family we had a

similar experience in the '70s and early '80s where our family acquired a

cottage lot from the Province, from Crown lands. It has been subsequently sold

by the family, but during the '70s all of us, as a family, worked together. When

we had a few dollars to put together we bought some rough lumber and cement and

by hand, by our own labour over a period of a number of years - it was not done

in one summer or six weeks or in a contract to some third party because we did

not have the money to do it - but over a period of a number of years, one year

putting the roof on, the next year getting some clapboard or some siding for the

outside, over a period of years a cabin was built for the family to enjoy

because we did not have the means for fancy vacations out of the Province, in

Florida or anywhere else, and this was a form of recreation for our family.

The people who were at that meeting last night are exactly

the same kind of people; people who by their own hands, by their own efforts, by

their own contribution have built a little place for themselves to be able to

enjoy with their family in the country, enjoying nature, enjoying the outdoors,

enjoying a bit of opportunity to get a respite from the city or from other

aspects of life. These are the people who were saying: Look, we don't want any

free ride, we don't expect to get something for nothing. But they were also

saying: We don't want the government to turn around on October 31 and say if you

don't come up with the money to buy your cabin lot out now, buy out your lease

and turn it into a grant, we are going to deprive you of all the money that you

have paid so far. That is what they are doing, that is what the government plans

to do. If an individual was paying $75 a year on a lease and over the last five,

ten, fifteen years has paid maybe $600, $700, $800 or $1,000, if they don't buy

out that lease by October 31, that $1,000 is going to be gone.

Whereas, if they

do buy it out on October 31, if they happen to have the money to buy it out,

that $1,000, $800 or $700 is counted towards the purchase price.

All the people were asking for last night was that government

understand the economic and financial position these people are in, that it is

unfair to deprive them of the rights that are contained in their lease, to have

their payments go towards the purchase price of those lots, and that people were

very passionate and emotional and felt very strongly about what government was

doing to them.

Now, I think the minister did listen. I think he heard what

was said and I think he was surprised. Perhaps when he was sitting around in

Cabinet there were people saying, as the Member for Port de Grave said

yesterday: Who doesn't have $2500? Let them all pay. Maybe when they were

sitting around in Cabinet he was listening to people like the Member for Port de

Grave say that, and he said: Oh, well, I guess, maybe I am wrong. Maybe I am

wrong, so I guess I will go along with it. Everybody in Newfoundland must be as

well off as the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Last night he learned the difference, so I

hope he will take that difference back to his Cabinet and have it changed.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the petition that was put forward by

the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is out of order. Only two members can speak

on the side presenting the petition.

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present

a petition.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: The petition reads: A petition to the

hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislation session convened. The

petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS many Newfoundlanders do not use Newfoundland Power

delivered electricity to heat their homes, instead use wood furnaces because

they cannot afford to do otherwise; and

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders suffering from the fish resource

crisis, the general economic downturn and deep government spending cuts can ill

afford increases in essential commodities like electricity at this time; and

WHEREAS not having had a rate increase since 1992 is no

justification for a rate increase in 1996;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

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

whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity

rates.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy today to rise and present this

petition from the district of Bonavista South. Once again the people are

speaking out and saying that this particular utility is already charging enough

and we cannot afford to pay anymore. I think the Newfoundland Light and Power

have applied to the Public Utilities Board for something like a 4.9 per cent

increase in electricity rates. Coupled with the harmonization of the GST and the

PST we will see not only the 4.9 per cent increase but also another 8 per cent

increase which will mean in dollars and cents that every Newfoundlander that

heats a house in this Province, will be paying anywhere from $50 to $60 or $70 a

month more that they are already paying. Most of those people are living on

fixed incomes. Many of them are living in rural Newfoundland, in older homes

which are not build according to the R-2000 specifications and as a result of

that, Mr. Speaker, their hydro bills, in most cases, are very expensive.

I say to the government opposite that maybe they should take

a lesson from New Brunswick Power. This was a headline in The Evening

Telegram just yesterday, `New Brunswick Power promises it'll be lean and

mean.' I would just like to read a couple of lines from this particular piece

that was written in the paper. `New Brunswick says it believes it can get in

fighting shape for a competitive marketplace without cutting jobs, without

cutting salaries and without raising rates.'

That was put forward by Mr. Frank Wilson who is the chairman

of New Brunswick Power, but New Brunswick Power has ruled out privatization, at

least in the near future. `There's no point in having a privatized monopoly like

Nova Scotia, said Wilson, noting electricity prices are higher in the

neighbouring province. To be successful we have to be the electric utility of

choice rather than relying on being the only choice.'

Mr. Speaker, those particular words come from the largest

Crown corporation in Atlantic Canada, and it seems like here in Newfoundland we

are all ready to cave in anytime there is a suggestion made by Newfoundland

Power or Newfoundland Hydro for a rate increase - allow them to do it and we

have to stay at arm's length.

The people I know of out in my district, I can assure you,

cannot go and dip their hands in their pocket and write out a cheque for another

extra $50 or $60 every month of the year. When we look at the cutbacks in social

services just since this new Budget was brought in, where there was $61 of

emergency money, if you will, that was there for people in need, people who had

an extra expense some month, it was always there for them, and now we have seen

that disappear. Coupled with this rate increase that this particular utility is

looking for, I say to the government opposite, it is going to be a real hurt

inflicted on many of the people who are out there today. I would also suggest

that $28 million is a tidy profit for any company, whether it is a utility or

any other business in this Province today, considering the economy that we are

facing.

So I call on the government, and I call on government

members, to speak up for their constituents, the people who elected them to

serve in this House of Assembly, and let's not get sidetracked because we happen

to have a job ourselves. Let's not get sidetracked because we can afford, or

somebody here might be able to afford, to pay an extra $50 or $60 a month.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Let's not judge everybody by somebody

else's ability to pay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to back the petition by my hon. colleague, in

support of the petition. Many of the members in the House of Assembly on this

side have spoken in outrage against the power rate increase application by

Newfoundland Power. We have heard very few members from the opposite side of the

House rise in support of any such petitions, or even to present their own

petitions.

Mr. Speaker, it may seem insignificant, a 2.9 per cent rate

increase by Newfoundland Power, but when you combine that with the tax

harmonization, the fact that school busing in the metro area is being

discontinued, that is an added burden on families. Social services, in certain

cases, are being cut back; the $61 allowance is being eliminated. Crown land

fees are going to be increased, insurance fees are going to be increased, all of

this coming within a very short period of time, and many people are unable to

face these collective burdens. Many people are going to find that all of these

increases collectively put together are going to put them in great despair.

Mr. Speaker, while I find it very frustrating that it is only

members on this side of the House who rise in support of such petitions, or

present such petitions condemning the power rate increase application, I feel

that deep in the hearts of the members on the opposite side of the House, they,

too, are very much aware of what a burden this will place on many people in

Newfoundland and Labrador and, for some reason, perhaps through caucus

agreement, have agreed not to get up in support of such petitions. But I feel

that many members on the other side of the House are, as well, aware of what

such a rate increase would do to many families, how devastating it would be.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand and support the petition

that was presented by my hon. colleague, and if it comes to a vote in the House

of Assembly, if it gets that far, I hope that most members will do a lot of

soul-searching and vote against any increase in power rates by Newfoundland

Power.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

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

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I am ready to carry the bill.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Under Order 2, there are two matters, one is

the Legislature and the other is the Contingency Fund. I am prepared to answer

questions on either of these. I would merely point out for the record that the

Legislature does not come under me, as Minister of Finance, it is under the

Internal Economy Commission, which is a by-partisan committee of this House. The

hon. the Opposition House Leader sits on it and another member of his caucus

with whom he is now conferring, as well as several ministers on this side of the

House and officials of the Legislature including the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.

These are straightforward estimates, I believe. If they vary

at all from last year, it is on the downward side. As members know, we have

reduced members' benefits, in particular, by approximately 11 per cent. The

other measures of efficiency achieved in those areas which report to the House

of Assembly, including the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer who is

also responsible for the Elections Act and the Conflict of Interest guidelines

and the Hansard Office, and so on, all have shared in the effort to contribute

to the efficiencies we are finding in government. I believe if members review

these, which I know they have, they will see that those targets have been met.

Last year, the overall Budget for the Legislature was

$11,338,000 being budgeted, $14,115,700 was spent and that is simply because we

had elections and that is an expensive process taking up some $2 million each

time.

This year we have decreased the Budget to $10,666,000 which

is a reasonably substantial reduction in that the order of decline of

expenditures across government is approximately 2.8 per cent to 3.3 per cent. In

actual terms of where the Budget would otherwise have been, it is down even more

substantially. So I will certainly be prepared to answer, as best I can, the

questions of hon. members. I should say the IEC largely controls the Budget done

in consultation with Treasury Board but I think it is a process to which members

of the House on both sides are privy.

The second area covered by the motion before the House is

that of the Contingency Fund. Essentially, while we are asking the House this

year to avoid the problems that we have had in past years, of mid-year

revisions, is to give the government a degree of flexibility. It is less than 1

per cent of our expenditures, less than 1 per cent of our revenues. I think it

is fair to take both into account in determining what our flexibility is and we

are asking for about .4 of a per cent. Because we feel that in the course of the

year, given prior experience, it is quite conceivable that expenditures may

increase due to the programs which are user-driven, and secondly, that revenues

may fluctuate and vary. It is very difficult to determine the strength of the

economy from time to time. Very much in our Province is determined by the nature

of our resource industry. Some of those are difficult to predict, the fishery in

particular.

So, Mr. Chairman, each year we project and we do our best.

Our own people do a very good job. The secondary which causes us the greatest

concern is that of the Federal Government revenues. Equalization is, as well, a

very difficult area of revenue to predict in that it depends on the strength of

the national economy and, as well, the number of people in this Province.

What we have indicated to the Legislature in the Budget is

that we believe it is wise and prudent to put in the Budget a figure - in this

case $30 million - to allow some flexibility. It is a figure that we believe is

- it is one we would ask the House to fairly consider. It is not an amount to be

dipped into at any point during the fiscal year. We have told departments that

you have a budget. There will be no Special Warrants. If you wish to do

something, find the money within your budgetary allocation. So we intend to stay

away from that special leave within government which comes flying at Cabinets

and Ministers of Finance on a regular basis, and that is, great new ideas with

no funding.

So hopefully my colleagues and I, with the fine leadership of

our Premier, will resist that very selective notion of spending money we don't

have.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, we do believe that there is a

reasonable down side on the whole area of revenues. The fiscal situation of the

Province, the demographics are in a great state of flux mostly because of the

problems in rural Newfoundland, and secondarily, in urban Newfoundland which

supplies much of rural Newfoundland with its commercial needs, caused by the

dislocations as a result of the failure of the fishery over the last several

years. That period of stabilization is now occurring. We expect that rural

Newfoundland will be revitalized over the next couple of years due to

initiatives taken by this government and also the ultimate, eventual and, I am

hopeful, triumphant recovery of the fishery.

So having said that, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that there

exists sufficient support, detailed in the estimates, to, of course, justify the

expenditures for the House, without which our great democracy would not continue

in the fine form in which it has since 1855, if not 1835.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, we would commend to the House, should

the day ever occur, to the Province's detriment, that my colleagues across the

House would form the government, we would certainly indulge them with a

similarly adequate measure of flexibility in the estimates they might present to

us or my successors, I am sure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must say, the minister is very presumptive there, in

indicating the Opposition will concur with what he said. It is my understanding,

too - and I guess I'll direct it to the Government House Leader - that this

Contingency Reserve Fund would be dealt with separately from the Legislature,

which is outside that. We will deal with the Legislature. So I will confine my

comments to the Legislature, and we will deal with this Contingency Reserve

Fund, this up to a $30 million blank cheque that the government has asked us to

endorse in this House; I will deal with that later on in the day.

Under Legislature, 3.1.01, Office of the Chief Electoral

Officer, he made mention to the minister that there was an increase of

approximately $2.8 million, I say to him, this year in the spending under the

Legislature, mainly because of the election that necessitated almost $3 million,

I think. If we look at the specifics it went from -

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Actually, about $2.97 million, almost

$3 million.

MR. DICKS: The $1.8 million was for the general election.

The other amount, I believe, had to do with the referendum. So, one was an

election, one was a referendum. But the cost of running a general election in

the Province is approximately $1.8 million, not $3 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: I thank the minister.

I will first comment on the general election. I must say, in

the thirty-third month of the mandate we had an election, and they had a mandate

for sixty months. Halfway through the mandate, we subjected the people of this

Province to a $2 million expenditure. They couldn't get the election over fast

enough.

When I look around the House, Mr. Chairman, and see the

government's budget and what it promised and what it delivered, I get to see how

much of a waste of almost $2 million that was. It was an entire waste of $2

million, to bring back a government that promised to give us something and they

gave us something entirely different from what they had promised.

In the referendum, too, I say, Mr. Chairman - if we talk

about the referendum, it's another $1 million, that's $3 million. It was a

referendum that this House of Assembly had no say over. In fact, very abruptly

one day in the House they made a decision, late in May last year, that the House

wasn't going to sit tomorrow or anymore and they left legislation on the Order

Paper and shut the House down. And the Premier - they went to the public the

next day and announced there may well be, it is possible we may consider, having

a referendum on the education issue, on amending the Constitution.

Then, three weeks later, they announced: There will be a

referendum - the day that schools closed in this Province. Then, weeks and weeks

later, they decided on the wording for the referendum. Then they decided to have

it over before schools opened again, when people were all gone for the

summertime.

We have had expenditures

MR. TULK: Imagine if he had lost the election.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think I won the election in my district,

as the member did. I think we have a tremendous Opposition here, I say to the

Government House Leader. I just wish we had a tremendous government that I could

stand up here and praise what the government is doing, I say to the Government

House Leader.

This Legislature has to approve now, a $3-million increase,

certainly in a referendum where elected members had no input into the wording,

no chance to debate that, no chance to discuss it at all; that is the $3

million. Yes, I would say to the Government House Leader, and I said before,

when I look at the people sitting in the decision making, I start to question,

yes, are we getting a return on our dollars that we are spending on that. We

would have to say no and I am sure the people of this Province would have to say

no, and I am quite sure they would if they had the opportunity today, I say to

the Government House Leader.

If he wanted to save real money under the Legislature - and

this is something that I have spoken on many times before - he should have

accepted a judge's decision, an independent commission, who proposed forty seats

for this Province. They arranged to have forty public hearings around this

Province at a cost of hundred of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money, and

after thirty-two meetings, the Premier directed the Minister of Justice then or

the Government House Leader then, to go out to Clarenville on the thirty-second

meeting and ask that we not have forty seats, look at forty-six seats.

MR. TULK: Why don't you go back and look at Frank Moores

when Frank Moores was gerrymandering the Province; it is the same thing.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I would disagree with it. I would

disagree if he did. I would disagree with it. I can tell you in 1970 they may

have gerrymandered and I would have disagreed, but in 1983, under Brian

Peckford, they accepted the independent commission's report. That is what they

did. You are going back twenty-three years to justify what you did last year. It

was wrong and that is why Peckford, in '83, accepted the independent

commission's report. The learned judge's recommendations were gerrymandered. The

Government House Leader of the day went out to Clarenville, Mr. Roberts, and he

said, not to look at forty. We had just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars

to get the report and he sent someone out, he referred a member - I am not sure

about the first name.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I will ask the Government House Leader if he could stop

interrupting for a little while.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know it is a tall order, Mr. Chairman, to ask that of the

Government House Leader, but let's hope he can follow and keep the appropriate

decorum in the House for which the Government House Leader is supposed to set

the standards, and that would certainly be appropriate.

As I indicated, the Government House Leader of the day, went

out to Clarenville and interfered with a process that was independent, in the

hands of an independent judge and a committee, and asked to have, more like

forty-six seats. So the judge and his committee came back and said: We will

recommend forty-four. But the government was not happy with forty-four, they

wanted more. They came back with a forty-eight seat proposal, forty-eight seats.

If you are looking at saving dollars in this Legislature, it

is about time we started cutting at the top in elected members and the dollars

that are spent in this House, and it has not been done. Now, we had an

opportunity to go from fifty-two seats to forty. We have the highest per capita

of any province in this country except Prince Edward Island. It is a very rural

province that has that low-population base. We had an opportunity to have forty

seats here to save in the millions, not a little token effort of a few hundred

thousand dollars. We had an opportunity to save taxpayers in the millions.

We have legislation in this Province that gives flexibility

between urban and rural Newfoundland. We have legislation that allows the

population to vary within plus or minus 25 per cent, to give some degree of

flexibility in geography like the South Coast of Newfoundland for example. It is

a very tough geography and is difficult when you have as many members there as

you do in a small

section in several city blocks within the City of St. John's,

but there must be a reasonable balance so we can have a fair representation by

population.

I don't advocate having twice as many in an urban riding

because we have to maintain a fair amount, so that there is going to be normal

representation. We had a chance to do that. We had an opportunity to do that and

this government came back and had a 10 per cent difference.

I will give an example now: The Member for St. John's North,

in the City of St. John's, I think has 6,700 to 6,800 people listed as voters in

his district, in St. John's North. My district runs from Maddox Cove to

Trepassey, and has over 8,400 voters. I have almost 1,700 more than the member

in St. John's North, who can walk around the boundary of his district in fifteen

minutes. In other parts in here we have more. I don't think we should have

bigger ridings with more people geographically in twenty-some communities, an

increase of 50 per cent in population within that specific area here, and they

have vast reductions, down to almost half in some areas, in urban areas. There

should be a reasonable balance within plus or minus 25 per cent; and I will use

an example. If you take the forty seats in this Province, as I am proposing,

into the population, we are looking at a little over 14,000 per riding.

An urban district should not be allowed to go up any more

than 25 per cent of that; 17,500 would be the upper limit. Maybe we would only

need to go to 15,000 or 16,000, because there are more urban ridings now because

the urban area is growing and the rural area is declining in numbers. So we

wouldn't have to go as high because there is a higher percentage of ridings now

that are going to be urban. We could go slightly above that by a couple of

thousand, and maybe a rural area could be down to probably 12,000.

Still, in a riding we have right now, we have far more than

that and we have forty-eight seats. We could have forty seats and have roughly

the same number. An extra 2,000 members in an urban riding, I don't think any of

the members here in the city would indicate that another 2,000 members would

seriously affect their ability to represent the people, or would give people

their undue representation. I think it is within a range that is acceptable. I

think we need to be looking at ways to save money.

In the Legislature here they are clutching and clawing $61

out of people who need to get batteries for hearing aids for two kids who have

problems in school. Their parents are on social assistance and now they cannot

get batteries for hearing aids. They cannot even use it to provide lunch where

the cupboards are bare in houses, at $61. Here we could have saved millions of

dollars by cutting back the seats in the House of Assembly and they would not do

it. Now, that is wrong.

Do we need forty-eight people representing us? Do we need

sixteen Cabinet ministers representing us? The United States has twelve - the

United States, with a quarter of a billion people. We have sixteen here with

half a million people. I mean, get real in this Province! Move into modern times

and look at ways that we can give reasonable and honest representation, and try

to look at the people who are hurting out there in our society today.

We have to look at ways to better administer our dollars that

we have here in this Province. We have not done it. We are just trying to pad

the political pockets, is what has happened here, and that is not the

appropriate way to go. I disagree with it, and we have to start looking at some

real cuts here; and forty seats is not inappropriate.

Ontario and Alberta, and other smaller provinces,

Saskatchewan, all of these have far, far more members, and Saskatchewan is a

very rural area. In fact, in Saskatchewan -

AN HON. MEMBER: We will give up one of ours.

MR. SULLIVAN: You might have to give them all up the next

time, I say to the member. You might have to give them all up at the rate you

are going. You won't have to worry, I say to the member.

Saskatchewan is very rural. In fact, 65 per cent of

Saskatchewan lies outside Regina and Saskatoon. Only 35 per cent or so is in

those two major cities; the rest of it is a rural area. It is as rural as you

are going to get and they have far more people per member than we have here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we need to be looking at reasonable ways,

realistic ways, in which we are going to cut down expenses and so on.

Running with an election in thirty-three months - I think

elections should have to occur every four years. Every four years, nobody could

prepare for it. You would stand up, and if you did a job in four years you would

go out and get elected, and if you didn't you get kicked out of office. They

should be fixed terms. It should not be at the whim of any one individual here

in the Province. In the U.S. it is every four year; we know when it is going to

be. I mean, Peckford call them in three years twice. We called it here in this

Province in thirty-three months, a little over two-and-a-half years. That is

crazy, subjecting the people to millions of dollars because one individual wants

to call an election, because he figures if we don't call one now we won't win it

next month. Well, I would say, whatever will be will be. Put it on a fixed term.

You can plan; you can give a four-year term, and you won't be riding a wave of

political opportunity to try to get elected into office. It would be based upon

merit, responsibility, integrity, and doing what is best for the people with a

long-term plan. These are the things we should judge when we have elections, be

able to judge different administrations accordingly.

That is the appropriate thing to go and it saves dollars for

the taxpayers. Would you not sooner use this measly $61 a month - in some cases

they only utilize a certain per cent, 20 or 30 - for people on social

assistance, for example, which probably adds up to $1 million less for the year,

when here in the Legislature we could save well over $1 million. Now, someone

who is getting $89 a month as an individual, I think, on social assistance, and

a family gets $372, I think that is the total amount they get to live on, and

here we are here in the House - how many do we need anyway? How many do we

really need in this House of Assembly?

It is time to start looking at priorities, priorities in

spending. We talk about health care and there being no decrease in health care.

Well, there are 125 people getting laid off in our health care system, and that

is direct layoffs as a result of this Budget, and we are told it is going to

have a slight increase in its budget, and we are going to maintain it for three

years. Well, we are not going to be maintaining the same health standards for

three years. That is not factual, it is not true, and we will see that. How can

you take 125 people out of a system, not counting the several hundred that are

going to be taken out by the restructuring in St. John's - they are separate,

that is just out of the system itself, direct employees - and expect to have a

better health care system?

The minister said: We are not going to jeopardize safety by

taking thirty patrol officers off our highways. If we are not going to

jeopardize safety why did we waste the money all these years? Why did we have

them there last year, the year before, and the year before if we did not need

them? Is that not irresponsible on the part of government, to be wasting money

when they do not need them? Then the Minister of Justice stands up and says that

it is not going to effect safety. I heard the superintendent, I think it was,

for RCMP in Eastern Newfoundland, indicating it is going to increase accidents.

It is going to increase accidents and there are going to be violations by taking

thirty people off the RCMP patrols in this Province. I think eleven on the

Avalon Peninsula, six on the Burin Peninsula, and another thirteen across

Newfoundland and Labrador, and then they tell us it is not going to effect the

speeds at which people travel, and it is not going to increase accidents.

The Minister of Health today said it is not going to have any

effect on health. Injuries are sustained because of a lack of proper prevention

and promotion, one particular reason, safeguards not being put in place to

ensure that the public is protected. It is crazy for someone to stand in their

place and tell us that.

The minister should stand up and indicate: Look, budget,

these are tough times. We don't have the money, we know we might be compromising

it, but we have to live within our means. Come upfront and tell us the truth and

do not try to tell us they are cutting and it is not going to have any effect.

We know it has an effect. Ask people out there on the highways today, and ask

people around the Province what effects cuts are having. They have gone to the

very limit, the people here in this Legislature who are making decision.

The unfortunate thing here is that many things do not get to

the Legislature of this Province. We find out about them later. The elected

members do not know what is going on. An example today: We are going to announce

at a luncheon tomorrow the capital works projects for the Province. The

Legislature is sitting and we do not know, we have to go to a luncheon to find

out those things. I give the minister credit, she came back and said she would

announce it, and I compliment her on that. She is very upfront, sincere, and

doing a good job. I say that to the minister. Most ministers would not stand up

and do that. I can assure you that they would not do it, but she had the guts to

do it, to come back and admit: Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I did not know how it

operates. I compliment the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation for

doing that. There are many other people who wouldn't do it. I think the minister

is sincere. If she did get scolded about something, so what, as long as you do

the right thing. If you get scolded doing the right thing, at least that person

can be happy with it. If your colleagues are not happy with it, it's something

else.

I am sure the minister responsible is very interested, I say

to the minister, in saving dollars here in our Legislature. I know there is a

ten-year review and that does not prevent anybody from moving within that scope.

We are not mandated, we have the powers to be able to make laws here, to be able

to change things and to be able to look at more efficient ways of spending the

dollars and to look at things from an administrative point of view. Because here

in this Province, it has been tough times. They are not going to get any better

in the short term, I can assure you. There are no projections of growth in our

economy for two years. It is anticipated that in three years time it could be up

to 7 per cent growth. That is one of the long-term projections.

Of course, they can be changed on an ongoing basis. There are

lots of factors, if Voisey's Bay is delayed unduly or it may slow it down. On

the West Coast,there is exploration that might be accelerated, that will help

the economy. There are good positive signs coming there, which is positive for

our Province, that hopefully we will have a very bright future and that we can

maintain those services that we have out there today. But until we get to that

point in time, we have a responsibility to ensure that we don't waste any money

out there, that we don't be wasting those dollars that could be more efficiently

used, and this has not been done.

We have - and I will comment a little later on this - they

have so little confidence in their own Budget that they are asking this House of

Assembly to approve $30 million without giving us any information as to where

they are going to spend it. They want approval of $30 million to spend without

approval.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is to pay off the Trans City stock.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is it? Maybe it is the Trans City. It is my

understanding that the lowest bidder on Trans City, if they had awarded it,

would be $19 million less to this Province. The preferred bidder, they would

have saved $12 million. On top of that they have already given it away, they

have to pay $1.6 million and it would have been $3.2 million because the appeal

court judge ruled that the reason it is $1.6 million is because we are not sure

that company, Health Care Development, would have gotten all three contracts.

One other company might have gotten another contract so we are going to leave

the door open so we can award that company $1.6 million. That is the intent of

reducing the amount that was awarded in the liability for breaking the Public

Tender Act. That was the guilt -

MR. J. BYRNE: What about the $19 million that does not

appear in the contract, what is that going to cost?

MR. SULLIVAN: The $19 million on the long-term financing

is going to be over thirty years. If you look in our Budget - you can see in

this Budget, under Consolidated Revenue Fund, on top of that, I say to the

Member for Cape St. Francis, we are paying $77,700 every year out of our Budget

for thirty years to put aside and we have to buy these back when we are

finished. We have to buy them back, $15 million at fair market value with

depreciation. I think it is $15 million it is going to cost us to buy them back,

that we paid out an arm and a leg in tenders to get just because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: - and circumvented and told by officials

they circumvented. The judge in the trial court and the three learned judges of

the Supreme Court of Appeal, the highest court in this Province, indicated that

you are guilty, you violated the Public Tender Act so we are going to award

damages. We are going to award damages to a company that was wrong in this, in

this Province. Now, there is something wrong when we spend about $30 million,

all the costs, the Trial Division, the cost of the appeal, the preparations and

all the related costs. I think they have to pay some costs associated, not

solicitor/client costs directly but other costs I understand they have to pay,

too. All these extra costs, and now they are debating whether they are going to

appeal it to the Supreme Court of Canada and run up thousands more when they

were found guilty. You can go to whatever limit, you can only delay justice for

so long. Justice gets served in the long term. You can only put it off. I can

see them wanting to put if off until after the election. They didn't want it to

surface on the eve of an election, and now it's out. Maybe that is one of the

reason why they got the election over so quickly.

Overall, in conclusion, I just say to the Minister of

Finance, we had an opportunity to save a few million dollars - I am back again,

I am not going to run away. I am going to get back to this a little later. We do

have opportunities to save a few million dollars here of public money. We wasted

$3 million this year, it was not necessary. We had an opportunity to save

another couple. We could have saved $5 million under this item in the Budget,

this year alone. They went out and spent - they said instead of doing that we

will get $6 million off Crown land people. We will charge them now. People who

took three years to build their cabins now, were paying $75 a year, we are going

to go out and make them pay $2,500. If they happen to be on a pond, they are

going to pay $3,000. This, for people who don't know where their next food is

going to come from, not saying where the next $3,000 is going to come from, and

there are a lot of these people out there.

Last night there were 250 people or more at the Holiday Inn.

Is there another meeting somewhere else in the Province?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, one just a couple of days ago, 100

people attended.

MR. SULLIVAN: One hundred people attended a meeting up on

the Northern Peninsula, just in that area. I mean, people are living around this

Province. Government said, no new taxes, and they increased fees up to six

times, I think, in some cases. In order for a seventeen-year-old to go out now

and get a driver's license, it costs about $80, assuming they pass the test the

first time. If they have to do a second road test, it will cost $130. A

seventeen-year-old, doing Grade XI, in level II - that $130 is out of the

parents' pockets. That is a tax to me. That is a tax. Crown land is a tax. You

can call it what you like, it is a tax on land. When we assess land under

municipal government, we call it a property tax and when we assess it here we do

not call it that, we call it a fee - it is a tax. It doesn't matter what the

arrangement is, it is a tax - money paid out of people's pockets.

Whether in a direct form or an indirect form, it is another

form of taxation, and in this Budget there were dozens and dozens of instances

of taxation, where they got up and preached: no new taxes. Didn't we hear that

before? Where did we hear that from? Was it George Bush? No new taxes, I think

he said. George Bush said, no new taxes, and we found out what happened. When

Bill Clinton got hold of him the next time around, we found out what his tax

policies were.

We are confident that this government will find out exactly

what people think of their policies and their tax policies, their hidden taxes,

when people have a chance to voice their opinions again in a duly constituted

manner - that I hope, for the taxpayers' expense, although, I don't know if they

would want to wait another four years to get an opportunity to express it. I

strongly believe in having elections every four years, but it is too bad they

don't get an opportunity to express how they feel about the promises they were

given over the past few months and how this government has delivered on them. I

don't think the report card would be very very good at all.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions for the Minister

of Finance with regard to the Legislature, but before I get into that I am going

to say a few general comments with respect to the Legislature.

This House of Assembly now has forty-eight members to

represent the population of this Province. I believe there is somewhere around

570,000 people in the Province and that number, of course, is decreasing daily.

Since this Administration took over in 1989, we have seen an outflux of people

in this Province daily and it is increasing daily in recent years, Mr. Chairman.

We have forty-eight members here now in this House of

Assembly and people have various points of view on the number of people to

represent the population of the Province. As we know,the previous administration

had an independent commissioner to go around this Province to have hearings and

to see how many MHAs should be sitting in this House of Assembly. The first

recommendation was that we would have forty, and then the government of the day

got involved in making recommendations to the Commission to change the former -

the Government House Leader went to, I believe it was Clarenville, to make a

presentation to the Commission, and what I find peculiar about that, Mr.

Chairman, is that now that we have the public hearings on the rate increase for

Newfoundland Power, we have asked that the government make a presentation on

behalf of the people of this Province to let them know where they stand with

respect to the rate increase and they decided that they cannot interfere with

the process. Yet, the Administration and most of the people on that side of the

House, most of the Cabinet ministers, Mr. Chairman, who were in place in the

previous administration, saw fit to make a presentation to the Electoral

Boundaries Commission when it would benefit themselves and benefit the members

of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that the number dropped from

fifty-two members down to forty-eight members. There was to be savings in this

House of probably half-a-million dollars to the taxpayer - which is not a lot of

money to some people, but I wouldn't mind having it in my bank account, I say to

members opposite. Half-a-million dollars - but what did we see? When this

Administration and this new Premier got elected, we saw an increase in the

number of Cabinet ministers in this House of Assembly and the savings that we

had, approximately half-a-million dollars, we lost that half-a-million and, in

actual fact, it has probably gone up to, if there are four or five new Cabinet

ministers, probably two to three million dollars Mr. Chairman, which is a lot of

money that could have been saved in this year's Budget. We had hundreds and

hundreds of people getting laid off from the civil service, yet we had new

Cabinet ministers put in place - increased the number of Cabinet ministers

where, in actual fact, they probably should have been decreased.

Mr. Chairman, because of this -

AN HON. MEMBER: What would you recommend?

MR. J. BYRNE: What would I recommend for what, Cabinet?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, the former Premier decided that -

what was there, fourteen, in the previous one? He managed to survive with

fourteen; and how many are there now, sixteen or seventeen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventeen.

MR. J. BYRNE: Seventeen. So, if they survived with

fourteen, why was there a drastic change up to seventeen? Is it because we have

a new Premier? and he had a lot of people to please on that side of the House.

He got thirty-six people elected, and that would be about twenty more than I

would like to have seen elected. Anyway, sobeit, the people decided.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-seven.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thirty-seven, is it? No, it can't be - yes,

right on, okay.

So we have maybe millions of dollars extra to be spent on

salaries, staffing for those offices, when we had to let go civil servants,

upwards of 1,000 to 2,000 people.

Mr. Chairman, any extra money that this government decided to

spend on Cabinet ministers, if the money had been put into the operations of

this Province rather than in the pockets of the Cabinet ministers, a lot of

hardship need not take place in this Province. We could have seen the $61 that

has recently been cut from social assistance in this Province saved.

I remember back in January, I went on an appeal for a social

assistance recipient in my district and we managed to, on appeal, get that $61

for that individual. That family received a letter the other day cutting out

that $61, and how many people across this Province received that same letter?

That could have been saved and the hardship on the poorest people in this

Province could have been relieved.

We heard the Minister of Finance, when he presented the

Budget Speech, say that there be no new taxes. Yet, we saw an increase of $6.2

million to come out of the pockets of the people of this Province, the cabin

owners in this Province - $6.2 million. As I have said earlier today, we had a

meeting last night with 250 people in attendance at the Holiday Inn, a meeting

that was called by three members on this side of the House, three members of the

Opposition, myself, the Member for St. John's South, and the Member for St.

John's East, and we had 250 people turn out to that meeting. Now, Mr. Chairman,

if you call a public meeting and you get 50 people or 100 people you usually

find that with that number you would consider the meeting to be quite a success,

but we had 250 people, people from Pouch Cove, people from the Topsail area,

people from Conception Bay East, people from the Southern Shore, Bay Bulls,

people from Conception Bay East & Bell Island, people from all over the area -

Actually, one individual came up to me after the meeting last

night and said he was in from Grand Falls. He wanted to attend that meeting, and

he would love to see a public meeting called in the Grand Falls area. So there

is a lot of concern out there with respect to the $6.2 million that is going to

be dragged out of the pockets of the people of this Province, the cabin owners

in this Province, and not only the cabin owners, but the people who have

residences, residential leases in this Province. That is money coming out of

their pockets also, money that they cannot afford.

Also with respect to the Legislature, and the extra money

that has gone into this Legislature - well, I can't say it went into the

Legislature, I suppose; it has gone into Cabinet - and the money that could have

been saved, maybe we could have relieved some of the increased fees that have

been charged to the people of this Province. The increased driver road test fee

from $15 to $50, is three-and-a-half times what the people were paying before.

They increased the driver learner's permit from $15 to $30, a one hundred per

cent increase - more money coming out of the pockets of the poorer people in

this Province. They increased the application fee for Crown lands from $50 to

$100. Now, that is quite an increase also, but again, it is part of the $6.2

million.

We had people say in this House that it is not going to cause

any hardship, or it is going to cause hardship to very few people in this

Province, and we heard, I believe, the minister say that there are 5,945 leases

affected - or people affected - I can't say 5,945 people, because that is the

number of leases. If you take the average family in the Province, probably four

people, Mr. Chairman, that is looking at over 20,000 people affected.

What about those people in this Province, Mr. Chairman, who

probably have been saving their money - wanting to build a cabin and saving

their money to pay for the lease, to pay for the application fee, to pay the

documentation fee and now, these people, if they are going to have to pay $500

or $600 a year, they will not be able to make application. So there are those

numbers, and we can't even measure those numbers, Mr. Chairman. We can get some

reading on the actual leases in place now but we can't get a reading on the

number of applications that could be forthcoming.

Now, there are a lot of issues with respect to Crown lands.

One would be the Ministerial Statement made by the minister yesterday, part of

his statement being that now, the government would be in competition with the

private developers in the Province. I was going to ask the minister about that,

but there are so many questions to ask, I never got around to him yet - the

Minister of Government Services and Lands. But, if we now have competition with

the private developers out there, will the revenues of the department actually

be decreased now because we will get fewer applications to the Crown Lands

division, and people will probably start going to the private developers more.

So, in actual fact, the government department could actually lose revenues, Mr.

Chairman.

Now, we have seen in this Province also, health care cuts and

again, I have to go back to the Legislature and this House and the Cabinet of

this Administration. How many millions extra we are going to have to pay because

of the increase in the Cabinet size? We saw health care cuts in this Province,

we saw social services cuts in this Province, we saw education cuts in this

Province.

Now, with respect to education cuts, Mr. Chairman, we have,

before the election and during the election this past winter, we have had the

Administration or the new government preach that we need to educate our people,

the solution to our problems is to educate our people.

Mr. Chairman, that is basically taken right out of our Blue

Book, that we have to educate our people; but what is happening here is, they

are saying: Don't do as I do, do as I say. Education in this Province has been -

I can't say the word `raped' I suppose, because that might be a bit strong, but

it has been dramatically cut. The possibilities for people being educated in

this Province have been dramatically cut. Post-secondary education is being cut;

we have the Kindergarten program being cut; we have the community colleges being

cut in this Province. Colleges such as the one on Bell Island and in areas like

that have been dramatically cut. So, if we are going to educate our people, and

that is going to be the solution, shouldn't we be putting more money into

Education and not taking away from it, Mr. Chairman?

The former administration talked about a balanced Budget last

year, and I remember the critic for Finance at the time, standing in his place

when they brought down the Budget, not the one for 1996-'97 now, but the one for

1995-'96. And it was supposed to be a balanced Budget but, of course, the

administration of the day made a lot of one-shot deals such as the ferry system

on the South Coast and tried to balance their Budget. And the critic for Finance

at the time, the Member for Mount Pearl, stood here and said: We are going to be

$60 million short. Basically, we were laughed at, but it is a fact, that is what

came to pass, that they were $60 million short.

The new Minister of Finance actually stood in this House and

said that - (inaudible) referred to the Budget as `smoke and mirrors' and now we

have a new Budget for 1996-'97, and they decided that we could borrow now, all

of a sudden, after letting hundreds and hundreds of people go from the civil

service, from different corporations controlled by the government. From the RNC,

we had a number of people hired on last year, they had their one-year

probationary period up and just before Christmas, I think it was the week of

Christmas, they had notice that they were to be let go. I was talking to one RNC

officer who actually had his letter, his one-year probation, I think, that is

the time frame; anyway, he received his letter the week of the announced cuts

that he had passed his probation and would be hired on permanently; and then he

gets the notice that actually he had to be let go because of the cuts.

Now I can get into a lot of issues with respect to the RNC,

Mr. Chairman, I know a lot of the RNC officers. I am hearing some pretty scary

situations arising with the RNC with respect to equipment. In one particular

case, Mr. Chairman, the equipment that these people have to use remains to be

questioned in due course. The vehicles themselves, Mr. Chairman - if they are

talking about saving money, I know the RNC have in their fleet I believe it is

an '86 or an '87, I am not sure if it is a Chevelle, or Chev anyway, with

probably over 200,000 kilometres on it. Actually now, instead of going out and

getting a new vehicle they are talking about replacing the motor; and it is

probably done now. Can you imagine putting that kind of money into an old

vehicle like that and giving it to the RNC to utilize when they don't know in

any given situation when they are going to have to be in pursuit of a car,

another vehicle or what have you?

So we have to look at the common sense here. The RNC has been

hit pretty hard over the past few years with the down sizing, with their

equipment, with the extra areas that they have to patrol. Also the RNC had to go

from a two-man vehicle to a one-man vehicle in patrols. It just goes on and on

and on. Yet we can find money here to increase the number of Cabinet ministers

in this House of Assembly. So you have to wonder about the priorities, I

suppose, of this administration and it leaves a lot to be desired.

Now, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the health care cuts, I

have to give the minister - on a scale of one to ten, what kind of a rate would

he get? Well I don't know if I could give him a five. I would have to sit back

and do a lot of thinking before I could possibly give him a five, but I will

give him a compliment. I did go to him with a problem a few weeks ago and he did

resolve the problem for me and I appreciate that. The problem was pretty serious

and let me tell you, if I get people coming to me in my district with a problem

for social services, health or what have you, I usually try to go through the

system to get it dealt with. I usually have fair and reasonable success but this

situation was just too hard to let go.

Basically, Mr. Chairman, it was a situation where I had two

individuals, an older couple in my district - he was eighty-one and the lady was

eighty-three years old. She was in bed - and I mentioned this here before - with

a broken hip. This individual, this poor gentleman, had to basically stay up at

night with his clothes on. He was that nervous he would not take his clothes

off. He tried to stay awake all night to take care of his wife of probably fifty

years. I was trying for two to three weeks to get that lady in hospital, to try

to get some respite care for her and to give this man a break. I finally did get

it resolved but it took a lot of time. If you have a person who is eighty,

eighty-one or eighty-two years old who has to go through that process to get in

hospital, Mr. Chairman, it says a lot for the health care system in this

Province.

I know the Minister of Health has been on his feet a number

of times in this House of Assembly saying that the health care in this Province

is improving. Now, by no stretch of the imagination can anyone really believe

that statement. Now I have had personal experience with the hospitals over the

past three or four years. I would say I have cost this government or the people

of this Province a fair dollar myself, and I appreciate those places when having

an opportunity to go there. We are really lucky to have these hospitals and the

health care to go to. I can say, with respect to the staff and the Health

Science Centre, any experience I have had in there so far, Mr. Chairman, has

been nothing but positive for me. All I can say to the staff is basically give

them a thank you. I could not really complain, but then I know that the staff

are understaffed and overworked. I know that the nurses in the Health Science

Centre - and that is where I can speak of because that is the experience I had -

are overworked like you would not believe, Mr. Chairman.

Even the general cleanliness of hospitals now is not as good

as it was three or four years ago. You can walk through the corridors now and

see bits of paper on the floor and that type of thing. I know the people in

there are trying to do the best they can, but I suppose you have to have a

certain amount of people to do a certain amount of work, and if you do not have

that how can you do it?

There are all kinds of other issues I can get on with, Mr.

Chairman, a number of other issues I would like to address with respect to the

Legislature. I have some questions actually that I am going to direct to the

Minister of Finance if he is listening. He might want to make a few notes

because these are specific questions with respect to the estimates. He can

answer them if he decides to, or if he can.

On the Legislature in the House of Assembly, on Page

Section 1.1.01, Administrative Support, you have Employee Benefits there going

from $1800 spent last year to $6000. I am curious as to what that would be for.

We have Supplies under the same

section going from $33,000 up

to $42,000. I will address this

section and then you can get up and I will get

back up again. Purchase Services are going from $41,900 up to $49,000.

Do you want to address these three questions, I say to the

minister? I am getting back up again if you do not get up.

MR. DICKS: I refer the question to the hon. Member for

Kilbride who sits on the IEC and probably has detailed knowledge.

MR. E. BYRNE: I just came in and I did not hear the

question.

MR. DICKS: The hon. member was asking questions in

1.1.01, Executive Support. I believe he asked the question about the $8300

there?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Employee Benefits, Supplies and

Purchased Services. Why the increases?

MR. DICKS: Supplies have increased marginally, and the

Purchased Services: I have frankly no idea.

MR. J. BYRNE: No idea. What a minister!

MR. DICKS: It is not the minister, it is the IEC, which

is comprised of the Member for Kilbride -

MR. J. BYRNE: And the Minister of Finance. He controls

it.

MR. DICKS: - and the Minister of Finance, The Government

House Leader and the Opposition House Leader, who sit down and do all those

things, and we try to decide on the amount for members. As to what Purchase

Services would be. In this case there is an IT amount in there, and it might

have to do with other sorts of Purchased Services. I do not think we would need

legal advice expressly. But as to what it would be in this allocation precisely

I honestly do not recollect.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I have a number of specific questions. Oops! A page gone. We

are spending all kinds of money in this Province and here I pick up a book,

Estimates 1996, and a page just fell right out. I do not know what we are

spending our money on, Mr. Chairman, but I think we should be getting a better

product that this.

With respect to Page 54 -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is done by public servants.

MR. J. BYRNE: Public servants.

On Page 54, I say to the Minister of Finance, under

Transportation and Communications, Transportation and Communications has gone

from $55,800 up to $205,200. Does the minister want to look at that?

MR. WALSH: He is going to take it under advisement.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not asking the Member for Conception

Bay East & Bell Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you?

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 54, under Transportation and

Communications,

Section 1.1.03. It has gone from $55,800 to $205,200.

MR. DICKS: Under Legislature, 1.1.05.

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister may not be able to answer

that, so I will just move on to a few other concerns.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can answer it if you want the answer.

MR. DICKS: If you could just tell me the category again?

This is Standing and Select Committees. Well, as the hon. member probably knows

there are committees in the House that include the Public Accounts Committee

which submitted to the House a rather, rather large and extravagant budget,

which as the hon. Member for Kilbride knows, far beyond the estimates that have

ever been spent in this House before, in its recorded history, and particularly

in the last three or four years. In my absence it was approved, and we have a

rather large amount for some other committees in this House. The IEC decided

just the other day that we were not going to let all of those frivolous

committees spend all that amount of money.

The next question, please.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the salary, the

accounts, the Budget allocation for the Legislature. He knew he would draw me

out in terms of the extravagant budget submitted by the Public Accounts

Committee, to set the record straight.

In the last three years, the Public Accounts Committee has

spent very little and, in my opinion, has not necessarily done the work that it

should have been doing. I say that with the greatest respect to past members of

the Public Accounts Committee. I thought when we as a committee met, myself, the

Vice-Chairman, certainly, and other members, that we had expressed, I guess, our

desire to be more active, to be more proactive in terms of ensuring that

government accounting, or public funds that the government provides to Crown

agencies and other agencies of government, that we, as a committee, had the

wherewithal to hold hearings, to seek answers on public financing, and how

financing of public monies was spent.

As the Minister of Finance indicated about a budget that we

submitted to the Internal Economy Commission, we certainly did submit a budget

that was above and beyond, a little more, not much more, a little more than what

went on in previous years; and the IEC, in their wisdom, approved a budget for

the Public Accounts Committee that saw -

AN HON. MEMBER: They were wise.

MR. E. BYRNE: They were wise, and the Minister of Finance

was indeed there. Nothing was approved at that committee in his absence; he

knows that full well. Actually, the suggestion that he made in terms of what the

Public Accounts Committee budget should be was endorsed by all IEC members,

including me as Chairman of Public Accounts. So I just wanted to set the record

straight on that.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the House of Assembly and

the Legislature in terms of the expenditures the House has made. We look at many

parts of the House in terms - let's look at the Office of the Electoral Officer,

for example, the Chief Electoral Officer. This is an area that I think we should

have a serious look at.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

We should have a serious look at, I guess, the role of the

Chief Electoral Officer. Everyone knows what his role is, but the reality is

that that position and that office is operating under new legislation that was

brought in by a previous government in terms of electoral legislation, dealing

with finances, how much we can or cannot spend, those areas. I think it is time

that we just have a review, in my opinion, of how that new legislation is

working, how the Chief Electoral Office and the staff at the electoral office

are coping with the legislation, and to see if there are any efficiencies that

we may be able to find certainly there.

I know that the House and the Internal Economy Commission

certainly looked at - and my colleague from Waterford Valley certainly can

attest to this - every possible way within the Legislature, the salary count, or

the vote required in the Legislature, the amount of money required, to make

suggestions where we could, to keep the functions of the Legislature alive

without reducing any further what the benefits are within this department.

The reality is, Mr. Chairman, if you look at Hansard

operations, for example, when we look at the money spent on Hansard, if we start

diving into how Hansard operates right now then we are faced with the question

of: Do we still provide, or will we be able to provide and maintain the services

of Hansard which are essential to the record of this House? Hansard right now is

operating at a bare bones. We looked at that and we said there is no way that we

could go anywhere else, that we could take anything else from that office

without effecting and affecting the service that it provides to this House, and

in turn the service that it provides to the people of the Province.

In the record of the House when the Minister of Education

gets up to speak I am always interested in the responses that he gives, and so

are many people in the Province lately. Hansard has to, for the record of the

House, provide the next day, or shortly thereafter, for members in this House,

what the recorded answers to questions are, what the recorded positions of

members are on particular issues, particularly ministers such as the Minister of

Education, so that we can see clearly, and the people of the Province, through

Hansard and the recorded record, can see clearly where government stands on a

particular issue at a particular time.

So it is very important, when we look at the operations of

the Legislature that we don't impact the service it now provides. There is very,

very little room left, if any, for further reductions to take place within the

Legislature, because if we do move in that direction, if we do start cutting

services, the very services that we are supposed to be providing as elected

officers will cease to exist. So that is just dealing with Hansard.

Certainly, there are other areas, Mr. Chairman, within the

whole department of the Legislature, which includes the Auditor General. I think

that from that point of view, I recall the Auditor General met with our

committee and proposed what she saw would be a 9 per cent or 10 per cent cut

across the board, and we accepted it and moved on; but again, we have to be

careful. I mean, the Office of the Auditor General is a most important function

when it comes to the role of government. It is an arm's length, hands-off

department that produces a report for this House and for the people of the

Province each and every year about how government financing is spent, and really

holds government accountable in terms of government's own rules and regulations,

and has government spent outside those regulations, where have they spent

outside those regulations and by how much.

So there are areas - in terms of the Public Accounts

Committee, the only Standing Committee of the House, much of it's work and

direction comes from the Auditor General's Report. So it is essential, I think,

that when we look at the Legislature in terms of what the Legislature is

supposed to be providing, what it has to provide, what it should continue to

provide, then we need not look any further in terms of the Legislature in terms

of what we can or cannot pass.

If government really is intent on saving money in the

Legislature, they can do it in a couple of areas. Unlike any other department,

the Legislature has no programs or services, has no programs whatsoever. We

can't cut say, like the Industry, Trade and Technology Minister, we can't cut a

market and product development fund which he had for small businesses; unable to

cut any programs. If we want to save money, it is on salaries and salaries

alone, and if we really are serious about saving money, then maybe we should

have accepted the recommendations provided by the Mahoney Commission and reduced

the size of this House to forty-two members.

There has been much debate about that already, I am not going

to further debate that point. We have what we have right now, forty-eight

members.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to stand up and

speak a few moments about the Legislature and I look forward to, certainly the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, making a few more comments on some of my

comments.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Before I recognize the hon. the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board, it is 4:04, and on a Thursday, normally I would

announce the questions for the Adjournment Debate at 4:30 at this time. It is

the understanding of the Chair that there is an agreement with the House Leaders

that the Committee would rise at approximately 4:25 and the House would go into

the Concurrence Debate; so there will be no Late Show at 4:30.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say for the record, I made a few facetious

comments about the ambitious Budget of the hon. Member for Kilbride, as Chairman

of the Public Accounts Committee and must be commended for that. I just wanted

to see if he was awake at the time the comments were made and obviously he was

and if not, he certainly responded to the stimulation.

Yes, the Public Accounts Committee is perhaps one of the most

vital and important institutions of this hon. House and I am delighted that the

hon. member is showing such enthusiasm for his new position.

Another reason I arise is that the hon. Member, I believe,

for Cape St. Francis, asked earlier about the $42,000 for Purchased Services and

I have the pleasure of informing the House that my good friend, the Clerk, who

is always very informed on these issues, tells me that it is due to the fact

that we have new members who like to have stationery and cards and things like

this and have to be equipped and all that. That is one of the reasons that it is

beyond what it was last year when our membership was more stable, but the whim

of the electorate is such that they choose to change us every now and then and

some of us even choose to leave of our own accord, and that necessitates some

adjustments on our paper and our machinery and our equipment and things like

this.

So I thank the Clerk for his advice and I trust it clarifies

the mystery of the estimates for my hon. colleague.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Well, basically I would say to the Minister of Finance, that

of course the members on this side of the House are always so upfront and want

to know the answers and open and honest and what have you, we are here to ask

these questions and it is good to see that we get the answers.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I want to talk about

the size of the House of Assembly, meaning the decrease from fifty-two seats

down to forty-eight seat. To save a few dollars for the people of the Province,

the previous government and the previous Premier - what was his name, the

previous Premier?

AN HON. MEMBER: Wells.

MR. J. BYRNE: Wells, that is it. Premier Wells thought

that it was a good idea to reduce the House of Assembly and save the people of

this Province some money, and of course we all believed that that would be a

good idea, so we went along with it and supported the idea. The members on this

side of the House decided to support forty, what the commissioner recommended,

but of course the members on that side of the House decided to go with

forty-eight after some input form the former Government House Leader. Anyway we

saved four seats, from fifty-two down to forty-eight. Then, as I said earlier,

Mr. Chairman, in my few words, the present Premier decided to increase the size

of cabinet and cost the people of this Province hundreds and hundreds of

thousands of dollars.

Mr. Chairman, that money that we could have saved, and it was

a possibility to save, could have put some more bread and butter on the tables

of the poor people in this Province; and this administration decided to take it

right out of their hands, Mr. Chairman. I have said numerous times in this

House, that there are people in this Province who do not know where their next

loaf of bread and pound of butter is coming from. As soon as I say that

sometimes I see members on the opposite side of the House snicker and laugh and

what have you, but it is a fact, that is a fact. Can you imagine if we had

another two or three million dollars to put into Social Services or into the

health care of the Province. It probably could - I will not say save a few

lives, but it could make life a lot easier for a lot of people.

I remember when this House opened after this administration

was elected in March and I said to the Minister of Social Services that I hoped

she would have a heart and show some compassion, because my biggest problem, Mr.

Chairman, with the previous administration was that, as I said before, they had

no heart, that they were like the tin man in the Wizard of Oz, they had no heart

and they were not even smart enough to know that they needed to have a heart and

go look for one, Mr. Chairman.

Basically, the House of Assembly is here to represent the

people of this Province and to try to make life easier for these people, to make

decisions, to administer the wealth of the Province, to administer the revenues

of this Province, in the best way they can. The people of the Province who are

being hit the hardest by this administration are the poor people of the

Province.

During the election we saw members, or I couldn't say members

at the time, but we certainly saw candidates go around this Province making all

kinds of commitments that they could not keep, Mr. Chairman. One of the biggest

offenders, I suppose, or biggest culprits - I don't know if that is a good word

to use in this House - is the Premier. He went all over this Province telling

this people that we will have a better tomorrow; elect the liberals and we will

have a better tomorrow. But what do we find out?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell them about the member's button.

MR. J. BYRNE: What are we finding out? We are having a

bitter tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk about the member's button.

MR. J. BYRNE: TNT, TNT.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dynamite.

MR. J. BYRNE: Dynamite, yes, TNT. Well, I did not give

much thought t