November

29, 1996 HOUSE

OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 43

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin I would like to welcome twelve business

management students from Keyin Technical College in St. John's, with instructor

Bill Norman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Be a gentleman on a Friday morning.

MR. MATTHEWS: Absolutely. Every morning. Why only Friday

morning?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the past several days, concerns

have been raised about the management and delivery of health care services in

the Burin, Bonavista and Clarenville regions. As I reported at the time, a

review process was put in place by the board to look into the concerns raised by

the medical staff. Today I would like to inform hon. members of the House that

the review committee presented the final report to the executive of the

Peninsulas Health Care Corporation Board last night. The full board will be

meeting this weekend to decide upon an appropriate course of action. Now that

the committee has finished its work, I am confident that the board will work

toward a speedy resolution of the issues and concerns brought to their

attention.

I've asked the board to follow up with the names of the

individuals supplied to me earlier this week by the Opposition. The board will

review each of these circumstances and respond to the specific concerns in a

timely fashion.

I feel it incumbent upon me as Minister of Health to address

safety concerns regarding equipment maintenance raised in the House over the

past week. I have been informed that preventative maintenance checks were not

carried out on all equipment in a timely manner due to an organizational review

of external service contracts. Once the issue was brought to the board's

attention, immediate steps were undertaken to correct the problem. All equipment

has been checked and all service contracts are now in place. I am confident that

this issue has now been resolved.

Further, I wish to add that follow-up with the private

ambulance service in the Bonavista region determined that ambulance attendants

ensure that patients arrive safely to the hospital and are not involved in any

further treatment of a patient. There is a treatment room in the Bonavista

hospital where patients are often delivered by the attendant; however there are

no surgical procedures carried out in that facility.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the Peninsulas Health Care

Corporation will work diligently over the next few weeks in resolving issues of

concern to staff of the Corporation and to residents of the Burin, Bonavista and

Clarenville regions. I would also like to thank all review committee members for

their efforts over the past week in preparing this report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well the minister has admitted today that my concerns are

well-founded. The minister was in a state of denial, I say to the minister, and

it is not only the last several days, but I raised concerns over one month ago

in a public forum on the area. He has admitted that equipment checks were not

done and it should not have to be the responsibility of an opposition to have to

reveal when equipment and service contracts are not renewed. It is jeopardizing

the lives of people in the area. It is the minister's responsibility and the

hospital board, the administrator, to see that regular maintenance checks are

done to ensure that people have access to the best possible health care. I can

assure the minister that I have other names which have come forward since. There

are many instances I say to the minister, many names since who were

inconvenienced and severe problems resulted from malfunctioning equipment and

lack of service in that area. All the concerns that are brought forward are

substantiated I say to the minister, there is an admission in this and what I

want to see now is some action on it to ensure that something like this never

happens again.

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

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

I beg the indulgence of the House today. This statement was

to be read yesterday but because of all the good news and the number of

statements, we deferred it to this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I represented Newfoundland and Labrador at the

first meeting of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministerial Council on

Social Policy Renewal in Toronto on Wednesday, November 27.

This Council was formed after the 1996 Annual Premiers'

Conference to build upon the provincial/territorial Ministerial Council Report

on Social Policy Reform and Renewal presented to the Prime Minister by Premier

Tobin, on behalf of Premiers, for discussion at the First Ministers' Meeting

last June. Through the Council, governments are working together in a new

partnership to renew Canada's social safety net.

The Ministerial Council is co-chaired by the hon. Stockwell

Day, Alberta's Minister of Family and Social Services, and the hon. Pierre

Pettigrew, Minister of Human Resources Development Canada. In addition to the

federal minister, the Council includes ministers representing nine provinces and

the two territories. Although the Province of Quebec has chosen not to join the

Council, there are observers from Quebec present at all meetings.

I am pleased to report to hon. members that this first

meeting of the Council took place in a spirit of trust, openness and mutual

respect. I am confident that the co-operative partnership approach evident on

Wednesday will allow our national social programs to be renewed in a way that

better meets the needs of all Canadians, in all regions of our country.

Canadians value their social safety net. It is a defining

feature of our nation. First Ministers attach great importance to the renewal of

Canada's social programs. They are looking to the Council to co-ordinate an

approach that supports and enhances the efforts of sectoral ministers in such

areas as social services, health, and labour market matters, to develop

practical solutions in specific areas of priority. Federal, provincial, and

territorial ministers in these and other sectors are preparing proposals to

bring forward to First Ministers with the help of the Council.

Mr. Speaker, at our meeting on Wednesday we reviewed the

progress of work done by federal/provincial/territorial working groups on two of

the First Ministers' highest priorities: the development of a national child

benefit; and the harmonization of programs for persons with disabilities,

including income support.

As Minister of Social Services, and this year's Chair of the

Provincial/Territorial Forum of Social Services Ministers, I take particular

interest in the progress of these efforts.

Child poverty is a serious problem in this country, and

together governments must ensure a bright future for all Canadian children. To

help make that possible, Social Services Ministers will, within the next several

weeks, review program and delivery options for integrating and enhancing child

benefits. The Council noted that tackling child poverty will require an approach

that involves both income support and child development services.

Both orders of government offer a variety of services to

disabled persons. I look forward to the response of the federal government to

the recommendations of the Scott Task Force, and I am hopeful that together we

can improve the ability of disabled persons to participate more fully in

society.

The Ministerial Council also heard reports yesterday on

issues related to health, labour market matters, services to Aboriginal Peoples,

financial arrangements, and options for intergovernmental mechanisms and

processes to develop and promote adherence to national principles and standards.

Mr. Speaker, by continuing the spirit of effective

co-operation shown in Wednesday's meeting of the Ministerial Council, I believe

we can design and deliver renewed social programs that meet the needs of all

Canadians.

Each government on the Council brings to the table unique

perspectives and experience. Each government has an important role to play.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador believes that all

provinces should have the flexibility and the capacity to meet provincially

determined needs and priorities within the context of national principles and

standards.

provinces have the resources to provide all Canadians in need with equal

opportunity and equitable access to national quality and social programs. Mr.

Speaker, we are not there yet but I sense that it is the will of the council to

take us in the right direction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to thank the hon. the minister for forwarding a copy

of her Ministerial Statement in plenty of time. I would like to say to the

minister that this social policy reform and renewal process is a good thing. It

is a national objective. I would draw to the minister's attention, however, that

it gives me some concern that I do not see the Chair or the Vice-Chair being a

person from Atlantic Canada because this where the social policy and the social

reforms are going to have the greatest impact. I am sure, however, that the

Madam Minister will be

AN HON. MEMBER: She is the Chair for Social Services.

MR. H. HODDER: It does not say that here.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, but she is.

MR. H. HODDER: Well, I am pleased to hear that. We are

getting an immediate response to a concern raised by the Opposition.

I would like to draw to the attention of Madam Minister as

well something that was begun here in this Legislature by the former Minister of

Justice, and that is an initiative to have the income support for - shall we

say, primarily by fathers who are removed from the family setting, have a

national registry so that we end up not having cases where we are trying to claw

back money from people living, say, in Alberta. There are initiatives in that

area, and I would like to recommend to the minister that she push as much as she

can to make sure that we have a national registry and a way by which we can have

all fathers, primarily fathers, but in some cases mothers, wherever they are in

Canada, if they are earning money to make sure they pay their child support

payments promptly, and that there is a system whereby we do not have this

run-around that occurs now.

I admit there is some co-operation in most provinces but in

some cases we would like to have more co-operation, and there are initiatives in

that area that I would highly recommend to Madam Minister. There have been some

discussions in this House and I am sure she is well aware of what I am talking

about.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health. I want to

ask the minister if he is prepared to table that report on emergency

investigation of the Peninsula's health care board?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I am not prepared to table it at all. As a matter of

fact, it is not a report that I commissioned, it is a report that was

commissioned by the Peninsula's Health Care Board. The full board has not yet

had an opportunity to even see it. The executive of the board received it last

night, as I reported, and it would be most inappropriate for me or anybody else

to table it today. The question really should be put to the Chair of the Health

Care Corporation or the Peninsula's Health Care Corporation Board after they

have done due diligence to the examination of the recommendations.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not ask the minister if he would table it today. I

asked him would he table that report.

Now, I would like to ask the minister if he will inform the

House, at some point in the near future, and members of a very anxious public,

what the vital findings are in that report - and as minister, you are

responsible.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I say to the hon. member that the report is in the

hands of the executive of the Peninsula's Health Care Board. They will be

meeting over the weekend to review the findings of the board and to address the

recommendations that are in the board. I have every confidence, Mr. Speaker,

that the Peninsula's Health Care Corporation Board of Trustees will do what is

right and appropriate in terms of the addressing of the recommendations that

have come forward and in terms of whether or not all or part of the report

and/or the recommendation should be released publicly or to those who have a

substantial interest in it, particularly the medical staff who brought the

concerns forward.

I do know, and I can tell the House in addition to what I

have already shared with the Opposition Leader that they will, as part of the

process of reviewing the report and working towards its implementation, I

presume, also be meeting, of course, with the medical staff in the very near

future.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, and only a week ago my statements were innuendo, they

were nonsense, they were political grandstanding and we saw an admission here

today.

Can the minister tell us whether the administrator is on

vacation still, or has the administrator been suspended as of now?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: No, there is no change in the status of the

CEO of that corporation. I reported earlier this week that he was on two weeks

vacation leave and that is the situation today. If anything further develops

over the weekend as a result of the meetings of the Peninsula's board, then that

will be revealed, as my hon. colleague, the Member for The Straits and White Bay

North says, in the fullness of time.

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

supplementary. I am sorry - the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We would get some

action here in this Province, maybe, if I was.

Could the minister confirm why his colleagues have dumped the

planned and promised essential 911 expansion program to rural Newfoundland and

Labrador?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Province has in place at

the moment a couple of 911 systems, as I understand it. The responsibility, of

course, for that service, and the jurisdiction that answers questions on that

would be my colleague who happens not to be here, the hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

We are continuing to review all that we do in government in

terms of all types of public services. In case the hon. member has not heard,

there was a process in place called Program Review, and we will be dealing with

all issues of importance, vis--vis programs that programs delivers, within the

next two or three months in a substantial way.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that an

expansion to 911 that would greatly enhance the service in rural Newfoundland

has now been dumped.

Minister, you have decimated the ambulance service in

Newfoundland and Labrador, you have put the hospitals into disarray, and now you

are telling us that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is not worth the cash to put

an essential emergency service in place.

Should we tell the people of the Province to call 745-8832

when there is an emergency? When are you going to stop cutting the guts out of

health care in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am really happy for the

Leader of the Opposition that Friday has come because it must be tough bearing

the burden of a large, black cloud that follows him everywhere he goes all week

long when the House is open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, we

have had a report this morning from the Minister of Health that is absolutely

consistent with what the Minister of Health has been saying for the last number

of days, that there is a report, there is a review being done of the problems

that have been raised about the Burin, Bonavista and Clarenville regions, that

when the report was finished it would be presented to the health care board in

question, that the board in question would review the findings, take remedial

measures, and that the people of the area affected, those who care about health

care - and I hope all of us in this House care about health care - would be

reassured that appropriate steps are being taken.

Mr. Speaker, that is called due process. Standing in the

House, merely raising a problem, inflaming the situation, suggesting that all is

lost, that rural Newfoundland is being abandoned, is not responsible. The fact

is, this government has put in place a new Department of Development and Rural

Renewal. It has a minister who is acting, I say, with all swiftness and due

diligence to restore some confidence to rural Newfoundland, to make sure that

rural Newfoundland is part and parcel of every Cabinet deliberation and, may I

say, there are some signs of confidence in what the government has been doing

out there in recent days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of topics this morning for two

ministers. On the first topic, I would like to address my question to the hon.

the Minister of Justice.

The Minister of Finance announced yesterday that the

Province's economic and fiscal position is better than expected, and today we

will hear this much anticipated announcement about the construction of a smelter

refinery complex, putting this Province in an even better revenue position.

My question to the minister is this: Is this not a good time

for this government to do something more than simply admit its shared liability

for abuses against Mount Cashel residents, and to actually cut these victims -

all of these victims - a cheque, instead of making them wait any longer?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, but if I were

one, I would certainly know the impropriety of trying to discuss a case which is

about to go before the courts. Even an ignorant non-lawyer like me knows the

difference of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: As for spending the money that the Minister

of Finance is talking about, we are not going to fall into the trap that the

Peckford Administration fell into when they spent like a bunch of people who

thought -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - when they were going around arguing, `some

day the sun will shine and have not will be no more' -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - spending as if we were a `have' province,

Mr. Speaker. We will continue with prudent management, as we have done for the

last number of years. The people of this Province, as was shown yesterday in the

most recent poll, want prudent management, and we will continue with that, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that was

an inconsiderate and heartless response to a very serious issue. As Minister of

Justice and Attorney General, this individual can take a leadership role in

concluding and resolving this matter. I ask, in view of the incomprehensible

pain these individuals have suffered, and the long years they have been waiting

for justice, will this government consider providing these individuals with full

restitution now to all victims on a compassionate basis to let them get on with

building their shattered lives, and not months or years down this road?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, nobody has more compassion for

the victims of Mount Cashel than I do. We understand them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: But it is not in the best interest of the

victims of Mount Cashel to negotiate this issue in public. There are lawyers

representing the Mount Cashel victims and there are lawyers who are representing

government in this issue. I can assure you that it is the will of this

government that every victim of Mount Cashel be treated compassionately, and we

will ensure that is done, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I simply ask the minister: How much longer? The people of

this Province have had enough, and believe me, the victims of abuse, the former

residents of Mount Cashel, have had enough. They want to see an answer and a

conclusion to this issue. Many Mount Cashel victims today, like other victims of

abuse, are living with debilitating nightmares and despair, alcoholism, HIV,

joblessness and poverty. How much longer will these victims of Provincial

Government abuse have to continue to endure victimization by cold and callous

bureaucracies, and why does not the minister today agree to cut them all a

check?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asks how much

longer. I wish it were solved five years ago. I wish it had never happened. But

the reality is, we have to deal with this in the appropriate manner. Surely to

goodness, the hon. member is not suggesting that we negotiate this and try to

make political points out of the victims of Mount Cashel? I think it is utterly

disgraceful, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

My question this morning is for the Minister of Education.

Recently, in a daily paper, the Vice-President Academic of the University

indicated that he wasn't sure if rising tuition costs over the last seven years,

which have risen by some 120 per cent to 130 per cent, really impacted upon

students not going to University. I contend that it does. Does the minister

share the Vice-President Academic's point of view that rising tuition costs have

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think it is my role to suggest that an opinion held

by the Vice-President of the University is either accurate or inaccurate -it is

his opinion.

In fact, the whole issue of tuition - it is interesting,

actually, to have a debate from time to time with respect to tuition rates in

the Province. The issue is not whether or not there should be higher or lower

tuition. The issue that all of the governments in the country, and a large part

of the lead being taken by our Premier at the First Ministers meeting in Jasper,

is the issue of student debt for students throughout the country, students in

Newfoundland and Labrador, not only at the University but in all post-secondary

institutions, not only in the public sector, but also in private schools.

The governments, federal, provincial and territorial, are

concerned about increasing levels of student debt. There are some initiatives

underway and some discussions going on between the different provincial and

territorial governments and the federal government as to ways we might be able

to more creatively approach the issue of student debt to the benefit of students

in the Province in the not-too-distant future.

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

supplementary.

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

I am still not sure what the minister said. Does he share the

did not answer the question but that is fair enough.

The minister indicated that there are some initiative

dealings underway, federal/provincial initiatives, dealing with the rising

student debt which has risen or almost doubled for just an average graduate or

post-graduate degree. Can the minister enlighten the House on what those

initiatives are? Are we looking at for example, government both federally and

provincially, looking at lowering tuition costs or initiatives aimed at lowering

tuition costs which, as an end result, will see less student debt? Is that

happening? What initiatives are underway and, can he enlighten the House today

on any or all of those initiatives?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just briefly, on a couple of issues with respect to some

background. Recently I think, and as the hon. member knows and all members of

the House know, there were some changes made with respect to tuition at

post-secondary institutions in our Province, particularly at the University and

in response to that, immediately the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

through the Student Aid Division provided for some increases in the level of

Student Aid, that students could actually access in Newfoundland and Labrador,

so that we are now at the maximum limits provided under the Canada Student Loan

Agreement between the Province and the federal government.

The issue as well was raised as I indicated in answer to the

previous question, Mr. Speaker, by the Premier at the First Minister's meeting

because of the fact that all of us are concerned about increasing levels of

student debt. There is an initiative by the way, in this Province that is being

used as a model for the rest of the country and we are trying to get the federal

government to buy into as well from their portion of the Canada Student Loan

Program because I think all members know that the Province pays a certain part

or there are allowances for a certain part. The federal government provides for

an allowance for a certain part and then there is a combined student loan.

On the provincial portion, we have a program, Mr. Speaker,

that the former Minister of Education piloted and led in this Province of the

idea of remission of debt once it goes beyond a certain level and our Premier,

at the First Ministers' meeting impressed upon the First Ministers' from the

rest of the country, Mr. Speaker, as to why that remission component should also

be added to the federal portion of the loan so that there would be some real

relief and some real limits in terms of the total amount of debt that a student

might be expected to incur in getting a certificate, a diploma or a degree at a

post-secondary institution in our Province or in some other institution in the

country. So in fact, Mr. Speaker, those initiatives have been ongoing, we are

still in discussions. Last week, actually before we left to go to Gander last

Friday, I met with one of the federal ministers -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to conclude but

it is difficult to conclude when there is so much to tell, but the fact is that

probably, Mr. Speaker, there would be a further supplementary and I could add

some more information at that time.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are about

10,000 post-secondary institutions or students in the Province who would also

agree with the minister, that it is difficult to conclude a degree because of

rising tuition costs. It is difficult to conclude a degree because at the end of

it, you come out owing $40,000 or $50,000 and the initiatives that you have

outlined simply mean nothing.

Let me ask him this question: Recently the Chairman of

Newfoundland Tel, Mr. Vince Withers, indicated that on a trip to Ireland he saw

that free tuition over the last three years which has been phased in over a

period of the last three years in Ireland, was a very positive thing and that it

contributed greatly to the growing economy of Ireland. Does the minister share a

view that free tuition is an idea that government should look at, that it is

something worth proceeding with and that at the end of the day, it is a

worthwhile initiative and will produce concrete economic results for the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted as well that the hon. member referenced the

comments of one of the participants in the recent trip to Ireland, which was a

very productive trip in terms of the Memorandum Of Understanding that was signed

and the involvement of representatives of the business community who went, and

found out such things as were referenced in the question put by the hon. member,

Mr. Speaker.

The reality of it is that, that whole issue again is under

review in Ireland because it is in its early stages having just been phased in.

There is a debate in the country, and I have also been party

and partial to some information that reflects that the debate is raging

completely in Ireland. There are already groups out saying that there is not a

direct connection between the tuition decisions taken and the economic

development that has occurred in Ireland. There are a whole range of factors and

many people are now suggesting, the least of which might have been the

connection to free tuition, because there were so many other initiatives that

were taken that those members of the business community witnessed and saw, and

experienced on the recent trip when they joined the Premier and the Minister of

Finance in going to Ireland to sign the Memorandum of Understanding.

The issue, Mr. Speaker, is clearly this. There are other

initiatives that I was mentioning in answer to the previous question. Looking

at, again, job opportunities for students on an increasing level through their

off seasons when they are not in school through the summer session, and other

sessions and semesters when they are not studying, the whole notion of an

expanded version of the graduate employment program where there are some

subsidies to make sure that those people who have certificates, degrees, and

diplomas, get an opportunity to get that first job because they all get caught

into the whole web of: I am qualified but I do not have any experience.

There are initiatives that everybody is continuing to work

at. The whole notion of tuition is one small part of the piece. We still happen

to be very fortunate in being in a Province where tuition fees remain amongst

the lowest in the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to answer.

MR. GRIMES: We are very proud of that and we hope that is

the circumstance for the near future.

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

supplementary.

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

I just have one quick question for the Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal. Last week I raised the question about

commissioning work at the Hibernia site and she indicated that she had sent the

issue to the C-NOPB, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board for a

decision. I wonder if the minister could update the House on if the

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board has reached a decision and if they

have enlightened the minister on it?

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, when we met with the Union and

with the ODC, and with the company, we then followed up with C-NOPB and asked

them to look into it within a matter of ten days or so. I have checked with the

C-NOPB yesterday and expect to have a report back to me by the middle of 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 Fisheries and Aquaculture. Now, that the caplin fishery is

long finished, I wonder if you would inform the House as to what your department

analysis indicated as far as the plant quota system worked, and would you inform

us if it was a success?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member

is asking if the caplin season was a success or were the plant quotas.

MR. FITZGERALD: The plant quotas.

MR. EFFORD: I guess the simplest way of answering that

is, it was for some and it wasn't for others. We will be analyzing that over the

next several weeks when we make a determination on how the processing industry

is going to be operated in the future, what kind of an industry it is going to

be, and how many plants there are going to be. We will then make a decision on

where we will be going in the future with production quotas.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister if he would inform the

House as to the amount of caplin, both male and female, that were dumped last

year due to this experiment, and what he is going to be doing to correct the

situation in the future?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, last year there was a quota of

40,000 tons and there were approximately 20,000 tons harvested last year, male

and female. We had worked with the industry last year and asked them not to dump

as much caplin and to process as much of the male caplin as possible. In 1997 we

are going to be insisting on not dumping caplin and wherever they can possibly

be processed for fish food or for human consumption it is going to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonavista South on a

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister if he is considering issuing

plant quotas for other species as well in 1997?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: I am not going to tell the member or anybody

else what we intend to do in 1997 until Cabinet has the time to look at the

whole processing industry, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

for the Minister of Social Services. Will the minister confirm that most if not

all home care workers in this Province do not qualify for Workers' Compensation

benefits? Will the minister also confirm that most home care workers have no

sick leave provisions?

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

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

that we have for providing home care services in the Province for the most

part

is a self-managed care model that allows each individual to be the employer.

They set up the working relationship with each of the people they hire to

provide those services.

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

House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given the nature

of the help required in most cases of home care, and I refer specifically to the

lifting of patients, will the minister confirm that home care workers run a

great risk of workplace injury?

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

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

works in any industry which requires skill and effort there is always an element

of danger. I think in most cases people have to be aware of the proper way to do

lifting, people have to be aware of the proper care that needs to be given. So

that risk is there for any person who is involved in that type of industry.

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

House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact

that most home care workers are female, does the minister not see the lack of

sick leave and the high level of non-participation in Workers' Compensation

programs as an issue affecting the rights of women in the workplace, and

therefore the current practice is very regressive? Let's put it this way. Madam

Minister, male workers would not accept this type of treatment. Why are you

willing to see female workers who are paid from funds from your department

denied access to such a fundamental program as Workers' Compensation? Madam

Minister, you pay the piper, it is time that you began to call the tune.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned

earlier, we have the funds set out in our Social Services regulations. We

identify the amount of money that is paid. The people who actually hire the

workers are the employers, and they provide the services, and they pay for the

services that are provided. They set those standards.

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

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

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Many municipalities in the

Province are still concerned about the possible lack of accommodations in

certain areas of the Province in light of the Cabot 500 celebrations. I ask the

minister if she is confident that there is no problem with accommodations in any

area of the Province in respect to the Cabot 500 celebrations.

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

and recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have been working

very closely with Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that we have

programs in place in case our accommodations - most of our hotels, motels and

camp grounds - should be full. At this time we do not have a concern that our

accommodations are anywhere close to full. Our park statistics are in, and of

course our occupancy rates are fairly low in our parks. We have instituted in

areas of the Province where we have a concern that we will need a back-up

program, and we may very well need one, that we are putting one in place, in

particular in the Bonavista Peninsula area. There is a Home Stay program being

instituted in cooperation with the industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: It is good that the minister is not

concerned. However, there is still a concern amongst municipalities in the

Province. Other than the Bonavista area where you are putting in a Home Stay

program, I ask the minister what she intends to do in other areas of the

Province where there is expected to be a lack of accommodations?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware at all of why you

would ever think that I am not concerned about this. This is something, as a

department, that we have been working very, very closely with Cabot Celebration

Committees, with municipalities, with the Hospitality Association, with anyone

who are concerned about this. There certainly is every indication that there are

back up plans in communities and we are working very closely with any

municipalities who are concerned about this. We have to recognize that the

celebrations are lasting for a complete year so many of the groups who are

concerned, it is all spread throughout the year. It is not that the celebrations

are all occurring on one day or during one week. So we, through Labrador of

course, will be having the focus of the celebrations in March. In the western

region, many of it is happening in February. So there is not one time that we

expect 100,000 extra people in the Province. So we are working very closely with

the airlines, we are working very closely with Marine Atlantic and we are

working very closely with the accommodation sector and I can assure you that we

are very concerned and are staying on top of accommodations for next year. We

want next year to be a total success and next year we are viewing it as to being

our launching pad for an enhanced tourism industry for the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, in light of the resolution that

we passed the other day by this hon. House, accepting and applauding the work of

the government, in terms of the Churchill Falls contract, despite the opposition

by the official Opposition against our stand on the contract called CF(

L) Co.

could the Premier stand and tell us how and what we are doing to renegotiate the

Churchill Falls deal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is ten seconds left in Question Period if the hon.

Premier wants to go on with his answer in that length of time, he may try.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact

that we have been able to attract and I quote, `SNC Lavalin supports the

Newfoundland Government in their efforts to address and resolve these

inequities.' In light of the fact that we can attract a measure of support in

the Province of Quebec, we are going to remove that motion soon and see whether

we can get the Conservative Party to come to its senses and support the efforts

to renegotiate the Churchill Falls Power contract!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Notices of Motion

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Pensions Act", Bill No. 46.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Petitions

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this week I presented a couple of petitions

concerning the Newfoundland Dockyard. I have been given another petition to

present. I shall read the prayer of the petition:

We, the employees of the Newfoundland Dockyard, wish to

petition the House of Assembly to voice our concerns over the closure, and the

lack of action over the closure, of the Newfoundland Dockyard. We are asking the

provincial government to take an active stand with the federal government and

Marine Atlantic to reopen this vital industry supplying hundreds of needed jobs

to the Newfoundland economy.

After the questions on Wednesday in the House, myself and the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and my colleague from Kilbride, met

a number of employees of the Newfoundland Dockyard, and I feel that meeting was

progressive. We have assurances from the industry minister that he is going to

actually lobby the federal government and Marine Atlantic to ensure that the

Newfoundland Dockyard will reopen, and that the two bids that are on the table

will be actively pursued, and that the suitable bidder will have every

opportunity to reopen the Newfoundland Dockyard.

I was relatively pleased with the outcome of the meeting, and

I anxiously await any results coming from Marine Atlantic or the federal

government on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the

petition put forward by my colleague from St. John's South in his wish to bring

to the House again the circumstances and the difficulties surrounding the St.

John's dockyard.

Mr. Speaker, we want to continue to put this before the

House. We acknowledge that there have been some initiatives; however, a few days

ago we saw all of the workers here. They have great concerns about their future,

great concerns about the dockyard itself. There is some evidence that others may

be wanting to make sure that it is closed down permanently. We would like to see

it open, like to see it continue. It is a major employer in the greater St.

John's area, in the District of Waterford Valley. Over 100 of the workers at the

St. John's dockyard live in my district, and I certainly would want to do all

that we can do to make sure that dockyard continues to operate. We want to say

to the minister responsible that we need to again, as he said one time: sharpen

our pencils, get out there, and do all we can to make sure that this dockyard is

given the best chance it can have in the environment in which we now operate.

I acknowledge that the minister has begun some initiatives;

however, the tragedy for this region will be that if that dockyard is

permanently closed it will take such a great effort to find another employer

that would be able to employ 500 or 600 people.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the employees down there, we want

to again bring to the attention of the House the circumstances, and say to the

minister: Let's get at it. Let's make sure that the negotiations you are

involved in are indeed a success. Thank you very much.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, just for the record let me

correct something that the Opposition House Leader said. He said that I was

responsible for Marine Atlantic and the dockyard, I am not responsible for the

dockyard. I am responsible for the shipyard at Marystown and I think we have

done some things right there to put the shipyard in the right direction.

What I am doing is participating, as I should, as a

provincial Minister of Industry, to help wherever I can to make this a

successful transition. This is governed exclusively by the federal government.

The Province has offered to participate, we are participating, we are doing

everything in our power to see a successful transition into the private sector

and we will do what we can to help build that bridge. In fact, I have already

talked about a number of issues, wherever we can be creative on EDGE, wherever

we can be creative with respect to the debenture that is outstanding to the

Province and any other creative areas in which we can participate but let me say

to the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, that the Province is not responsible for

the dockyard. We accept that we should be responsible for attracting investment

and industry and it is in that sense that we are participating.

The Member for Kilbride wanted to make a point?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Yes, I should say - I have had a number of

discussions, not with the federal minister but with the local member, the Member

for St. John's West. In fact, I met with her in Ottawa on that issue.

Anyway, look the prayer of the petition, I wanted to let the

Member for St. John's South know that we endorse and fully support the prayer of

the petition. Of course we want to see the dockyard reopened and we will do

everything, as a provincial government, that we can do within the law and within

our fiscal capacity to help.

Orders of the Day

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

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

to introduce a bill, "An Act To Implement the Comprehensive Integrated Tax

Newfoundland and Labrador," carried. (Bill No. 45)

On motion, Bill No. 45 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow, by leave.

MR. TULK: Order No. 5, Mr. Speaker, "An Act To Amend The

Lands Act". (Bill No. 22)

The minister obviously is not here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in absence of the Minister of Government

Services and Lands, I will take it upon myself to introduce this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 5, this is second reading?

MR. TULK: Order No. 5, second reading of the bill.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands

Act". (Bill No. 22).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think the explanatory notes are

quite straightforward as to what the purpose of this bill is -

AN HON. MEMBER: There he is, look, Mr. Speaker!

MR. TULK: - and if the hon. gentleman would wish I would

defer to the minister to introduce his bill.

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, Bill 22, "An Act To Amend The

Lands Act." There are a number of minor changes to the act itself.

Section 2 in

the

definitions, we are basically changing the

section to reflect the changes in

the government since February 22. Also, to prescribe that under

section 6, there

are changes to allow the minister to issue licences for occupancy for land that

exceeds between twenty hectares and 100 hectares which currently now, has to go

through Cabinet, and is part of the regulatory reform to tie that in the act to

allow this to take place on a much more timely basis. I think that is basically

it, Mr. Speaker, for the changes to the act.

Those are the two basic amendments that will be made to the

"Lands Act", (Bill No. 22).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say a few words on Bill 22, "An

Act To Amend The Lands Act."

The minister says a few minor changes to this act, they may

be minor in writing but major in what actually will happen, Mr. Speaker. The

Government House Leader stood in his place and he also made a statement when he

thought it would be some minor changes, I believe those were his words because

the minister was not ready to present the bill. I would like to thank the

minister for his long introduction of the changes to the bill but, Mr. Speaker,

that is being a bit sarcastic I suppose.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is far-reaching again and it goes

right in line with what is happening in this sitting in the House of Assembly.

We see that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is trying to get more

authority and take away the authority of the Cabinet and basically give more

discretionary powers to the minister. We have this bill, "An Act To Amend The

Lands Act" which is doing basically the exact, same thing, taking authority away

from Cabinet and putting it in the hands of the Minister.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that could all be well and good in any

given situation. For instance, if a member from this side of the House was a

minister, of course it would be a grand idea, they could handle it but,

basically, what I am getting at I suppose, it depends on the minister of the day

and the authority and what the minister would want to try and accomplish or any

change he might wish to make to the act or, the big fear I suppose is the abuse

of power.

Now we know that a few years ago, the previous Premier made

some changes to the Crown Lands Act which was a very major change, because

traditionally, over the years, Mr. Speaker, the people in this Province always

had the right to travel around lakes, ponds and rivers. Initially starting out,

Mr. Speaker, there was a thirty-three-foot reservation on lakes and ponds, then

Canada went metric and they changed that to ten metres and eventually to a

fifteen-metre reservation which, fifteen metres worked out to be approximately

fifty feet and ten metres of course, around to thirty-three feet. I am not

getting into the decimal points.

Now, Mr. Speaker, legislation was brought in that the

government or Cabinet could actually lease lands right to the water's edge in

any given situation especially with respect to commercial developments. Now we

often times see advertisements in the paper by the Department of Government

Services and Lands advertising sections of land to the water's edge, and in

actual fact would stop people from travelling around any given pond, depending

on the pond or the river, I suppose, or the lake.

At that time there were some concerns of course that people

were losing their rights and traditions and what have you. It further came out

later on in the Hydro debate that there was some kind of a scheme back then that

the premier was actually planning this, the privatization of Hydro, that far

back, and he was going to utilize this situation when, I suppose, we would have

given the power - so if you privatize Hydro, the rights of way or around these

ponds and lakes and rivers, to whomever the company was successful in purchasing

or acquiring the rights to Newfoundland Hydro. So there seems to be some sort of

a plan afoot, especially in light of the Crown lands.

The minister stood and said that these notes were

explanatory, and that it is a minor, basically housekeeping situation. Mr.

Speaker, it goes much further than that, and I'm going to get into some

specifics with respect to this bill. Clause 1, paragraph 2(

c) is repealed. The

use of the term "department" within the Lands Act will no longer refer

specifically to the Department of Environment and Lands but will be redefined to

refer to the department presided over by the minister. The minister, according

to this, can preside over the Department of Government Services and Lands, or

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, or whatever the case may be. What exactly does

that mean, I would ask the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Say that again. I couldn't hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) Government Services and Lands.

So that in itself there is a minor housekeeping thing, just to change the name?

Okay, that is fine. Paragraph 2 of the act is repealed. Use of the term

"minister" within this act will no longer refer to the Minister of Environment

and Lands, but rather to the minister appointed under Executive Council Act to

administer the act.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Government Services and

Lands.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Government Services and

Lands will handle now this - because of course Lands is now under Government

Services. No problem there.

Mr. Speaker, what is the problem, and what is coming to

light, are the changes in the authority and the responsibilities given to the

Minister. I worked with Crown lands for seven years, and was quite familiar with

the goings-on. We all know now in the past seven or eight years the rates have

increased dramatically to basically occupy Crown lands for a lease, for a grant.

The rate even to make application for Crown land has gone up significantly. All

the time it is becoming more and more difficult for ordinary Newfoundlanders to

obtain a piece of Crown land.

It says here in this bill that the minister (inaudible) issue

a lease to a person of Crown land of any size and to set the conditions, period

and terms of the lease. Previous to this amendment, the minister could only

issue and set conditions of a lease of Crown land if the area of land being

leased did not exceed twenty hectares. Twenty hectares is around fifty acres.

Above that I think it would have to go to Cabinet for approval. Minister, I

stand to be corrected on that, but it had to go to Cabinet for approval. Now if

the minister is permitted to issue leases over and above twenty hectares, I

don't believe there is anything in here that would limit the size of a lease

that the minister could issue. Would that go up to 100 hectares, 200 hectares,

500 hectares?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: So the minister is saying now that he can

basically go to 100 hectares, which is roughly 250 acres. Often times, Mr.

Speaker, in the Province, from my experience, people who made application for

Crown land - of course the applications that are most received are for cottages.

I think next to that would probably be residential. After that would be

commercial. But there are a large number of applications for agricultural, and

they could be anywhere from ten acres to a hundred acres. A lot of it, of

course, people use for pastures. When you get into the larger sites, or the

larger blocks of land, they are mostly used for pastures.

Down in my district, and in most districts around the

Province I suppose, we have people applying for pasture land. I can name a few

down in Torbay and Pouch Cove. In actual fact, the pasture land in Pouch Cove

this year got some funding from the Department of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods, with which they were quite pleased, which was a real boost. The year

before that we had to go to the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods to

try to fight for I think it was $10,000 that they were going to cut.

When you are saying that the minister can issue a lease for

up to 100 hectares, which is 250 acres, is that going to be strictly for

agricultural purposes? I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology:

That is definitely coming in the new year? You can mark it down now?

AN HON. MEMBER: They will all have one.

MR. J. BYRNE: You will not be as quick as me. I got the

draw on you yesterday; let me tell you that, I say to the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology. It is coming, and rightly so.

MR. FUREY: A shoot-down again.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am up here having a few words on a very

serious bill that has been put forth by the Minister of Government Services and

Lands. I may as well say this now, I kind of feel for the Minister of Government

Services and Lands, because yesterday when I was asking him a question - and he

is in Cabinet, of course, because the Premier had to appoint somebody from

Labrador.

MR. FUREY: I bet you got a holster set for Christmas.

MR. J. BYRNE: All the time, every year. I beg for it

every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and I love the nice shine - with the

white handles.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, definitely.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have to wear a cap in the wintertime now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) caps.

MR. J. BYRNE: I know what you are talking about; I am

playing on words here now. Jump with me.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) `Roger' is going to give a

speech. The Minister of Fisheries never wanted to play cowboys and indians,

never wanted a tackle trunk, never wanted a set of holsters; all he wanted to be

was Minister of Fisheries. He used to say to his mother: Mom, please, for

Christmas I want to be Minister of Fisheries.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, now you have to get up and say that

in a few minutes.

Back to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, I kind

of feel sorry for him because we know he is in Cabinet because the Premier had

to put a man or woman in Cabinet from Labrador. So what did he do? He picked the

Member for - what district is he in?

MR. TULK: If you don't know, you will never find out

(inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is not too hard to figure out, I would

say. Lake Melville. You don't even know yourself.

Now, when the minister is being asked questions, the Member

for Labrador West is over in his ear trying to coach him on and tell him what to

say, and read from this and read from that, that type of thing. The sad part

about it - the man is doing the best he can, but the Member for Labrador West,

who knows there is going to be a member in Cabinet from Labrador, is after his

job. He should watch his back, I say to the Minister of Government Services and

Lands, because the Member for Labrador West -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh my, oh my, oh my!

MR. J. BYRNE: You can see that fellow; he is a preacher.

He preaches all the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) over there.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, the only people who turn on anybody are

not on this side; they are on that side. I don't want to get into naming names

or anything. We all know who they are, so I won't get into names.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to this bill again, the minister

wants the authority to be able to issue leases up to 250 acres, which is 100

hectares. Normally, as I was saying, many of these larger tracks of land are

utilized for agricultural purposes, mostly pasture land. Some people do get into

root crops and what have you around here - I have some down in my district I can

name. But the problem with this is that if he can issue a lease for 250 acres on

his signature alone, without going to Cabinet, what are the leases going to be

issued for in the future? Are we going to get businesses coming in here and

making presentations to start up some kind of an industry and they are going to

be given 250 acres of land under the EDGE program? I am still waiting to see the

results of the positive talk from the Premier with respect to 1,100 jobs. The

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology talked about 300.

MR. FUREY: You don't understand (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I know that you said 300, and I know that

the Premier said 1,100, and the difference is 800, so which is correct? Do you

understand that? Are we talking about jobs that are there now? Are we talking

about potential jobs? Are we talking about jobs somewhere down the road? What

are we talking about?

MR. FUREY: You have a wonderful set of ears but you

cannot listen.

MR. J. BYRNE: I have great ears.

MR. FUREY: You have big, lovely ears.

MR. J. BYRNE: I do - you like them?

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, `the legal beagle' is giving advice

again. If you want to say something go sit in your own seat I say to the legal

beagle from Topsail.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: I am up here trying to say a few words on

this bill and I am being interrupted by people on the opposite side. They are

talking about my physical features and that is pretty low, when people have to

attack the physical features of an individual. If you want to stick to the facts

and to the figures of what I am putting forward then tell me the difference

between 300 and 1,100 jobs, which is 800.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: The answer is very simple. The business plans

that are tabled by the companies that have been approved for EDGE show a

potential investment of $178 million with 1,280 jobs. If these business plans

are executed and followed through this is what will be created. What has been

created to date in real jobs is 370 jobs with an investment of $27 million, so

there is a clear difference between what has been achieved and what is purported

to be achieved.

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

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

Well, that clarifies the situation. In actual fact, what the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology says is that there are somewhere

around 300 jobs that have been created and there is potential for 1,200 to be

created overall if the programs and the plans that are put in place are

successful and are followed through. We have 300 jobs basically created at this

point in time from all the efforts and all the travelling of the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology and all the travelling of the Premier of the

Province. We have 300 jobs created and maybe if we took the money that was spent

on all the travel of the Premier and the travel of the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology we could have created 600 jobs in the Province and not 300.

That is what I have to say today, but back to the point of

the minister being permitted to give out leases for 250 acres, Mr. Speaker, my

point is this. If the minister has the authority to do that, which he does not

have now, I have to ask the question: Why is it happening that the minister in

this department is getting this extra authority? Why is the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture getting extra authority? And I believe in some of the

other bills that are coming through, the ministers are looking for extra

authority? The legal beagle from Topsail is calling out for efficiency, and now

we have the Department of Government Services and Lands putting the former

Premier basically saying that they would put together one-stop shopping in the

Province and set up outlets in different areas of the Province, and what do we

see?

We had people from Crown lands go there, we had people from

Health go there who did inspections, and people from Environment go there. If

somebody made application they were supposed to go in, make their application,

and it was all handled, but that is not what happened, Mr. Speaker. and that was

all in the name of efficiency. It did not speed up the person's application in

any way, shape or form for a building permit in a town. It did not in any way

speed up anybody's application when they went to the Department of Health to

have their land inspected. It did not speed up the inspection from the

Department of Agriculture or the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation.

All of these had to be separately contacted again to have it

done, so there was no efficiency there. As a matter of fact, from what I have

been told, some of the people who went into these outlets were, in actual fact,

sent back to the offices they had come from, and that can be proven. I can get

names and tell you who they were, where they came from, and where they went, Mr.

Speaker. To say it is in the name of efficiency is a misnomer, or whatever you

want to call it. It is a red herring.

With respect to the 250 acres, I have to get back to that,

and the minister getting extra authority. I really don't understand why it is

necessary. The minister can say it is efficiency, but things have been working

with respect to fifty acres. I am not trying to cast a shadow on the present

Minister of Government Services and Lands, but we all know that politics

sometimes is not as straightforward as we would like it to be. People have a

tendency to get certain things done when they know people, when they have

connections. I can name locations now where that is happening today. Someone may

come in and apply for 100 acres of land and another man may come in and apply

for 100 next to him. But for some reason or other, the first person or second

person may end up with the 200 instead of 100 acres if one individual has the

authority to say that. That may never happen with this minister, it may not

happen with the next minister, but it may happen two or three or four years down

the road. Who knows? I think when we are taking away authority of Cabinet to

make decisions we are treading on dangerous ground.

That is with respect to the issuing of Crown land leases. In

actual fact, then, these leases can be converted to grants in due course. Any of

these leases can be converted to grants. So one individual or a company or what

have you may end up with large tracts of land in any given area.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What do you mean? That's not right?

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Humber Valley, I

can't hear what you are saying.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh yes, I agree to that. But what is

happening now, if we can issue a lease for 250 acres, it doesn't say here it is

restricted to agriculture. It could be for a commercial lease. You can get a

grant for a commercial lease. It is going to depend on the location. We have the

smelter now that is coming here, the smelter that is going to be announced - it

is probably announced by now. Out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Argentia?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. So the smelter is going in Argentia,

we have a transshipment site that is supposed to be built here, we have the

sites in Labrador - we are going to have a facility in Labrador, apparently, for

450 workers. If one had a devious mind or was a bit cynical at all, they could

say that this is being geared for certain people, or for certain companies. That

is what we are here to point out and to criticize and to pick up and say the

potential problems that can arise.

MR. WISEMAN: Criticize.

MR. J. BYRNE: Constructive criticism, I say to `the legal

beagle'. That is constructive criticism.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) grandstanding.

MR. J. BYRNE: It isn't. If we can point out something

here that is a flaw, and can be corrected, that is what we are here for. We are

here to propose amendments to any flaws in legislation. That is it. The members

on that side of the House have been on this side of the House. It is all well

and good saying now you are sitting on the government side of the House, I say

to the Member for Topsail, who isn't in his seat. But you are looking at it from

one perspective. Members on that side of the House who have sat in Opposition, I

would say were much more critical on a lot of occasions than we are on this side

of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) more constructive

(inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what I am about here now,

constructive criticism.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Topsail, if he

wants to get up and speak on this bill, and if he wants me to send over a few

notes so he can understand what is going on in the bill, I will do it. He can

have them. I'm sure he didn't even look at the bill yet. I imagine he doesn't

even know what the impacts are or the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't need my seat padded, let me tell

you. I don't need the chair padded, I can guarantee you that, I say to the

Member for Terra Nova.

Mr. Speaker, do you have any idea what time I have left?

MR. LUSH: You have an hour.

MR. J. BYRNE: I had an hour?

MR. LUSH: You are doing a good job.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, I say to the Member for Terra

Nova. The Member for Terra Nova tells me I am doing a good job, pointing out

these flaws and giving some good constructive criticism, although that is

contrary to what the Member for Topsail says. But in the meantime, we can't

please everybody, I suppose, I say to that, Mr. Speaker.

Paragraphs 41(a), (b), (c), (

d) and (

f) of this Act are

repealed. It was these subsections which gave the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

authority to make regulation pertaining to the prescribing of fees. The forms

and methods of applications for grants, leases and easements, the standards for

a structure required to be -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I say for the people in Hansard, that round

of applause was not for me, it was for the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's. He

got the smelter in Argentia. Mr. Speaker, with that kerfuffle over and the

Member for Labrador West over throwing his hands up in the air, almost in tears

because he did not get this smelter, almost in tears. He should be

congratulating the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

Now, with respect to that, the real story starts now doesn't

it? Look at the environmental issues. That is what the real story is in due

course.

MR. WISEMAN: You want to destroy all the bogs in

Newfoundland. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will just wait and see what the results

are. I will be there - what is this `the legal beagle' is saying again now?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to `the legal beagle' from Topsail

that it is too bad -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind the hon. gentleman from Cape St. Francis

that we refer to members in this House as honourable members.

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

I say to the hon. the Member for Topsail, who is not in his

seat, that it is too bad he has not been out there in some of those bogs up to

his waist.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was on a very serious point here and that

is with respect to the authority given to the minister with respect to the

prescribing of fees, `the forms and methods of applications for grants, leases

and easements, the standards for a structure required to be erected on that

land, leased under the

section (inaudible) and the surveying of lands, in

respect of which application has been made to the Crown and the conditions under

which the grants, leases, licenses and easements may be issued under this part.

As such, the power of Cabinet is being reduced' -this is very important - `as

such the power of Cabinet is being reduced while the ability of the minister to

regulate is being increased.' As I said earlier, the ministers, for some reason

or other, in this sitting of the House, are looking for more power. Now what is

happening is we are going to have the Minister of Government Services and Lands,

given the power to increase fees, licenses and what have you.

What did we see happen, Mr. Speaker, this past summer? This

summer, back in May, the minister came out with a press release that was totally

confusing, totally confusing to himself. He was asked questions in the House -

and he could not answer them - related to the amount or the fees that would be

charged for leases and grants. It was about a new pricing policy that the

minister could not explain. He came out with three different releases, each one

more confusing than the previous one. He went to a public meeting and could not

answer questions, and now we are going to give a minister the authority to set

the prescribing of fees and the methods for application for grants and leases,

Mr. Speaker.

This is a very serious issue here and I want to say a few

words on that. Now, the minister will be setting fees in the future - not

Cabinet, the minister. Now, what will we see happen here? As we saw happen this

past year, the government needed x number of dollars to balance their Budget.

They came out and made a statement that they were going to take in $6.2 million

from their new program on the Crown land pricing policy but when you sat down

and looked at the number of recreational cottage leases, commercial leases and

residential together and you took the figure that you set aside, per lease,

averaged it out, give it a reasonable amount of money, the amount of money that

would have - the potential, it was closer to $20 million and this government led

people to think that is would be $6.2 million. Now we know that is not correct,

it is well up, closer to $15 million so we are a long, long way to help balance

the budget. So now, Mr. Speaker, what happens next year - I brought this up in

the House of Assembly before - once these leases are converted to grants, the

yearly income that government was having, Government Services and Lands which

was previously Environment and Lands which was previously Forest Resources and

Lands, and previous to that, Forestry and Lands, the revenues that were coming

in each year from those leases which are commercial leases, residential leases

and the cottage leases will now not be coming in because the government took it

in one lump sum.

I brought this up before and was laughed at in this House by

the members opposite and it was brought up outside this House, Mr. Speaker, in a

very serious nature, it was brought up on the open line shows, it was brought up

at public meetings that now, once this revenue was decreased and you do not have

it coming in every year, what will happen? Are we going to see next year or the

year after, that the government is in a crunch again to balance the budget. Now,

Mr. Minister of Government Services and Lands, where are we going to get some

money in your department? Tell me where we are going to get it?

Oh, I have a fantastic idea, Mr. Premier, I can tell you. I

can tell the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board where he can get it. All

these cottages that we converted to grants, now, what we can do, let us tax

them, let us have a recreation tax on them. Let us charge them $100 a year and

we have 100 times 5,000 or 10,000 leases and way to go, more money. Let me tell

you, I brought that up, the minister made a joke of it and a few other people on

the other side made a joke of it but they are not laughing now because they

know, they can tell and you can see it on their faces, that is what is coming

down the tubes and I wonder what the Member for Labrador West is going to say

when the people in his area who have permits to occupy and people who have

leases and what have you, are going to be - they are going to be upset with you

enough anyway, I will say to the Member for Labrador West. They are going to be

upset with him now and I doubt if he will go home the weekend, they are going to

be pretty upset, let me tell you.

That is one instance where there is more revenues coming to

the government, okay? Then what happens if they say: Okay now, Mr. Minister of

Government Services and Lands, we need more money out of your department; where

are we going to get it now aside from that? Well, Mr. Premier, Mr. Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board, I think I have a good idea. That is what he is going

to say because he will be told by the civil servants, we have hundreds and

thousands of people going into our forests every year, hundreds and thousands of

them picking berries. Now, let us get them to get a licence to pick berries,

that is more money for us, look at all those people. If we have 40,000 people

going into the woods and we charge them five dollars a year, look at the money,

Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Premier, we have people going in this Province going

in the woods on trails. Well that is a schemozzle already, the ATV trails, but

we have people going in the woods trouting. Newfoundlanders could always go in

and do a bit of trouting when ever they wanted to. Maybe we should look at

something here, Mr. Premier, maybe we can get a few extra bucks here because the

ministers are given all the authority now. It is not going back to Cabinet

anymore for discussion, it is up to the minister of the day to say such and

such, Mr. Speaker.

Then we have the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in

due course when the time comes out and say: Okay, the fishery is back and we

have a food fishery, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture may say: Well,

maybe we should charge now -

MR. EFFORD: Why shouldn't we?

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you believe in history, do you believe

in tradition, do you know why we are here in the first place, I say to the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture?

MR. FUREY: Did you ever get a set of caps and gloves for

Christmas when you were a little boy?

MR. J. BYRNE: More than once. More than once and proud of

it, no problem whatsoever.

Now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what happened to me. The cowboy hat

was too tight. That is where my hair went, the Indians got me. I say to the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology I used to play Cowboys and Indians

and one day the Indians got me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Did you listen to me, do I have to repeat

that again?

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it again.

MR. J. BYRNE: No. Get Hansard and find out what I said.

Now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology - I said,

when I was a young guy - of course, we did not have large televisions and all

the stuff you have today. There would be a bunch of us down in the woods playing

Cowboys and Indians and I was always the cowboy and the Indians got me one day.

So there!

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, is trying to

make light of a Private Members resolution that I put before this House

yesterday. It is serious and it is about the first time that I know of, that a

politician came out in support of the RNC and their stand. It is about time and

I hope that when I bring this resolution to this House and debate it, and speak

in favour of it, and tell you the reasons why I believe they should be - they

are a professional association - I hope every member in this House has the guts

to stand up and support it, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Where do I...? The member is joking around

again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you in John Ottenheimer's class at

Gonzaga?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What goes around comes around. Good things

float to the top.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) St. John's harbour

(inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: And whose district is that in, I say to the

member?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is just outside the district.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes, sure, sure. There is nothing from

my district floating in St. John's harbour. That is not quite true; there is a

little bit.

MR. TULK: Don't you flush the toilet when you're here?

MR. J. BYRNE: A good point. I try not to. I try to go to

your government offices and use your facilities.

MR. TULK: It is still the same thing. It is still from

your district going out in the harbour.

MR. J. BYRNE: There is, actually. There is a part of my

district in St. John's, so they contribute to it, but not to the same extent as

the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. TULK: The substance of this debate is going down the

drain.

MR. J. BYRNE: To get back to Bill 22 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am here for the day. I am here for the

duration, I say to the Government House Leader.

Again, I have to emphasize: Why is this government trying to

create a group of mini dictators - that is a strong word, but - a group of mini

dictators in each department? Cabinet is elected, and the Government and the

Opposition are elected, to represent the views of the people. Yet, what we see

now when government is formed, and I congratulate them for getting elected - a

lot of them got elected, obviously, on the coat tails of the Premier, but they

are there - and now we have a Cabinet formed that is supposed to look at the

best interests of the people of the Province, and make decisions based on a

consultative process. But we now see that is starting to dissipate and that the

Premier - and I am sure the previous Premier would not allow this to happen, but

this Premier - is allowing the ministers to become little emperors of little

empires. They act like they are becoming all powerful. It is becoming scary, and

the people of the Province are starting to wonder why -

MR. TULK: The last time around you were calling them

vegetables.

MR. J. BYRNE: Calling you a vegetable?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If I did, it certainly must have applied.

It must have been well applicable if I did call you a vegetable. I don't know

what I would call you, yourself, Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, what else do I have to say on this bill? I

suppose, as the minister said in his long introduction of the bill, there are

minor changes to it. I said before, when you look at it up front, it is not a

lot of text, let me tell you, but a minimum amount of text carries a lot of

weight. There is a lot of weight given to the Minister of Government Services

and Lands.

Back to the setting of fees, I believe the rate now for a

lease is $75 a year. I ask the Minister of Government Services and Lands, if he

is paying attention, if he would confirm that. The rate for a residential lease

now, or a cottage lease, is it $75 a year? Do you know? You are not sure? I am

just curious.

The reason I referred to that was because again - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) new policy.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, no. Under the new policy, the pricing

policy, is what you are going to pay to convert from a lease to a grant. But if

a person goes in and makes application for a lease of Crown land to build a

house, say, in a town, the lease rate itself will be set by the appraised value

within the municipality; is that not correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: So if a person goes out now and applies for

a cottage lease, and it is not within a municipality, it is set at $3,000 and

$2,500 depending on where it is located, on a pond or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) five-year lease.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $500 a year.

MR. J. BYRNE: Or $600 a year, depending on the location.

I do not know what kind of impact that will have on people

making applications for Crown land leases in the future. If it will be

restrictive, I suppose would be my concern, with respect to people having access

to Crown lands to build cabins.

I know I've gotten calls from a number of people, let me tell

you, Mr. Speaker, who are finding it very difficult to maintain their cabins. I

brought this up before. It is along the lines of this, and I think it is

relevant, because it all goes back to the minister having the authority to do

what he wants, and it is what happens with respect to the Crown land pricing

policy. I know people who had to go out and borrow - they couldn't come up with

the $500 or $600 a month the minister wanted. If they didn't take advantage of

the program, they would have had to pay $500 and $600 a year for their lease,

and they couldn't afford to pay that. In actual fact they were forced to go and

borrow the $2,500 or $3,000 and pay back a bank interest on a cabin that they

took maybe ten, fifteen, twenty years to build.

To me it was a breach, certainly a moral breach of a contract

they had with the government. The government can come out and say it was a great

deal, it got 87 per cent of applications under the cottage, what was available

under cottage, under the cottage numbers. In fact, that doesn't say a lot. It

just says that 87 per cent of people were forced to do something they really did

not want to do. That is what that says. It brought in a great amount of money to

the government.

People have told me that. People told me that they took years

to build their cabins. They scrimped and scraped and did bit by bit, year by

year, and got their cabins. They are mostly modest, homey little cabins. There

are some great nice elaborate cabins in some of the bigger areas, yes, no doubt

about it, and it wasn't a big lot of money for some people to come up with. But

there are certain areas if you go into them in this Province and people have

cabins maybe sixteen by twenty or twelve by twenty or sixteen by twenty-four.

They built it themselves and they lugged stuff in in wintertime to be able to

build a cabin, had their buddies help them out, and went and borrowed and got

loans of maybe some furnishings to be able to put it in their cabins to be able

to utilize their cabins, and all of a sudden they are hit with this.

That comes back to the point of the abuse that a minister may

be able to make in the future with respect to these cabins. For instance, I may

have a little cabin. I don't, I wish I did. Say an individual had a cabin and he

had it for six or eight or ten years and he put it together and he was paying

$75 a year, and all of a sudden he has to come up with $3,000, and his cabin was

completed. That in effect will stop him maybe for three or four or five years

from completing his cabin. That isn't right, I say to the minister, by any

stretch of the imagination. People are genuinely in hardship cases trying to put

their cabins together. A lot of people believe if you have a home and you have a

cabin you have everything. These are really areas that people like to go to to

escape, and they aren't elaborate. By any stretch of the imagination, most of

the cabins aren't elaborate.

Now what may happen, and I mentioned it earlier it could very

well happen, is they could be taxed a luxury tax or a cottage tax in the future

because the minister of the day may decide: We need a few extra bucks to balance

the budget, so we are going to charge them $100 a year as a luxury tax for using

our land, for having access to the ponds, for being in the woods picking

berries, for going out in the woods setting a few snares, or whatever the case

may be. So now, will they come on and justify it in their minds. You can

rationalize anything. They can rationalize anything. So they come out and say:

Now we will have to charge these people that to maintain and get some extra

funds

That is a real concern and the real threat, I say to you, Mr.

Speaker. That is why I can't support a bill that is going to give far-reaching

authority to a minister, far beyond what he or she has today.

I can go on, but there are other people here too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What? No, no support.

Mr. Speaker, my time is running down, my throat is wearing

thin. I think the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm not thin? Did somebody say that? I

could lose a few pounds, I say, like most of us in this House. Like most, except

one or two I would assume, and I won't point fingers.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say again that - and I will repeat

myself, I don't mind repeating myself - the minister should not have the

authority, the (inaudible) authority that he can come and make up whatever

regulations he or she pleases that has a major affect on the people of the

Province and that applies to any department. The nature of this is, anything

that hits at the pocketbooks of the people of the Province should be done in

conjunction with a number of people. It should be done basically through

Cabinet. There should be discussions around the Cabinet table, from my

perspective and a lot of points of views heard. We know that there are certain

ministers who believe that whatever he says, goes, and that what he says is all

right. It is never - in any situation where he believes that he can be

questioned or believes that he is all knowing. I will not name who that minister

is but we were discussing a piece of legislation this week, along this very

nature, given a minister, any minister extra authority over and above what he

had in the first place coming into this sitting of the House and maybe from that

perspective, maybe the minister has too much authority anyway, let alone

increase it, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if anybody on the other side of the House is going

to speak to this bill, other than the minister? I wonder if anybody on the other

side of the House has actually read the bill? I know it was handed out to them

but, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if they read it. I wonder if they understand the

consequences of this bill? I don't know if they do or not. I hope they do. I am

sure they are going to be voting in favour of it. I don't know if they have the

gall or the gumption to get up and say no, that they don't support it because

everything that seems to come forward from the ministers over there or from the

Premier or the Government House Leader is automatically it seems to be perfect,

no problems. I would like to point out one example where it was not perfect and

there were major problems of course, was in the bill that was being put through

this House on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Everybody on

that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, I believe - there may be one over there, I

think, who is having serious doubts about it. I stand to be corrected on that

but I think there was one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Virginia Waters.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Strait of Belle Island.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did you have some doubts about the hydro

bill? Did you have some doubts about the hydro bill when it was going through in

the last - a couple of years ago?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh yes, he didn't have no

MR. J. BYRNE: So I cannot say that they always, all of

them, automatically support because every now and then you get one who kind of

stands out but then normally that person who stands out and does not toe the

line is kind of penalized because I really thought, in this sitting, that the

Member for Virginia Waters was going to become a Cabinet minister. I really

thought he was. I could certainly put him in a couple of places over there that

could be - ministers that could be easily replaced, I tell you that, Mr.

Speaker, but it is not likely to happen. The man is too independent. It won't

happen, is not going to happen. That's all I can do for you. That is all I can

say, to try to give you a bit of support every now and then and see what we can

do but I do know that the Minister of Government Services and Lands better be

careful. I am telling you that right now, he should be very careful when he has

a fellow from Labrador - the Member for Labrador West is down coaching him on

his answers and doing it in the very view of the Premier so the Premier can see

him doing it. Oh, he is doing it and letting the Premier see him over coaching.

I don't know if that is supporting my colleague or not, I say to the Member for

Labrador West. I think that is thinking about myself, I say to the Member for

Labrador West but I suppose when it all boils down most people, most people, are

out to take care of themselves. I cannot include myself in that group, I have to

say to the Member for Labrador West, but most people are out to take care of

themselves. Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. CANNING: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CANNING: I rise on a point of order just to express

to the House, openly to you all, of my travel plans this evening, I will be

travelling back to my riding this evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House

just over three years and I have seen people stand in this House on points of

order that were not points of order. I saw the Government House Leader doing it

three times in one afternoon, but to see the Member for Labrador West stand in

his place and take the time of this House, waste the time of this House, to tell

us he is going back to his district, what an utter waste of time, I have to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should go back to his district.

MR. J. BYRNE: He has no choice but to go back. I mean,

you have to have the face to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) with a bag over his head.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I cannot say that. That analogy can

be used in other ways so I do not want to put that on him.

MR. TULK: Be relevant.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am being relative. I am talking about

money in this Province and about Bill 22 that gives authority to the minister to

increase rates and license fees whenever he or she decides to do it. I am

talking about a bill that affects Labrador West and that affects every district

in this Province by giving the Minister of Government Services and Lands the

authority to increase the lot size, or the area size, of leases that are going

to be going out. He has the authority to do twenty hectares. If you take twenty

hectares and multiply it by 2.4710 you will get the number of acres so that is

roughly fifty acres, so 100 hectares is roughly 250 acres that the minister now

has the authority to issue. Now, not Cabinet but the minister, and the minister

can also set the rates for that. That is the problem with this.

MR. TULK: You are foolish if you believe that a minister

can make that kind of change without first going to Cabinet.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did you read the bill?

MR. TULK: How silly can you get?

MR. J. BYRNE: Here, I will read it for you.

Section 3

(3), the minister may issue, not the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the

minister may issue a lease to a person for an area of Crown land for the period,

loyalties or other changes that the minister may set out in the lease. Not the

Lieutenant-Governor in Cabinet, not Cabinet, not two or three ministers, but the

minister. Mr. Speaker, those are my concerns, and with that, I think, I have

made my points on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: I was going to close debate. Do you want to say

a few words?

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make a few comments on Bill 22,

An Act To

Amend The Lands Act, after hearing my colleague for Cape St. Francis put forward

some points as to why he had grave concerns about the minister having power. I

have to say to him that I do not have those concerns with this particular

minister. In fact my concerns with the bill, I say to the Government House

Leader, is that probably the Cabinet might be a deterrent to him, that probably

the Cabinet in this case might be a deterrent to the minister. That is the way I

read this particular bill and this particular minister, because I saw what

happened when this minister, the Minister of Government Services and Lands tried

to correct an injustice that was done in the past.

When a former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

went forward, I saw what this minister tried to do, and I am sure he made

representation to Cabinet, to try to change the Vehicle Inspection Act. I

suppose it was a prime example of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture,

being the type of strong willed person, if you would, the bully, coming out on

top and allowing this particular act, the Vehicle Inspection Act, to continue to

be done away with. We all know the concerns that are out there. We know the

concerns of the general public, and I feel 100 per cent sure that if this

minister of Government Services and Lands had his way he would have convinced

the Cabinet of the day to bring back the Vehicle Inspection Act, and I think

that is so very, very important.

The only comments I have to make as far as this act is

concerned is, I suppose reverting back to the rules and regulations or a piece

of legislation that the minister introduced in this House a few short months ago

as it relates to cottages being purchased, and not being allowed to continue to

do as they have done in the past, to pay their $75 a year and lease the property

rather than buy it outright. There is nothing wrong with people having an option

to buy their land, but there is a lot wrong when somebody says: You must buy

your land.

I know of one particular person, one particular constituent

of mine, a senior citizen, who has a cottage and has had it for years and years,

paying his $75 a year, living on a fixed income, and he and his wife have not

spent a night in that cottage for probably the past ten years, but they enjoyed

going up there on an outing on a Sunday afternoon, or a Monday evening, and

putting on a fire and boiling the kettle, and having a meal there. They enjoyed

that. Now what we have done is taken that opportunity away from them. We have

gone back and said: Now if you want to buy this particular piece of property it

will cost you $3,000.

He cannot afford $3,000. This was this particular family's

getaway. This was a place they enjoyed going to, a lot of memories brought back

of times when their family used to gather there together. Now because the

government of the day, in their wisdom, says that you must buy this particular

piece of property, he has to look at it and say: I am sorry, but it has to go

back to the Crown because I cannot afford to pay $3,000 for this piece of

property to go and boil up, to have a meal there, two or three times a year.

That, to me, is wrong. He should have been given the option to continue to pay

his $75 a year, as it was in the past.

Then there was some confusion about what we considered remote

and what we considered accessible. I called somebody at the department and they

said: Boy, if the road leading to the cottage is not kept open year round then

it is a remote cottage, so things can stay the way they were. Then, apparently

somebody looked at it and said: Well, now we are talking about a lot of cottages

here. This could probably be half the cottages in Newfoundland that would fall

under this category, so we have to change that. Now they have come back and

said, if you can drive to your cabin or your cottage any time during the year.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, with the weather conditions that we

experience here, a lot of people's cottages should be considered remote for

probably at least six months of the year because they have no way of getting to

and from them unless they go by an all-terrain vehicle or a skidoo, because the

roads leading to those particular areas about which we are talking are certainly

not maintained or kept open.

Then, when people have to go and pay for their property, they

have to start at another little swell, if you would, another little uprising, by

people saying: Well, if we have to pay for our cottage, then how about the

person out in the gravel pit with his trailer? That is another problem that we

are seeing now. Lots of times you drive down through my district, and other

districts - in fact, you see a lot of it along the Trans-Canada Highway - people

have developed little pits, if you would, gravel-pit camping, and it is not

uncommon to see fifteen or twenty trailers, flags flying, and little bridges,

little verandas built around them, where people would go and enjoy the weekend.

This was their trip down to Florida; this was their trip to Prince Edward

Island. This was their holiday, I say to members opposite. Now we are going to

deprive those people of that as well.

The government of the day says: No, you don't have to move

your trailer. You have to take away your steps. You have to take the blocks out

from under it, put the wheels back on it, come into Motor Registration and get

it licensed, and you can continue to live there. You can continue to leave it

there. We might be back tomorrow to change it and tell you that you have to move

it. Then we can do that because the trailer is mobile, it is ready to move. We

have collected the money off you through Motor Registration, even though you are

not going to drive it; you are not going to take it on the highway unless we

tell you so. You have your verandah taken down, so you can go to the store and

buy a few lawn chairs to put out in front now, but you can only put up a step

with no railing or anything like that on it to get into your trailer. What

foolish rules and regulations.

This is coming from a government that only a few short years

ago was going to bring back legislation, introduce legislation, to cut through

the red tape of dealing with government. One-stop shopping, Mr. Speaker.

Instead, what we are doing is putting more bureaucracy and red tape into the

system than was ever there before.

How about the fellow with the truck camper? You know what I'm

talking about. The pick-up truck backs in and you take your camper fully

equipped in the back of your truck. A lot of people, particularly in this

Province, use that type of equipment to go camping, or that type of

accommodation. That is their motor home, with the camper in the box of the

truck. Lots of time they go to their favourite fishing hole, they take off the

camper, and they leave it there for the summer months. It has happened in lots

of cases. It has posts on it or some kind of an attachment where you screw it up

and the truck backs away from under it, and it is just left there. They set it

up with a bridge so that they can get in and out of the camper.

Now the government in its wisdom says this can't go on any

more. You aren't allowed to leave your camper there. Why? What is the

difference, I say to the members opposite, in leaving a truck camper somewhere

and leaving a trailer somewhere? If the fellow has a pick-up truck and if he

maintains a licence, then he can make that particular camper as mobile as the

trailer is with a licence on the trailer. They don't say you have to keep a car,

they don't say you have to have a truck. All they are saying is that you must

licence your trailer. They don't care which way you move it as long as there is

a sticker on the licence plate that says it can be moved. What is wrong with the

fellow leaving his camper by his favourite fishing hole and maintaining a

pick-up truck where he can move it, or at least have access to a truck that will

go and move it for him? Those are the kinds of things, the silly things I

suppose if you would, that we have to get rid of. Those are the kinds of things

that this government or this minister must look at and correct.

I don't know if it just me or if we all feel like it, but

everybody who has ever left Newfoundland has always wanted to come home. I've

had to leave many times to go and find a job or to go and to go and - well,

holidays, I suppose, you know when you are coming back. But when you go away

somewhere to work you never know when you are coming back, and you go with a

lump in your chest, and you go because you have no other choice, but the first

opportunity to come home, you know where you are going.

It isn't because we have such wonderful weather here, or we

have such wonderful scenery, or there are so many opportunities here. Because,

Mr. Speaker, as you know and I know, for the most cases it is quite the

opposite. But we enjoy living here because up until now we have enjoyed a lot of

freedoms in this Province. We could go and we could do the things that we

enjoyed doing. We could go in and we could throw out a line, wet a line and

catch a few trout. We could go in and cut a load of firewood. We could go in and

set up our camper. Now what we are doing is saying: We will still allow you to

do all those things, but you must come and ask somebody, you must come and get

permission from somebody, you must get a licence. If we decide that we are going

to issue it, we will; if we don't, we won't.

I don't plan on dragging this particular bill out this

morning. I'm going to conclude my few comments by saying to the minister - and

it is too bad he isn't here - that I know many people have applied to the

minister for time to pay as it relates to the $3,000 that they must pay in order

to acquire ownership of their cottage lot. I plead with the minister to allow

those people some time. If they are looking for two years or if they are looking

for three years, I say to the minister, give them time to pay. I believe the

minister will. It is too bad he wasn't here to hear the other few comments that

I was putting forward, but he has his speaker turned on, I'm sure.

I believe the minister will. The minister has been trying

hard. Minister, I will repeat to you again, be lenient with the people out there

who can't pay. Because this Province, this Island of ours, is going through a

period of time now like we have never, ever seen before. A lot of people out

there enjoy the simple things in life, like being able to go and get away and go

to their favourite place and do their favourite thing. It is wrong for this

government to say that you can't do that, or to put you through any more red

tape than they have already had to go through in order to enjoy those few

privileges which they hold dear.

Thank you.

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

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

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

and Lands speaks now, he closes the debate.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments on the amendments. I wonder, does the

hon. Member for Cape St. Francis want me to tell again the wonderful results of

the new program that we brought in on the Crown lands policy?

Mr. Speaker, the first two changes are very, very simple,

very straightforward. Mr. Speaker, the amendment we are making to

section 6 is a

section where we are trying to clean up a little bit, to tidy up a little bit

because what we are intent on doing is that when people apply for Crown lands

that is within a range of twenty to 100 hectares, currently, they still have to

apply through the regular process of attaining Crown land. It is not going to

change anything in terms of the requirements that they have. All it does is, it

allows the minister to make a decision without the applicant having to wait an

extra month or two months for the whole Cabinet process to take place. A very

simple change.

As far as

section 41, the regulatory process is in the works

now where we are changing and reviewing all the regulations that we have so that

will be all brought in, in a much more palatable way for people to use in

applications for Crown lands. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this will

improve the whole process of people applying for Crown lands and it will speed

up the process, it will take a lot of the red tape away. It won't do anything to

affect at least, the people who apply for property, it will not give us any more

leverage in terms of having political interference or anything else. People will

still have to go through the same process of applying for Crown lands. This is

just a change so that the minister can make that decision rather than having to

go back through Cabinet which is a process - and I would recommend that the

amendments be made to Bill 22.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill No. 22).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, "An Act

To Amend The Jury Act", (Bill No. 24) Order No. 4, the hon. the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury

Act," (Bill No. 24).

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

Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this is just a very minor piece

of housekeeping. The explanatory note is all encompassing. The bill would amend

the Jury Act which would give, in most cases, the Sheriff, the authority to use

discretion when he disburses payment for reasonable expenses of jurors who

attend jury.

I move second reading.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments, Mr. Speaker, on the bill, "An Act To

Amend The Jury Act." I agree with the minister that it is, to a large extent

just housekeeping but it broadens that particular provision in that, a juror may

be paid reasonable travel and other expenses and is not limited to a

schedule

which is limited to civil servants. It does broaden that particular provision of

the Jury Act.

I thought I would make a few comments though with respect to

the act generally because there are some very interesting provisions of the Jury

Act that perhaps we are not all aware of, in particular the exemptions which are

found in the legislation. It is clear that there are various individuals, by

reason largely of their profession, who are disqualified from serving as a

juror, and I will just cite for the benefit of the members of the House who

these individuals are who are disqualified and exempted from serving as jurors

in this Province.

They include, Mr. Speaker, a member, an officer, or an

employee of the Parliament of Canada or the Privy Council of Canada, a member,

officer, or employee of the House of Assembly, or the Executive Council of this

Province, a judge of the court of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland, an

officer or an employee of the Department of Justice, or of the Solicitor General

of the government of the Province, a barrister or solicitor, a court official, a

sheriff or sheriff's officer, a member of a police force, a justice, a warden,

correctional officer, or person employed in a penitentiary, a prison or

correctional institution, and a spouse of a person referred to in Paragraphs (

a) to (k), so these individuals I have just mentioned are by law exempted from

serving as jurors in this Province, and it also includes a spouse of those

individuals.

I would perhaps suggest to the minister that he may give some

consideration, as he is now in the mind to do some housekeeping, as he puts it,

that that particular section,

Section 5, Subsection (

l) of the act where it says

spouse, perhaps for further clarification ought to indicate whether it is spouse

as defined under the Family Law Act or whether it will also include what is

commonly referred as a common law spouse. That particular provision is not clear

and I think it is important in terms of who exactly is exempted from serving as

a juror in our Province.

Section 7 of the act indicates that a person may apply to be

exempted from serving as a juror on the grounds that serving as a juror may

cause serious hardship or loss to that person or others, so that will obviously

have to deal with individuals who, out of necessity, must work, and whether it

be for health reasons, employment reasons, or family considerations, out of

necessity find it impossible to serve.

Section 7 Subsection (2) states that without limiting the

generality of Subsection (1) service as a juror shall be considered to cause

serious hardship to a person where a person has the sole care during all or part

of a day on which the court is in session, of a person who is under the age of

seven, so a person may apply for an exemption who essentially has to do

babysitting or child care activity, a person who is infirmed or aged, a person

who is mentally incompetent, so any individual who has supervisory

responsibilities of such a person may very well plead to be exempted or

disqualified in acting as a juror.

Section 8 is also interesting, Mr. Speaker. It states that

where a person's pastoral or religious duties or beliefs would conflict with his

or her service as a juror, that person, shall, on application be exempted from

serving as a juror, so it seems to indicate that a formal application has to be

made before a court in order to be exempted.

Section 9, a person over the age of sixty-five shall, on

application again, be exempted from serving as a juror. So there is an age

limitation as well.

Section 10: No more than one member of a family unit, and no

more than one member or employee of a firm, shall be liable to serve on a jury

at a sitting.

Basically, one family member and one employee of a particular

residence only; in other words, there is a restriction on family members and

employees of a particular business from serving at the same time in a particular

case.

Section 19 indicates that jurors are not liable to serve on a

jury more than once every three years. Therefore, if a member of the public is

called upon to serve as a juror, and that calling upon occurs a second time

within a three-year period, that person is exempted by virtue of

section 19 of

the Act.

Also, there is provision beginning with

section 38 of the Act

where a person may receive compensation. In fact, there is an obligation, a

legal obligation, on an employer to ensure that the juror is compensated for his

or her services in acting as a member of the jury.

So there are some interesting provisions in the Jury Act. The

exemptions make it clear exactly who can and cannot serve as a juror. They are

described by way of profession, and obviously, anybody involved with the legal

profession or law enforcement in this Province is, by virtue of the legislation,

automatically exempted.

Getting back to today's amendment, it is essentially minor.

It does allow an individual who serves as a juror to be compensated for

reasonable expenses. It does not describe exactly what those reasonable expenses

are. It appears that it is at the discretion of the minister. I agree with the

minister, in his introduction, that it is essentially for housekeeping purposes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rather surprised that the minister did not think that

his amendment would generate the kind of debate that one would expect in the

House on a matter of this nature.

I know the minister is not necessarily as adept as the former

Justice critic on this side of the House, now sitting in the back benches over

there, in his grasp of -

MR. TULK: Who is that, `Jack'?

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Humber Valley. He was Justice

critic over here, and received much praise for his grasp of legal issues.

MR. TULK: So you are saying he did the sensible thing and

came over here.

MR. HARRIS: I was not here, but I understand that the

Minister of Justice did a bit of a self-appraisal today in terms of his own

legal abilities. I do not know if he ranked himself higher than the Member for

Humber Valley or not -

MR. DECKER: No, never.

MR. HARRIS: - but I encourage the Minister of Justice to

consult with the Member for Humber Valley on legal matters because in a very

short period of time he showed himself, on this side of the House at least, to

have a very good grasp of legal matters. I suspect that is where this amendment,

in fact, comes from; that the amendment to the Jury Act comes from the

suggestions of the Member for Humber Valley, now that he is a member of the

government caucus and has the inside track, as it were, on amendments to justice

bills. In fact, I think he is now chairing a committee under the justice

portfolio, dealing with issues of insurance law and insurance matters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Government Services and Lands.

MR. HARRIS: Government Services and Lands, is it?

Insurance regulations come under Justice, and Consumer Affairs is and has been a

very important part of the justice portfolio for a number of years, although

they may have moved it in the last little while.

To the point of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I support the

amendment. It is obviously a matter that has caused some concern in juries.

Certain expenses could not be paid, and certain expenses could. Child care, for

example, for women who required it, or men, for that matter, who required it,

serving on a jury, was open to question,

interpretation. I hope the minister has

a set of policies and guidelines that would ensure that women who require child

care in order to serve on a jury have adequate child care expenses covered to

ensure that they have an opportunity to perform their public duty and, at the

same time, to have their family obligations looked after, Mr. Speaker. It is not

a reasonable thing in this society to limit people's participation in public

activities because of family responsibilities of that nature and it in fact ends

up treating one class of citizens as different from another.

The Member for St. John's East referred to a number of the

exemptions that are there and they attempted to overhaul them a couple of years

ago but the government was adamant in keeping some of them there. Members of

this House of Assembly, for example, are not allowed to serve on juries, but

what about their spouses? There are whole series of examples, some of which are

reasonable and some of which are not. There was a time when anybody who was a

public servant was not allowed to sit on a jury or was exempted from jury

service and that has passed and there is probably room for eliminating a number

of the other exemptions. There seems to be, in this Province, a lot more jury

trials now then there were even ten years ago, certainly a lot more than there

were twenty years ago and this has caused a realignment in the activities which

came forth and certainly the need for improvements and refinements in the jury

system.

A major overhaul was undertaken, as I mentioned, a few years

ago which has resulted in a more streamlined process. I know, the courts

themselves now, instead of in panelling, are setting up jury panels for an

individual trial, do all the jury panels at once each month for the trials that

could take place d