May 8,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 22

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome sixty-two students, Level I

and Level II from the Discovery Collegiate in the Town of Bonavista. These are

Law, Democracy and Canadian issue classes, and they are accompanied by their

teachers Tony Power, Jeff Piercey, Stephanie Gould along with bus drivers

Allister Hicks and Louis Street.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate

the new minister on her appointment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: I would also like to tell the minister that

the portfolio has changed but the critic has not.

AN HON. MEMBER: It will.

MR. FRENCH: That's a matter of opinion from the man from

Topsail who usually says nothing.

The new Minister of Health, when she was President of the

Nurses' Union challenged the government to provide more funding for health care.

Now that she is in a position to do something about it, how long will the people

of the Province have to wait before we see more funding?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think that with the announcement most recently by the

federal government of raising the floor of the CHST, I think we have been very

clear that we are anxious to hear the issues and concerns that are brought

forward by their front-line health care providers and that we will be making any

necessary changes that are within our realm of possibility. We believe because

of the change in the federal funding that we will be able to look at some

initiatives in some way to deal with the issues as they have been presented to

us to date, and also in more detail after we go through our forum this weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When changing his Cabinet today, the Premier said the people

of the Province have expressed concern for the integrity of the health care

system. He certainly reinforced this when he relieved the minister.

With thousands of people frightened about the deterioration

of our health care system, what do you intend to do differently, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I can, in

answering the member's question and his comments - and I would expect the member

to participate in the House with his usual grace and good will today, and it

seems to be somewhat lacking in some of his comments - I would like to reflect

upon the words of the Newfoundland Medical Association who issued a release that

said two things: One, welcoming the appointment of the Minister of Health this

morning. It says: The association looks forward to working with her, through the

joint management committee, as we strive to meet the challenges before the

health care sector.

The same release goes on to say that the association went on

to express their thanks to Minister Matthews. Over the last three years the hon.

Lloyd Matthews has worked hard in the interest of health care in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: We wish him well as he assumes his new

responsibility with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, there is one reality today in this Province, and

that is that the job in this Province, or any other Province of Canada, of

maintaining the responsibility of the health care portfolio is an onerous one.

It is a challenging one, and it is a difficult one, and it takes a measure of

courage and commitment to carry it through over any extended period of time.

Minister Matthews was the second-longest serving health care

minister in Canada. He went at the job with a heart-and-a-half. He served this

Province with distinction, served it well, and I am proud and pleased to have

him in a new role of responsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as we review this weekend the

health care system with front-line - front-line - health care providers, it is

appropriate that a former front-line health care provider, former health care

educator, and former President of the Nurse's Union, will take the lead in

assuming that new responsibility with new initiative, new energy, and with a new

outlook. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all members would welcome that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last night I had the opportunity to attend a public forum in

Corner Brook, where I was allowed to enter. I sat and listened for awhile to

concerns of people in that community. I guess one of the things that really

struck me last night Premier, and to the Minister of Health, and the members

from that particular area, was when the cardiac specialist for Corner Brook, Dr.

George Grebneff, stood on his feet and looked around the room. I was there, and

there were two or three other MHAs from both sides of the House there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I remind the hon. member that he is on a supplementary,

and no

preamble should be required.

MR. FRENCH: His question, Mr. Speaker, was very simple.

He said: There are MHAs in this room tonight, and I would really like one of

them tomorrow in the House of Assembly to stand on their two feet and ask the

question. I told that gentleman I would ask that question. That question is: How

many deaths are too many before something is done for cardiac patients on the

waiting list?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a

very unfortunate question I guess to be asked across the House of Assembly, but

I think it has to be answered very clearly that even one death is too many. I

think that we have been very clear in our direction over the last number of

weeks. We, in collaboration with the Health Care Corporation, have been actively

pursuing meeting the needs and the requirements of people of this Province as it

relates to cardiac surgery. We are hoping to have an announcement on that next

week to be able to outline how we plan to address those issues, and how to

reassure the public that even one death is too many. We will be working very

hard, and we compliment the Health Care Corporation in its efforts, and we look

forward to that announcement next week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly

inform the doctor of that answer. I will also just inform the House that Dr.

Grebneff did a survey in the Corner Brook area and in the past several months -

and I have the statistics here - he has had reported to him that there have been

five deaths, and that is certainly five too many.

Minister, the issue concerning rural doctors is critical.

Particularly critical is the fact that the workload is being dumped on some of

our nurses. The minister has been in Cabinet for fifteen months and knows the

fear and concern that the people in the Province are experiencing with regards

to health care.

The minister knows full well what is going on. Does she

believe that the nurses in the Province are stretched to the breaking point, and

what will she do to ensure that more nurses are hired?

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

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

I think, as an active nurse, I can say there are no nurses

who would ever consider what my hon. colleague has said, that something is being

dumped on them when it comes to patient care. I think there are stresses in the

system, there are difficulties in the system, we acknowledge them and we commit

to address those in the coming weeks. I do know that nurses and other health

care professionals have approached the Social Policy Committee over the last

number of months and have asked that we consider how we can maximize use of

their abilities and maximize their role; that is something we will be looking

forward to hearing more about on the weekend. We will be addressing whatever

issues and priorities we can within the best of our ability and we look forward

to hearing from the front line health care providers on those very same issues.

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

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from two

public health care meetings on the West Coast, one in Port aux Basque and one in

Corner Brook. I have spoken to people who sincerely fear for their lives. I have

watched people cry, as I am sure my colleague from Port aux Basques did the

other night. I have heard the anger in their voices, and your government has to

start feeling what these people are feeling.

They feel that your government, both provincially and

federally -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I have to remind the hon. member that supplementary

preambles are not permitted and I ask him to get to his question.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- have let them down.

Minister, what do you say to the people in Corner Brook and

Port aux Basques and Port Saunders who have reached their limit with this issue?

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

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

We, too, are very concerned about what we are hearing and

seeing out there, right now, and I think that is one of the main reasons why the

Premier, last week announced, and very quickly, has help put together this

hearth care forum this week from our front line health care providers and other

professionals.

We are concerned, as well; we have acknowledged that there

are difficulties, that there are stresses in the system and that they need to be

addresses and we will be doing that. We will be doing that to the best of our

ability in the shortest possible order and we give you that commitment.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is very important to state for the

people of this Province, that we do have problems in our health care system, but

we do have a lot of good things happening in heath care. We have a lot of very

hard workers, our front line nurses, doctors, social workers, OTs, you name

them, the people who keep our hospitals clean, the people who serve in the ORs.

They are doing good work and I think it is only fair that we support them

through this time.

There is definitely a need to address issues, but I think we

have to recognize that while doctors are a very integral part of our system,

they are part of a team when we help deliver the best possible health care to

the people of this Province. I use the issue, Mr. Speaker, of what is happening

in Labrador and in the Northern Peninsula of this Province, where we have seen

other health care providers work very closely as part of a team to develop

services, in many cases without physicians, and in many cases with close

collaboration with physicians. This is a team approach, this is a team effort,

and we will work as best we can and will continue to deliver quality health

care. We know there are problems, they have to be addressed, and we will do

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to tell the minister that I have also had

the opportunity over the past several days, in Port aux Basques and in Corner

Brook, to meet with doctors and nurses, and believe me, these people are very,

very serious. They have reached a breaking point in their jobs and I think the

quicker we can do something for these people the better. Will the minister

reverse the decision of her predecessor and ensure that both the general public

and the media have an opportunity to participate in the health forum this

weekend? Surely the minister will not close the door on the people who may have

solutions to this critical problem? These are people like pharmacists and the

ambulance operators who have both asked for standing at this particular hearing

and were both denied.

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

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

I think the main issue here, the issue that is being

addressed by the people of this Province, is that we identify clearly the issues

and priorities by the front-line health care providers. We are doing that with a

forum. If I remember correctly, while the minister may have changed, the critic

has stayed the same, and the critic did not see the need for a major health care

forum but wanted us to get on with the issues and try to solve them. That has

been our commitment, to meet with these people to try to deal with the issues

and to recognize that while we have problems in the system we have to work

within our means, and we will do that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have the pleasure of directing my questions to a new

minister. My question is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday and today,

over 1,000 teachers have received lay-off notices. The mood is sombre, and once

again, as has been the case in past years with this Administration, chaos will

be created as final exams approach. What will the minister do to ensure a

successful year end for our thousands of students, despite the chaos?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As much as the hon. member might try to suggest that there is

total chaos in the system, nothing could be further from the truth. There is no

question that there is a significant degree of change occurring in the

structuring of the school system for next September. There have not been changes

in the classrooms themselves throughout this school year. In fact, I think I

tried to make it clear yesterday that while it is very unfortunate, extremely

unfortunate, that over 1,000 teachers and their families yesterday were faced

with a lay-off notice when there was absolutely and entirely and completely no

need of it - largely and almost entirely because the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers' Association, that represents those very teachers, decided consciously

that they would not adjust a notice date in the collective agreement for the

most historic year of educational change that we have ever witnessed.

When that proposition was put directly to them, so that we

could spare their own members the anguish that they are going through - and I do

understand that some teachers find this very difficult and very troublesome and

it may, in fact, have some impact on their ability to teach with their normal

degree of enthusiasm in finishing up the school year - but in the final

analysis, there can be no doubt that there was an option offered to the

teachers' association so that these lay-off notices would not have to be

actually given as they were. The teachers' association itself, for its own

reasons, that they have not explained to me - they felt, in their best interest

and their members' best interests -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - that they would not make an adjustment.

Therefore, you have the notices, but no one should try to suggest that is

causing massive chaos in the education system and risks a successful conclusion

to the school year.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that he should not be shirking his

responsibility. We do have over 1,000 teachers in this Province who have

received lay-off notices. They are asking questions like: Should I sell my

house? Should we pack up and move? Should I apply for new jobs in other parts of

the Province? Is it necessary, like many other thousands of Newfoundlanders, to

apply for jobs in other provinces?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When

will he determine a date for final decisions, to ensure stability for those

teachers and their families, in order to allow them to focus on educating our

youth?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just really glad, I guess, that in my opinion, the

teachers have a lot more sensible approach to this than the hon. member is

trying to suggest.

The teachers in the system know full well what has happened

now, and they know that it is a mere administrative technique that the boards

are using to protect themselves against the possibility of having to keep more

teachers on the payroll than they will have funding for. In fact, the President

of the Teachers' Association yesterday, who had received a lay-off notice

himself, with over twenty years of teaching experience, and who knows full well

that it is just a notice for purposes of protecting a clause in the collective

agreement, he knows, like over 800 of the 1,000 know, that they have a job.

There is no widespread panic amongst teachers. There are no

teachers going around asking: Should I sell my house? That is an absolute

fabrication by the member opposite. He should really do himself the service of

checking with the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'

Association, because they understand what is happening now, their members

understand what is happening now, and in fact, there are 468 fewer teachers

going to be teaching in the Province in September. Everybody has known that for

two or three months now. But, in reality, since almost 300 have retired

voluntarily there will, in fact, be fewer than 200 actual lay-offs.

The teachers know that, they know it is a seniority system

that works. The teachers with fifteen and twenty years of experience who have

gotten notices know exactly what is happening. They know their jobs are not at

all threatened. It is really unfair that the member opposite would try to come

in here and suggest that there is any kind of widespread panic amongst the

professional teachers of the Province over an administrative arrangement that

was conducted yesterday, because he knows the difference, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this morning during the

Estimate debates on education, the issue of the Royal Commission implementation

was raised, and the hon. minister indicated that he had assigned the

responsibility for the implementation of the Royal Commission matters to one of

his officials.

I am just wondering, and I ask the question of the hon.

minister. It is the students that reform is about, it is about these very people

around us here this afternoon. We have, as a result of the designation process,

the closure of schools; we have, as a result of the designation process, the

closure of schools, which means no schools whatsoever in our communities; and, I

say to the minister, we have uncertainty and instability with respect to the

fact that over 1,000 teachers did get their dismissal and their notices.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I ask the minister: Has he given the

same consideration, as he did with respect to the Royal Commission

implementation, to make sure there is a senior official in his department to

ensure that the well-being and the interests of students is being taken care of,

and to ensure that because of the poor morale, their best interests are not

being forgotten?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I might point out that the students have nothing to

fear with respect to the successful conclusion to a school year as a result of

what is occurring. The hon. member again should know the difference, and I guess

maybe that is part of the difficulty. As the critic, he obviously does not know

the difference.

There are two things occurring in the Province

administratively at this point in time. One of them is a designation process for

schools that is happening for the first time in the history of the Province. It

is new legislation. Boards are dealing with it for the first time. That is

whether schools are going to be single denominational or multi-denominational

for next spring. That has nothing to do with how many schools actually operate.

The number of schools that school boards are choosing to

operate for next September, being some sixty-two or so less than this school

year, has nothing to do with education reform, has nothing to do with the new

legislation, has nothing to do with Term 17. It has all to do with the fact that

for fifteen years now the student population in our Province has been in decline

to the point that it has now gone from 170,000 students down to 102,000.

The government has announced repeatedly that it has adopted a

policy of allowing the size of the teacher workforce to track the size of the

student population. Therefore we announced some two-and-a-half months ago that

there would be 468 fewer teachers in the system next September than currently

are in the schools. As a result of that, which is a function of declining

enrolments and the teacher allocation, had nothing to do with whether we ever

changed Term 17, nothing to do with whether we ever changed the legislation, it

is a function of the number of students we serve in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The school boards, Mr. Speaker, have

determined -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to quickly conclude

his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The school boards have

determined that it is in the best interest of the students to meet the needs of

those students next year in sixty-two less buildings with 468 less teachers,

that has nothing to do with the designation process. I thought, Mr. Speaker,

that the hon. member who is the critic who had proposed some twenty-six

amendments to the new legislation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: - understood the difference but it is obvious

I guess, that he does not.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Forestry

Resources and Agrifoods.

Would the minister inform the House if it is his government's

intention to pay the total cost or part thereof to relocate ten poultry farms on

the West Coast to a location on the East Coast of the Province?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman

as I have said to him on a number of occasions in the past week-and-a-half, that

the government of this Province is concerned about the amount that it is costing

the government from the taxpayers of this Province to be involved in the

chicken-processing business. It is a business that we do not believe we should

be involved in; it is costing some $6 million to $8 million a year of taxpayers

money, which is not available for health care and education and other things and

we are at a set of negotiations that are ongoing with IPL which is made up of

the chicken producers, and I have told him that until those negotiations are

complete, I am not in any position to say what that agreement will be. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it would be ludicrous of me to stand up here and

say the agreement is going to be this when the negotiations are still ongoing. I

have to inform the hon. gentleman that all will be known at the right time.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of hard to get

answers on this particular transaction.

Would the minister inform the House if it is his government's

intention to erect infrastructure such as grain silos in the Harbour Grace area

to accommodate the needs of IPL using taxpayers dollars?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry Resources

and Agrifoods.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if this is question B, then I have

to say to him that the answer to question B is the same as it was to question A.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister will inform the House as to the

total cost to government for production overtime expenses at St. John's, since

the minister closed the Corner Brook facility?

Minister, sources tell me that in excess of seventy employees

are working five hours a day overtime, being paid at time-and-a-half in order to

meet production schedules. I ask the minister if this is a responsible way to

conduct a business and, is it a responsible way to spend taxpayers dollars?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry Resources

and Agrifoods.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the same answer applies. I have to

say to the hon. gentleman that no, we recognize we should not be in the chicken

business. I have to say that to him. Now I ask him a question: Does he want us

to now close down the St. John's plant? If he does, he should stand up and say

so.

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

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

My questions are to the new Minister of Human Resources and

Employment and I take the opportunity to congratulate her on her new

appointment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: I am sure she will bring the same

competence that she has brought to other offices that she has held in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister: In view of the

decision of your government to close the group homes in the Province and

restructure the whole system of providing care for particular groups of

individuals and the decision to proceed in a rather autocratic manner, would the

minister be reviewing that whole procedure and, would you give a commitment to

the House that you are willing to examine the whole rationale in the next short

while?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly very delighted to have the challenge and to be

provided the opportunity to serve as the Minister for Human Resources and

Employment. It is a very large and a very diverse department which has many

responsibilities, and the group home issue, the group home responsibility is one

of many that this department has responsibility for and one of many that I will

be getting familiar with over the coming days and weeks as I get totally briefed

and familiar with all aspects of this department.

A great deal of thought and planning has gone into the

reformation of this department and it is a new direction for the department that

I am particularly pleased with; I believe that in moving the department towards

looking at and bridging social and economic issues, that we are bringing a new

vision to this aspect of our public service for the people of this Province. As

we move in that direction there are many challenges that we are going to face.

We have difficult decisions that we have had to make in all aspects of the

budget, not only associated with this particular department but with all aspects

of government in providing public service to the people of this Province. So I

will, as the new minister, be picking up where the previous minister has left

off. I will be taking the foundation of reform that has been put in place for

moving forward in this Province and I will be doing my best to try and move this

further along over the coming weeks and months as part of a strong team of

government who has a vision for what they want to see for this Province and for

the people of the Province. That will be the kind of energy that I will bring to

it and I want to compliment my predecessor on the planning work that has

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

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

I say to the hon. minister that of the buzz words out of this

government, two stand out, one is consultation and the other one is grassroots.

Well today I have had people call me, crying on the phone, telling about the

fact that they feel the new structure is not sensitive to their needs and to the

needs of their families. I ask the minister - in view of the fact that the

Premier himself has been written by numbers of people throughout the Province

and asked if he would come to various homes to visit, to be part of the

dialogue, to listen to them - I ask the minister if she would have a public

forum on this particular issue, let's say in St. John's and Grand Falls as per

the request? If you are going to listen to grassroots, going to have

consultation, then we are asking you if you would go out as this request is

here, spend a day in a group home in St. John's -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. member has asked his question.

MR. H. HODDER: - and one in Grand Falls and listen to

what the people have to say?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, there is a process that we are

currently involved in, as a government and particularly as a department, which

involves developing a strategic social plan. Now one of the elements of that

plan will certainly touch on and include dealing with issues associated with

group homes. So there is a high degree of consultation and planning that will go

into this aspect. Of course in my general approach to these duties and

responsibilities, as the minister, I can say here that I will be listening to

what people have to say on this issue, that I will be consulting and dialoguing

with all of those who are involved in any way, touched by, served by, have

concerns that they wish to express. That avenue will be open as it has been in

the past for people to express their concerns so that we can benefit from that

in developing our policies and pursuing our programs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. G. REID: The Social Services Committee have directed

me to report that they have received and approved without amendment the

estimates of expenditure for the Departments of Education, Health, Human

Resources and Employment, Justice, and Environment and Labour.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the committee members for

their participation.

Thank you.

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

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

the Resource Committee.

The Resource Committee have directed me to report that they

have reviewed and approved without amendment the estimates of expenditures of

the Departments of Development and Rural Renewal, Fisheries and Aquaculture,

Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Industry, Trade and Technology, Mines and

Energy, and Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

During Question Period today, in response to a question from

the Member for St. John's East, the Minister of Education looked at the member

and he said, "That is an absolute fabrication by the member."

Mr. Speaker, in Beauchesne, page 145, the word `fabrication'

is clearly deemed to be unparliamentary, therefore, I guess the words `absolute

fabrication' is a little more unparliamentary than the word `fabrication' alone.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, if you would ask the member to withdraw

that particular statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the point raised by the

hon. member. I will review Hansard and address the point of order, tomorrow.

Petitions

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of

residents of the Province, who are asking the House of Assembly to urge and

direct the government to establish a school lunch program throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, a number of schools in the Province have either

a school lunch program or a school breakfast program, but the petitioners here

are asking the government to establish a universal school lunch program, so that

every school in Newfoundland and Labrador will have a school lunch program to

provide schoolchildren at least one nutritious meal a day.

Now, I noticed there are a number of students here in the

gallery today, who may or may not have the benefit of a school lunch program in

their schools. What they may not know, and what many people in this Province do

not know, is that a very high percentage of children in Newfoundland and

Labrador go to school hungry. They go to school hungry because their families do

not have adequate finances to provide sufficient food, to ensure that each

schoolchild has a full stomach, when he or she goes to school. It is a problem

that is kind of hidden, Mr. Speaker. A lot of people do not want to talk about

it, children do not like to talk about it. Schoolchildren especially do not like

to talk about it because they do not want to be seen by their fellow-students as

being somehow stigmatized by poverty, but the reality is that more and more

children in this Province live in poverty.

Just to use one statistic, in 1989, the Canadian Council on

Welfare had established, based on the poverty rate, that about eighteen per cent

of Newfoundland children live below the poverty line. That rate changed in 1995

to twenty-six per cent. That is a very significant, substantial jump, an almost

fifty per cent increase in only six years. What that probably means, Mr.

Speaker, is that twenty-five per cent, at least, of schoolchildren in this

Province are living in poverty and are part of the group that is going to school

hungry.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we understand that community efforts have

been made in various places to have a school lunch program and the School Lunch

Foundation had devised a way to have a school lunch program that is stigma-free.

In other words, any student participating in the program is not identified as to

how they are participating. It is a program that is universally available and it

becomes, in fact, a part of ordinary school life that everybody in school stays

for lunch and enjoys a hot meal, provided at the school.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are talking about here. What

these petitioners want is for government to use some of the money that is being

saved in the educational changes that have taken place as a result, in

particular, of school reform - that some of that money be used to establish a

comprehensive universal school lunch program. It is something that is absolutely

necessary if we are to give every student an equal chance to participate fully

in the school program. It has been demonstrated without any doubt by experts, by

educators, and indeed, by common sense, that a hungry child cannot concentrate

his or her attention on school work. It has been demonstrated that children in

these circumstances do not get to participate fully in the school program, do

not get to learn in the same way that others do, and are therefore going to be

kept behind their fellow-students in terms of achievement, in terms of

opportunity for the future. It is one way to try to end a cycle of poverty and a

cycle of circumstances that keeps certain people behind and allows others to go

ahead.

We do want to see a continuation of a situation where some

people and some families seem to do okay by the school system and in life, and

so many others are left behind and are faced with much less opportunity and much

less chance in life to do well and to participate in the great opportunities

that exist across the country. It is only one building block in an attempt to

eradicate poverty, but it is an important one, and it is one that is achievable

in the short-term, because we do have significant changes taking place in our

school system. Significant savings have taken place in the operational costs of

schools and school busing as a result of the big changes that are taking place

in education today.

I ask hon. members to support the petition and to urge

government, and direct government, to establish a universal comprehensive school

lunch program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child

hunger and to give our children a better chance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise again today to support the petition brought forward by

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

The prayer of the petition is well known to the House. We

have had this particular petition day after day, and we shall continue to

present the petition. Because poverty in this Province is epidemic, when we have

40,000 children who go to school every day hungry. We know that we have the

stats on what poverty is as it relates to single-parent families. We know, as

well, that poverty is a problem that inhibits greatly the achievement levels of

students in the school system. We know that students who are going to school

hungry are at risk of not being able to perform as well as those who are not in

that particular situation.

We know that the drop-out rate for children who come from

poor families is much higher than it is for those children who come from average

or middle-income families, or families with sufficient funds to be able to

provide good nutritional meals for their children every day. We know that we

should be having more interventions by way of school lunch programs. We know

that the community at large is trying to address this problem, and we commend

those organizations and those business groups which are out there saying: We

must do something about this problem of child poverty, in particular as it

relates to child poverty in the school system.

Mr. Speaker, as a former teacher, I know that children in my

school walk the corridors at lunchtime rather than be able to go the cafeteria

and buy a lunch. The sad part about it is, many of them did not have anything at

home to bring a lunch with them. I say that I taught in a rather middle-class

community. We know that the problems are real. The studies that have been done

attest to it. As the hon. member just said that 18 per cent of Newfoundland

families, or over 38,000 children, live below the poverty line. How can we

expect them to perform in the school system?

As one of the ministers said the other day in responding to

this, the Member for Port de Grave, he visited a school on two occasions and

witnessed the changes that had occurred in some of the students who had been

observed before they were offered a good lunch program and then after they had a

good nutritional meal at lunchtime.

Mr. Speaker, we know that children are in jeopardy. We know

that if the children today are in jeopardy of not being able to fulfil their

potential then they, in their turn, are likely to find themselves in

circumstances whereby their children will be in similar circumstances. So there

is a cycle to this poverty.

We have to be aggressive, we have to be bold, we have to take

strong initiatives to try to overcome it, and no one group can do it alone. We

are not saying to leave all the responsibility to the government. We are not

saying that. We are saying that as a community, made up of the government, made

up of church groups, community groups and working with aggressive policies at

the community level, then we certainly hope that we can altogether: (

a) recognize the problem; and, (

b) start to do something about it; because if we

don't do something about it... We have to remember what has been said on many

occasions, that if you have a hungry child today you have a good probability of

having a hungry parent twenty years from now. So the cycle of childhood poverty

just keeps going on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, we want again today to bring to the attention of

the House, as we have done on many occasions before, the real risk to

educational achievement and personal fulfilment that is imposed on children if

they are unable to have good meals and if they live in families where poverty is

an everyday feature of their lifestyle.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. minister, I

would just like to welcome to the galleries today, on behalf of all members, the

mayor and a delegation from Centreville, Wareham and Trinity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just a few

comments in support of the initiative contained in the petition put forth by the

Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, I have said many times over the past number of

years, and especially since I came into public life in 1985, that we live in the

greatest country in the whole world. The United Nations has said that Canada is

the envy of the whole world, and people all across the world choose Canada as

the best place in the world to live.

I have said many times, in addition to that, that we live in

the greatest Province in all of Canada, a population of 550,000 over a vast

region four times larger than the country of Japan - we with half-a-million plus

people, Japan with 100 million plus people.

We are the envy of the world with the resources that we have

in this little, sparsely populated Province, resources in our marine life and

resources on land; but even though we are the envy of the whole world, even

though we have such a great country, and even though we live in this great

Province, we still have a problem when it comes to the children going to school,

our younger people, doing without food, nutrition, because of the inability of

the system or the parents to provide adequate incomes for themselves and to feed

their families.

Is it a problem that is going to go away quickly? Absolutely

not. I remember back in 1989, when I was appointed Minister of Social Services,

it was one of the first problems that I dealt with as minister, to begin to work

with the community organizations to initiate the School Lunch Program. It has

come a long way since 1989 but it is not yet - I should not say `not yet' - but

it is a long ways from being satisfactory. We will never be satisfied until we

are totally aware or totally understanding of the fact that no child is going to

school - or getting up in the morning, whether going to school or not - without

the proper food in his body. But it is not going to work by a government order.

It is not going to work by a government, provincially or federally, saying that

it is going to happen. It has to be the total cooperation, the total

understanding of the community, of industry, of governments and of people in

general to address this major, major problem. We have a lot to offer but I don't

think that it is fully understood how serious this situation is. I just want to

say to members opposite that we are aware of this situation. The School Milk

Program this year, I think it was in excess of $200,000 of monies put into the

school lunch programs but more needs to be done provincewide, more, much more.

AN HON. MEMBER: The School Milk Program.

MR. EFFORD: I just mentioned the School Milk Program but

it is a partnership that is making it work. It is a partnership that is making

it happen and improving - the beginning, the step in the right direction. The

day that we can see a resolve to this very, very serious problem, I tell you, we

would all applaud and all sit down with great satisfaction with that. It is a

problem that we can all accomplish as a community at large. When will that be

done? Let's hope, Mr. Speaker, as soon as possible in the future. We look

forward to it but we have to stop talking about it. We have to start putting our

cooperation, our understanding, our heads together to get things done. I think

action is needed, Mr. Speaker, and action is what must happen and organizational

structures must focus on the very, very serious problem.

As I said last week, when you see firsthand - as I did and I

am sure many more other people seen firsthand - visiting schools, being pointed

out by the staff at the school, children who are doing without food and to see

the way that they are separated from the rest, they are laid back and not being

involved in the day to day routine of their education or sport activities, I

tell you it is very, very sad. So I will not back away from it and I will say to

members opposite, I will be a part of doing anything that is possible to help

alleviate and solve this very, very serious problem that many children in our

Province are faced with.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the

compliments from the best Forest Resources and Agrifoods Minister in the House

of Assembly.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: You did a good job.

Mr. Speaker, another petition on the parks privatization

issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, back to the petition on the

parks privatization. We the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to

petition the hon. House of Assembly to voice our concerns over government's

decision to privatize our provincial parks. We are asking the government to

immediately reverse its decision to privatize the parks as we feel the decision

was made in haste and without consultation with the people who own the parks,

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I will soon be able to write a book on the fight

against the parks privatization. I have stood and asked that many questions,

presented that many petitions, gone to that many meetings, Mr. Speaker, and

spoke with that many people, accepted so many phone calls and letters and

petitions being mailed in, over 15,000 names on petitions now on this particular

issue. I have here names from Grand Falls - Windsor, Badger, Lewisporte, Brown's

Arm and Bonavista Bay. We have presented names from all over the Province

because this is an important issue and the people of our Province are clearly

against the privatization of provincial parks. The people of our Province are

clearly against this government taking our parks, parks that have had tremendous

investment into them and privatizing them.

Catamaran Park, just to name one, for those in the House who

remember, Mr. Speaker, back in the late '80s there was a terrible forest fire

out in that park and the government spent over $500,000 in one year alone

refurbishing that park and bringing it back to an acceptable standard as a

provincial park. So I would hazard to guess, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps there has

been in excess of a million dollars, well, well in excess of a million dollars,

in the last ten or fifteen years, spent on Catamaran Park alone and yet, the

government are prepared to take Catamaran Park and privatize it and get from the

public, from a private operator, maybe $20,000? I mean, clearly, that cannot be

considered a good return for the public. Clearly, that cannot be acting in the

best interest of the public on that park - and there are many parks. Little

River, Mr. Speaker, has had hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in the last

decade and yet we are going to take maybe, $20,000?

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have a right to know

the investment into these parks. We have asked for that information in the House

of Assembly on a number of occasions. I have asked the minister through the

Freedom of Information Request process for that information and she still has

not provided the information, and that was over two months ago. She is clearly

out of bounds in that regard. She has clearly broken the Freedom of Information

Act because she has not provided the public of the Province, who own the

provincial parks, with the information necessary for the people to decide

whether or not we are getting a good return on these parks.

Mr. Speaker, every member in this House, every member, if he

were to speak honestly, would say that we are not getting a fair return for the

investment that the people of the Province have put into these parks, and that,

in itself, is a strong enough reason to fight the privatization of provincial

parks.

MR. TULK: What is going on (inaudible), Baie Verte mines,

(inaudible)? Tom Rideout was down there and the Premier was down there.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I honestly cannot give that

answer because I was not a member of the House at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to support the petition

put forward by the Member for St. John's South.

The Government House Leader just asked a question with

respect to Baie Vert mine and how much money was wasted. I have a list in front

of me, Mr. Speaker, of how much money has been wasted by this Administration in

the past five or six years, and I have said before in the House of Assembly so I

really do not need to get into it, you know - I am looking at Trans City, maybe

$40 million bucks and that is nothing to the Government House Leader, obviously;

but there is a list, so I can go on and on.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Over the life, over the term, it is true.

MR. TULK: No, it is not.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is.

MR. TULK: This government did not waste that money.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who did?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, the previous -

AN HON. MEMBER: The government (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: A technicality. A government which that

member is a member of - how is that?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Liberal Government, the Liberal

Government since 1989, and do you sit on the Liberal side of the House, I ask

the Government House Leader? Yes or no?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You do, so point made, Mr. Speaker.

The privatization of the parks: We have been, on this side of

the House, Mr. Speaker, presenting petitions with respect to the privatization

of parks for some time now, and it seems to be like water on a duck's back with

respect to the minister and members on that side of the House.

What amazes me is the point that there is no one on the other

side of the House getting up to speak to these petitions. I know for a fact that

there are people going to see members on that side of the House; they are,

because after having meetings with members on that side of the House, they came

and spoke to me about it, saying they are not getting anywhere with this issue.

I want to talk about the Marine Drive Provincial Park down in

Pouch Cove. The minister has made statements that employees will certainly be

given first choice at the privatization of the parks if they put forward a

business plan. The employees would be given first choice, Mr. Speaker, and they

would be given assistance so they would not be out of jobs. Well, I had people

in my office, employees from the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation,

who put forward a plan for the park on Marine Drive. It was a very good plan

considering the time frame they had - they only had two or three weeks to put it

together. Most people know, especially in business, that to put together a good,

comprehensive business plan, you are going to take a few months, possibly. These

people got together, Mr. Speaker, and I have a copy of the business plan in my

office today and it is a good plan. The employees tried but obviously they did

not get anywhere with it, because they have been told now that in the near

future, within the next two or three days, Mr. Speaker, the successful

applicants will be notified, those who got the parks in the Province.

I spoke to people from tourism yesterday, Mr. Speaker, on

that very issue. There is a concern there now, because normally many parks open

up in Newfoundland and Labrador over the long weekend, the 24th of May weekend

as it is referred to, and that weekend happens not to be tomorrow, Friday, but

the following Friday. Now, we are going to have people being told, maybe Monday

but not likely, I was told, Tuesday not likely, but sometime next week, possibly

Wednesday, who are the successful people and businesses that have those parks.

So, that will give them approximately forty-eight hours to prepare and put

things in place for the opening of the long weekend.

Now, Mr. Speaker, is that any way for this administration to

put forward a plan to privatize? We have been asking questions all along. Why

the rush? As a matter of fact, we know now that there was a study done by that

administration last year, and it was strongly recommended in the review that

they not privatize this year, 1997, because of the Cabot Celebrations and the

impact it might have on the tourism potential this year. We may end up getting

people into the park business and into the tourism business, Mr. Speaker, who

are not familiar with the business and, in actual fact, could cause some

problems and make some people upset. So they went 180 degrees reverse of their

own recommendations. After what they paid, by the way, to have an opinion given

to them, they ignored it, Mr. Speaker, as they have ignored many opinions they

have paid for the past.

For example, we spoke here the other day with respect to the

boundaries in this last boundary change, with respect to the number of districts

in the Province. The final result was forty-eight, but it was recommended by a

commission, I think, forty, then forty-two or forty-four. It ended up, of

course, at forty-eight; again ignoring paid advice, public hearings that went

across this Province where people gave their opinions. It was ignored.

Again, we have the same situation here now with respect to

privatization of parks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: Take thirty seconds.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the

Government House Leader.

So we have the same situation here now, Mr. Speaker, where

this administration is ignoring the advice that they have spent probably

thousands of dollars for with respect to the privatization of the parks in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I would advise them, Mr. Speaker, to back off on this,

because they are going to create havoc in the tourism industry of Newfoundland

and Labrador this summer

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before I move to Orders of the Day

and put the motion to move us into committee, I had a discussion with the

Opposition House Leader to move a motion that it is necessary to put the

contingency fund in as a supply item.

Mr. Speaker, I have also asked them for leave to give notice

and put the motion at the same time and he has agreed.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow, and tomorrow will be

today, move that a further estimate of expenditure related to a contingency

reserve in the amount of $30 million be referred to Committee of Supply; not

that we are passing it but just referring it to make it possible to put it into

supply.

MR. SPEAKER: The House has heard the motion

All in favour, `Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed.

Motion carried.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply.

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

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

Committee of the Whole

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Finance

is ready, I know he is willing and I am certain that he is able, to take us

through the Estimates on Executive Council.

CHAIR (Mr. R. Woodford): The hon. the Member for

Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I rise today to comment

briefly on the Estimates for the Executive Council. I had thought, of course,

that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would have seized the

opportunity to stand before the House and tell us all of the details of the

various expenditures. I certainly would be most willing, now that he is settled

in his chair, to yield the time so that he can rise and speak for the first ten

minutes. It certainly must be worth a ten-minute address to the House of the

introduction for this particular debate, that the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board would go and explain all the various estimates.

I note that in the first part of the Executive Council

estimates, we have the Lieutenant-Governor and his expenditures. There is a

great deal of debate in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as to whether

or not the Lieutenant-Governor's expenditures are inconsistent with what the

views of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are, relative to the maintenance of

the establishment we call Government House.

If we look at the detail of the salary estimates, we find

that there is still a fair bureaucracy that is supported by the taxpayers at

Government House. In fact, the total there is $482,200. It has changed a little

bit from last year. In fact, it went up by somewhere around $23,000. Mr.

Speaker, we wonder why, in this time of restraint, would you be spending $23,000

more at Government House than you were spending last year. I say to the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board, when he gets his chance in a few minutes and

wants to get up and give us the details, he might want to comment on why the

expenditures for Government House have increased by $23,000. It is not a big

percentage, but certainly, at a time when we know we are cutting back everywhere

else, when we are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Government House is on page 15 of the

Estimates.

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible) exact subhead (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. The total for Government House is

under

Section 1.1.01.

MR. DICKS: If I may -

MR. H. HODDER: Sure.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The simplest way to deal with this, if my hon. colleague does

not object, is, if there is a particular issue, I will try to answer it as you

go through, rather than make a list of them. We can go back and forth, if you

like.

MR. H. HODDER: Sure.

MR. DICKS: Are you referring to the revised figure of

$459,000 that represents an increase from $443,200? Is that what the member -

MR. H. HODDER: What I am looking at, in particular - if

you look at Salaries, they went from $381,400 to $$401,300, Salaries for

Government House. Also, you will see that the total for Government House went

from $459,000 up to $482,200. Salaries went up by about $19,900.

MR. DICKS: Yes. I can answer that for the hon. member.

There was a new secretary there. The former secretary resigned and the new

secretary was a former Commissioner for Members' Interests. Because of our

structure in government, if a person is moved to another position, that position

might have a lower salary, as is the case of a Secretary to the

Lieutenant-Governor. In this case, Wayne Mitchell, who had been the

Commissioner, had a higher salary level. His salary was preserved and that

represented an increase of some, I think - the difference in the salaries is the

difference between his salary and that of the former Secretary to the

Lieutenant-Governor. Wayne took his salary with him, in effect.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

In looking again at the Government House figures, we find the

category of Employee Benefits that did not exist in last year's Budget, and I

was wondering why we would have no expenditure under Employee Benefits last

year, but this year, although it is a little small amount, it comes in here as

$500.

Two questions, one is, why there was no recognition of

employee benefits last year, and what has happened there to have to add that

particular category in this year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That is a fee for a conference that is going to be held. I

know when Mr. Mitchell was the Commissioner for Members' Interests, he was a

member of various organizations. I cannot say specifically, but it may reflect

on that. It is a fairly minor amount that relates to a conference fee to be paid

this year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Moving along again into the same particular category -

because again, I am asking for more information relative to a lot of these

particular expenditures. Because many people in the Province are asking very

serious questions about the level of support that we give to this particular

establishment. And we are not saying that we should not have the office of

Lieutenant-Governor - that kind of thing is part of our democratic system and I

would not support that particular proposal at all, but I am asking for a

detailed analysis of rationales.

For example, the next particular expenditure is

Transportation and Communications. It was up to $16,700 in the proposed budget

for last year, and it has been revised down to $16,200. I ask the minster: What

kinds of transportation and communications we are talking about here? Is this a

detailed breakdown of that?

Also, Mr. Chairman, we wanted to note that under Property,

Furnishings and Equipment, there has been double the amount spent this year that

there was last year. Is that because there has been a change of the occupant at

Government House? Again, it is only a rather piddly amount, but it does

represent further expenditure and a realignment of expenditures.

I was wondering if the minister, when he gets a chance, might

want to comment on the overall position of the government relative to the

concept of maintaining the present facility. It has been a debate every year

about whether or not we should maintain that present facility. I would like to

ask the minister, if there has been any analysis done as to the cost to

maintaining that facility.

I recognize that if we were not to use that facility at

Government House, we would probably have to find some alternate use for it. Have

there been some consultations done? Looking at the experiences of other

provinces, we are probably the only Province now that maintains this kind of

facility for the Lieutenant-Governor, as a resident and also as a - in our case,

it is an historic site, as well, and it carries on a tradition of the democratic

system. But many people have commented on the facility. The have looked at other

more wealthy provinces - Ontario, for example, which does not have such a

facility anymore.

Also, we know the experience of Alberta and other provinces,

where they have made decisions that are different from what we have made.

Whether it is by public perception or not, many people in the Province really

wonder if we should be continuing to support that particular structure for the

purpose that is served. That is distinct and far different from saying that we

do not believe in this kind of system that we have in terms of having a

Lieutenant-Governor, or anything like that. We are not saying that at all. What

we are saying is that if more wealthy provinces have come to the conclusion that

they cannot maintain an elaborate structure, how can we in this Province justify

the maintenance of a structure that other provinces, more wealthy than we are,

have decided they would not support by way of a further infusion of funds from

the Public Treasury.

I am wondering if there have been any studies done, or any

comparisons done, and if the minister would like to share some of that

information with us.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member raises an interesting issue which is debated

periodically in the Province and elsewhere. It really has two parts. The first

is whether or not we need a person in the role of Lieutenant-Governor.

It is interesting that you are either in a parliamentary

system, as we have, or a republican system. In areas where they have opted for a

republican system, or a system of republic rather than a monarchy as we have, or

a parliamentary system, they still have a person who, in effect, equates to that

of Lieutenant-Governor. In that case, he is called the President. They still

have a Prime Minister who is in charge of the day-to-day affairs, but each

country has what is, in effect, a Head of State. So whether we had a

Lieutenant-Governor or some other person and called him or her President, we

would still have that personage, and it is a necessary working of the state. I

am sure one could envisage other forms of government but, for whatever reason

around the world, it is one system or the other, it appears to me.

I do not think the hon. member is questioning the person so

much as the establishment itself.

MR. H. HODDER: No, not at all.

MR. DICKS: The second thing is the necessary functions of

that particular office.

The part of it that seems to generate the most interest and

debate is the establishment of Government House itself. The

Lieutenant-Governor's residence is rather an exceptional, unusual, and admirable

building, for all of us who have had the privilege of being there, and for the

general public who have seen it.

The first issue, I guess, is: Does it have an alternate use?

I suspect we could probably sell it and we would have someone interested in

using it as an hotel. We could tear that down and forget about 200 years of

history associated with it.

MR. H. HODDER: No.

MR. DICKS: The hon. member is shaking his head, and I

share his view. It is an historical resource, and if one has respect for history

and tradition, they come with a price tag and a cost, but it is one that

countries around the world have chosen to bear in the interest of their heritage

and the furtherance of other aspects of culture and heritage, and also from the

simple point of view as to who and what we are.

Perhaps a more critical question to be answered is: If we

accept the view that this building is a natural part - not a natural part, an

artificial

part in the sense it is a construct as opposed to some gift of

nature, and if we see its value and choose to preserve it, how should we do so?

We have chosen to preserve it as a residence for the Lieutenant-Governor.

I think part of the charm of Government House is that it is

still a residence and the people who have been in there - and my first

acquaintance with it was under Jim McGrath, a former Lieutenant-Governor - have

developed a real affection for it.

One of the issues that most people may not be aware of, is

that most Lieutenant-Governors, in effect, subsidize the establishment. I know

one of our recent Lieutenant-Governors - it actually cost him close to $50,000

out-of-pocket from his own resources and his family's own resources to provide

for the receptions that are held there, and the entertainment, and his own

travel expenses. I find that admirable, and it is fortunate that that particular

person was a man of some means. He chose to do it and, I think, made very much

of his office.

So, Government House is a house, but it is one that is used

for many public purposes. The Lieutenant-Governors, themselves, from time to

time, honour charitable groups and individuals who really deserve recognition,

who probably otherwise would not have it.

On the item of cost, we have done an analysis. We have looked

at, and we have weighed the cost of shutting Government House against its other

uses. We would still have to use it for some other purpose and I suggest it

might be a museum and some other resource or I suppose put some archives there

and so on but when you cut through it all, there really is not a significant

savings there. I think its highest and best use would be some sort of

quasi-museum or official reception house for the government because on the other

side of it you do save costs. If we did not have Government House we would be

paying a hotel bill somewhere else and so on.

The view that we have had of it and we have looked at - in my

term in the last two budgets - is that what, if any, savings we would have would

be marginal. We would still have to provide security and we would still have to

heat it. If we are going to use it for receptions we would still need staff

there and from my personal view, if we use it for a museum for example, we would

probably have to renovate it extensively. You would have a lot of wear and tear

on it which is much greater than you now get and my own view of it is that it

would probably cost us more to fit it up properly as a museum. So I would not

disagree that there might be other uses. I am just not sure that any other use

would be less cost efficient. Having said that, I guess it comes down as to

whether or not the people of the Province are prepared to maintain one person

and/or his spouse and perhaps members of his family in a style that seems lavish

by some people's standards. I don't accept that view. I think it is an important

office and I don't begrudge the Lieutenant-Governor having a bed to sleep in, in

what is a lovely residence. Given the fact that any alternate use would cost us

much, it has been a lengthy part of our heritage and one that I think is worth

preserving.

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

Continuing on with the same Heads here, another part of the

Lieutenant-Governor's establishment is of course the protocol office. I note

that there have been significant increases in the salary allocation and in the

transportation and communications budget. This whole office this year and we

recognize that two things are happening, one is the Cabot 500th celebrations and

the Royal visit. I am wondering if the minister might want to give some more

detail on the various subheads? For example, we note that the salary allocation

for this subhead has gone from $119,300 to $150,300. We also note that the

transportation communication here went from $35,000 to $132,000, about four

times as much. Again, supplies have about doubled and purchase services have

gone up from $77,000 to $331,000. In other words, in this particular category

here we have had more than a doubling. I am wondering if the minister might give

some detail as to what the cause would be and what proportion of this would be

very specific to the Cabot 500th celebration and if there are any other factors

that are involved here other than these celebrations, combined with of course

the visit in June of Her Majesty the Queen?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the hon. member indicated, the majority of these expenses

relate to the visit of Her Majesty the Queen which takes place around Discovery

Day. As you know as well the President of Italy and the President of Ireland

will be visiting as well. I suppose one alternative is to say: thank you very

much and stay home out of it, we cannot afford to have you come. But given the

fact that it is our 500th Anniversary and that associated with our celebrations

this year and having Her Majesty and other foreign dignitaries attend, is that

it is an occasion of great interest to people in North America. You have heard

the tourism potential surrounding this and the fact that Newfoundland and

Labrador has been designated the tourist best attraction in North America. So

the expenses related to it, there is a modest increase this year, in salaries

for example, it has gone from $108,000 to $150,000. We have three permanent

people and one temporary. So it is not a large increase in staff. That takes the

whole staff, including what is there but there are a lot of duties associated

with this, in terms of organizing the visit. As the hon. member knows as well,

the transportation and communications involved with security and so on are

increased as well. Around this whole issue there is a substantial increase.

Salaries have gone up about $42,000. Transportation and

Communications and related travel, getting people to and from various events and

sites, has gone up substantially this year, approximately $100,000. Supplies

have increased marginally. In absolute terms they have doubled. In effect, the

Purchased Services - virtually all the categories double. As the hon. member

knows, when you bring dignitaries here there are official events, there will be

banquets, lunches, dinners, things like this. If the hon. members behave

themselves well they might get invitations, in point of fact. We consider that

it is money well spent.

It is a great year for the Province. I don't know if any of

us will be around, but we may see another 500th anniversary in due course, and

at that point the government of the day may choose to double its protocol

account for that year as well. But considering the fact that it has grown by

slightly more than $300,000, I think it is money well spent. I'm sure the hon.

member agrees we will see a huge increase in tourism. As the hon. member may be

aware, we had the MuchMusic thing at Marble Mountain this year, which was a

great success. That event alone, we have estimated, gave us approximately $1.5

million worth of free advertising just from the play and the number of people

who listened to it.

I know all hon. members rather are concerned about expenses

from time to time, but I'm sure the hon. member will agree that these are among

- it is a reasonable investment for the encouragement of tourism, and the

necessary expense associated with accepting visits of well-known dignitaries and

the associated publicity and profile that comes with that for our Province.

CHAIR (Penney): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I

probably will ask my colleague here for Bonavista South, he has indicated that -

MR. DICKS: That ardent monarchist.

MR. H. HODDER: - he wishes to address some questions or

comments on this particular subhead, so if I could ask him. If he wishes to

speak, now is the right time for him to share with us his viewpoints -

MR. DICKS: His ardent monarchial support.

MR. H. HODDER: - and tell us how he feels about any

expenditures under this particular category.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: My views on the Lieutenant-Governor's

establishment, Mr. Chairman, are certainly well known, and I think many people

in this Chamber share those views, including probably the former premier of this

Province.

MR. DICKS: The former premier?

MR. FITZGERALD: Including the former premier of this

Province. In conversation one day, Mr. Chairman, as I was talking about the

Lieutenant-Governor's residence, he looked across and he nodded his head and

said: Probably not a bad idea. The only thing is, you can't get rid of the

Lieutenant-Governor because in order for that to happen so many provinces have

to agree, and one province alone can't unilaterally say that the

Lieutenant-Governor is kind of done away with.

It is certainly money that can be spent much better in

another direction. It is certainly money that can be channelled into health care

or education or social services that we can get I think much greater results

from than having a Lieutenant-Governor's residence that the people of this

particular Province pay for. There is no way we should be able to go out and

speak on the need for providing somebody who is making $98,000 a year with a

residence. I'm not sure, and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board can

correct me if I'm wrong, but I ask the minister, is the Lieutenant-Governor's

salary taxable?

MR. DICKS: Yes. But the Governor-General's salary is not

taxable. I think the Lieutenant-Governor's salary may be taxable. I think that

is the way it works. I'm not sure.

MR. FITZGERALD: I'm not sure if it is, and obviously

MR. DICKS: The Governor-General's is not. I think the

Lieutenant-Governor's may be.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Governor-General's salary is

non-taxable -

MR. DICKS: Not taxable. The Lieutenant-Governor's may be.

MR. FITZGERALD: - but the Lieutenant-Governor's salary is

taxable.

MR. DICKS: I think it is. (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. The Lieutenant-Governor's salary is

paid from the coffers of the federal government, from what I understand. We pay

for the upkeep of the House and we pay for the employees and their benefits, and

the furnishings and the Purchased Services. When you look at just about $500,000

to have a representative of the monarchy put up in a big building here in this

town, I think it is certainly not money that is well spent, not money that we

are getting the full value for in this Province here today.

MR. DICKS: I wonder if I might interrupt the hon. member

for a moment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you.

I share his concern with the cost of all of these royal

things that are associated this year. Perhaps he might comment on the Province's

investment in Bonavista, in redoing the stadium there, and the work associated

with it, well in excess of $1 million to provide for the visit. Do you think

that is money well spent, or should we perhaps not have bothered with that

expenditure and asked Her Majesty to stay away?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Minister.

It certainly is money well spent, I say to the minister.

MR. DICKS: I would agree. Thank you.

MR. FITZGERALD: It certainly is money well spent. It is a

facility that provides recreation, it is a facility that provides competition to

the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is very important.

MR. EFFORD: Did you hear what the students said about you

today?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I didn't hear what the students said,

but I am sure it was positive. I am sure it was positive, if they had anything

to say. They praised me out in the corridor. It is too bad the minister wasn't

there to hear it.

When you look at the recreation centre, sure it is a good

thing, I say to the Minister of Finance. It was only this morning, in fact, I

was listening to Sergeant Ike Mercer of the RCMP out in Holyrood talk about the

mayor raising concerns out around Avondale and Colliers, and those places, with

the problems they are having with the young people there because they have

nowhere to congregate; they have nowhere to go. So is the stadium important?

Absolutely. Is the Bonavista stadium important? Absolutely. Is the money well

spent? Absolutely. Here is a facility that was built back in the early 1960s and

not a dollar spent on it, other than refrigeration, from that time up until now.

I have to put credit where credit is due. Only for the royal

visit into that community, into that town this year, in all likelihood within a

couple of years you would have seen that facility closed, because the money

would not have been there in order to maintain it and upkeep it.

Mr. Chairman, if anybody went down there and saw that

activity that is carried out in that particular facility in the winter months,

it would do their hearts good to see the teenagers and the students from the

schools in the area going there and competing. The banners that they have

hanging from the roof show how good they are, and the enthusiasm of the parents

in coaching those particular teams speaks volumes for the community and for the

people and their belief in sports.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: There is lots of wastage there, I say to

the minister, that is for sure, but the minister doesn't have to have a long

memory when he looks at the millions of dollars spent by his government doing

similar foolish things, where they would not listen.

You can hang your hat on the cucumber facility all you want.

I know nothing about that. I know no more than you know about the Churchill

Falls development and the money that was wasted there. That is all from the dark

days of politics. We are going to move away from that and we are going to

correct it, I say to the minister; and if we are going to move we should move

all the way, not part of the way.

I suppose the question I should ask the Minister of Finance,

and I don't know if it has already been asked by my colleague, but I say to the

minister: Would it be an insult to the office of the Lieutenant-Governor, would

it be an insult to the gentleman who occupies that particular position now, to

say that we are going to do away with Government House and we are going to

provide you with a suite of offices on a floor here in this building? Would that

be an insult to that particular office, or would it belittle it, I ask the

minister? I ask him for his honest opinion, because I don't think it would.

When you see what is happening in Alberta and Ontario, two

provinces much richer, with many more dollars, many more resources than the

poorer Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, when you see those two provinces

saying: Yes, we believe in the monarchy; yes, we are going to maintain a

Lieutenant-Governor, but we are going to do away with the big establishment, we

are going to do away with all the pomp and padgentry and we are going to have

the Lieutenant-Governor an office where government will pay a nominal fee for

rent.

So, I ask the minister to express his opinion and if he is a

strong believer that we should maintain this residence and if he is looking for

ways to cut back and save money, $500,000 is certainly a lot of money, Mr.

Speaker, maybe he can give us his views on that particular topic.

When you look at the number of people that are employed

there, we see that there are thirteen people employed at that particular

establishment and there is one argument and the only argument that I have ever

heard from the other side, is you are interested in doing away with thirteen

more jobs. You are interested in cutting back and doing away with thirteen jobs.

I say to the minster you give me the $500,000 and I would employee a lot more

than thirteen people and I would pay them a decent wage, I say to the hon.

minister.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a pure waste of money. I think it

is money that could be spent better in any other government department. I do not

think it would be a slight on the Lieutenant-Governor, in fact I think he

fulfils probably a very important function if we are going to believe in the

monarchy and if we are going to expect the queen to come and visit, then we need

a representative, but before too long, I think you are going to see this

particular subject addressed right across the Country.

In England, Buckingham Palace where the Queen resides, it is

probably one of the biggest tourist attractions in all of Great Britain. People

go there to see the queen. A trip to England without visiting buckingham palace

is the same thing as coming to Newfoundland and not going to Bonavista. You have

not been there. You have not experienced it. There is no doubt about it, that

everybody, when you think of England that is the first place that they want to

go, go to the queens residence, visit buckingham palace. It is a card drawer. It

is a tourist attraction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. FITZGERALD: Buckingham palace in England. Big tourist

attraction. They make money on buckingham palace, at least they get some return.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bonavista is going to be a bigger tourist

attraction this year (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: This year, absolutely in years to come,

certainly, I say to the minister and so it should because it is one of the most

unique towns, one of the prettiest towns and the drive to it is probably the

most scenic in all of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a beautiful town and the

view going down around route 235, if you do not get sick on the bumps and the

hollows in the road going down, you can fly there like the former minister did,

but you do not really see it unless you take the drive, experience the wonderful

good will and hospitality of the people there and view the beautiful sights all

the way down through.

So, I would ask the minister if he would give me his honest

comments without putting himself on the line of those couple of quick questions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A few comments, the hon. member has indicated in the House on

several occasions his preference to discontinue, I think, the role of the

Lieutenant-Governor and the position itself. Is it interesting because for

historic reasons, I think, many people (inaudible) share that viewpoint, but it

is interesting that having been to Ireland, that Ireland in itself, not only has

a president, as well a prime minister, but also maintains a separate residence

for its prime minister, so even the government structure in Ireland echoes that

of the British tradition, as well.

As I said earlier, it is not easy to escape from a separate

presidential or state role as opposed to that of the legislative one, but having

said that and more to the point, I think the hon. member asked whether it would

be an insult to the Lieutenant-Governor that he should be deprived of this

wonderful residence and relocated elsewhere. I accept his inference and it

certainly would not be an insult, but there are some other words that perhaps

might be an indignity, I do not think that would be the case either. More

appropriately would he be rendered ineffective and I do not think that is the

case either, but to suggest that he be housed in government quarters somewhere

and perhaps having said that, I think the other address would be that, that

would not be either inexpensive or inappropriate. We would still be left with

the structure of Government House and how to run it. He mentions the people who

are employed there, but the jobs are as valuable to those people as others

elsewhere and secondly, people who are employed at Government House do perform a

certain vital function and they do serve the public in their own way in as much

as people who are at hotels have to serve in various ways for people who go

there.

Perhaps though, more to the issue as to where the Governor

should be housed, I think it would be inappropriate for him to be housed in a

government building in as much as I don't think governments or judges or the

judiciary should be too closely associated with the executive and legislative

wing of government. I think it is appropriate that the Governor be housed

elsewhere and for other reasons as I said earlier, government house perhaps. I

would not say necessarily its highest and best use would be to house the

Lieutenant-Governor, but certainly it is as appropriate as most other current

usages that we have which is not to say that of course, you might not be

answered otherwise at other times.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that we

house the Lieutenant-Governor somewhere else. I am suggesting that we provide

office space; let him provide for his own house, let him look after his own

accommodations.

MR. EFFORD: How much money did you waste on the Ryan

property?

MR. FITZGERALD: Another perfect example I say. It has

been brought up to me many times and my answer to that I say to the minister is

MR. EFFORD: Is what?

MR. FITZGERALD: If somebody said to me I am going to give

you $8 million and I took it and spent it on the Ryan Premises, it would be a

waste of money, it would be a pure waste of money.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No.1, I did not have any input into the

money going there, it was your cousin up in Ottawa who directed the money there

and No. 2, is that, that particular money was directed for that type of an

establishment. If it did not go to Bonavista it probably would have ended up in

Nova Scotia or New Brunswick so we might just as well take advantage of it and

bring it here to our community. So, is it a waste of money? Absolutely. Should

we have put it in Bonavista? Certainly we should. If the money was there, go

after it.

Mr. Speaker, we saw fit to close down the Premier's private

residence. The Premier had to go out and buy a residence himself, pay for his

mortgage and I don't think we should treat the queen's representative

differently. We should be able to put the Lieutenant-Governor in a suitable

office and let him look after his own accommodations, let him look after his own

keeping like every other Newfoundlander does in this Province.

The other thing, Mr. Minister if you would, and you may have

answered this question before but I did not hear it and that is under Supplies,

$35,600 for the Lieutenant-Governor's Establishment. I wonder if the minister

could answer that question as to what those supplies are. We are not supplying

food to that establishment, are we?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) he has to eat. Are you saying

that the Lieutenant-Governor shouldn't eat?

MR. FITZGERALD: Would the minister explain what the

$35,000 Supplies are, under heading 1.1.01 (04), Supplies? I wonder if the

minister would address that and let the House know what that particular cost is

for?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Those are the sort of supplies I am sure the hon. member's

own office expends on things like a certain number of things, probably

stationery and things like that in the normal -

MR. FITZGERALD: Not for food?

MR. DICKS: No. The hon. member asked about supplies and

it includes a number of things, routine office supplies was the first area which

is covered there and also household supplies: uniforms, linens, cooking

utensils, cleaning supplies, there is a greenhouse there, fertilizing the grass.

The hon. member may not need as much fertilizer for his premises as the

Lieutenant-Governor does for his for various reasons of course, and other

necessary implements running Government House.

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister has a way with words today.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Humber West..

MR. DICKS: It was suggested to me by one of my colleagues

that the hon. member might even be a supplier for the fertilizer for the

Government House at times.

MR. FITZGERALD: I think, Mr. Chairman, the

Lieutenant-Governor might have had a supply of that this morning when the

Premier went and took some of his ministers down. The grass should be pretty

green from here on in.

Mr. Chairman, those are the only comments I have to make on

this particular topic. I think we should move to do away with Government House.

I think we should move to have the Lieutenant-Governor, if there is a need for

such a position, established in suitable office space somewhere here in this

town, and have it supplied at a reasonable price to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. The time has come when we can't afford those frills. We can't

afford to go spending $500,000 in order to have one person with the pomp and

pageantry that goes with the particular office. We should not -

MR. EFFORD: One question. How much (inaudible)?

MR. FITZGERALD: How much - I have no idea what the

minister is talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You should have been there, I say to the

minister, you could have been there. Could have been there, I say to the

minister. The minister feels, Mr. Chairman, that he should have been in the

Premier's chair and I agree with him. He had a chance. If he had the gall to

run, if he had the guts to run when he did, he probably would have been in the

Premier's chair. He would have won it by default, I say to the minister. You

will get into all that when you get the - what's the name of that boat again?

MR. EFFORD: The Companion .

MR. FITZGERALD: When you get the Companion out on

the high seas, Mr. Chairman. Those are my only thoughts and comments on this

particular topic, and I will sit and let somebody else pass their (inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased today

to stand in my place and ask a few questions of the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board. I have a number of these questions written down here so I'm

going to have to read them, if you people don't mind that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

says I can't read. We shall see, Mr. Minister. Now, what way are we going to do

this? Can I ask a question and you get up, and I ask a question, you get up,

whatever? Is that the way we are going to do it? How long can I go? Ten minutes,

twenty minutes?

CHAIR: Ten minutes, but you can stand in this hon. House

during this debate as often as you wish, just as long as there is an intervening

speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask the

minister: What the total cost of the Hay system, step progression, to government

this year? In other words, how much in total will government employees see this

year in raises that occur not because of wage hikes but because of step

reclassifications? Incidentally, how much has this step progression policy cost

the government since wage restraint was imposed in 1990? Has it totalled $80

million we owe in pay equity?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Are any employees in the Premier's office

receiving step progression pay increases or reclassification this year over last

year? Are there any employees in the Executive Council, how many, and at what

total cost? Does the Premier think it might be fair to consider freezing those

progressions for a time in light of the fiscal circumstances and cuts to the

public servants, so employees are not getting an increase in spite of the

compensation cuts?

The Premier's travel. This is on page 16. Do all the travel

expenses for the Premier covered by the public treasury appear under the

Transportation and Communications subhead of the office? How many trips has the

Premier taken at public expense since coming to office? Will he table a detailed

breakdown of all expenses claimed from the public treasury related to those

trips: travel, rentals, fuel, accommodations, meals, entertainment and gifts?

Are there any more trips planned to sell the world on redoing the Upper

Churchill contract, and where is the money allocated? Was the Premier in

Hamilton during the by-election won by his friend Sheila Copps, and did the

taxpayers pay for that trip?

MR. EFFORD: Sue wrote that question.

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't care who wrote them, I'm reading

them. You just said I couldn't read them. I'm doing a good job. Go back to your

own seat and then open up your mouth, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture. You aren't supposed to open your mouth if you aren't in your own

seat, are you?

Anyway, Premier's expense, page 16. Does the Premier get the

$20,000 entertainment allowance that the former premier enjoyed? Has the amount

been adjusted to account for inflation? Where in the Estimates does this

expenditure appear? Would he consider in these tough times, lay offs (inaudible)

and education cuts, relinquishing this allowance? Surely guests of the Province

would understand our need for restraint by the Premier given the tough economic

times. Would the Premier table a detailed breakdown of how his entertainment

allowance has been spent in the past year?

Are you getting all these now, I ask the minister? Or do you

want me to sit down for awhile and you can answer those?

MR. DICKS: Do you know the ones I am going to answer?

MR. J. BYRNE: Do the taxpayers pay for any cleaning,

upkeep, renovations, catering or other activities in the Premier's personal

home? Does the Premier use a chauffeur, how often, under what arrangements, at

what cost? Does the Premier use the service of a bodyguard, as the former

Premiers have, and at what cost?

MR. DICKS: What was the last one, Jack?

MR. J. BYRNE: Does the Premier use the services of a

bodyguard, as the former Premiers have, and at what cost?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the hon.

member for his detailed questions, some of which I cannot answer. Obviously the

member knows some of these require a fair amount of detail.

Step progression, first of all, in the public service. All

public servants, as far as I am aware, have step progression with the exception

of members of this hon. House. Under collective agreements, where we bargain,

those are set out. For example, the hon. member may know that the NLTA for

example, has a grid of seven steps or seven levels over grade one, two, three

and so on, ten years bringing you to the maximum. The hon. Opposition House

Leader is probably more familiar with that and some members of this House than

I. It is a common factor of all government systems that there is a step

progression that relates to the number of years worked for a government and in

the case with teachers and others, educational attainment.

As well, the people outside the collective agreements have

step progressions as well. What the cost is, in any given year, very much

depends on the maturity of the workforce and the turnover. What has been

happening in the last number of years is that I don't believe our step

progression costs have been that significant because of course there is very

little turnover in the public service and the amount is going down each year

because most people are reaching the top of their step progression levels.

Secondly, the hon. member asked about step progression in the

Executive Council and the number of employees. The answer is that yes, executive

council members - the same as every other government employee - have step

progression. In the political staff as well there are step progression and that

is true of the hon. member's secretary and the six people I believe who work for

the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I must say that I was very impressed with his

colleagues at the Internal Economies Committee when they made an impassioned

plea after the last election that notwithstanding the reductions in the

Opposition ranks opposite that we not reduce, any cause whatsoever, the number

of people who work in the Opposition offices. I believe we felt and there was

some discussion whether or not it should be reduced to three or four considering

there were six there previously. They were like loaves and fishes, they divided

and subdivided and positions were amalgamated and so on.

So I say to the hon. member that in recognition of the fact

that yes, it is certainly necessary in the case given the hon. Leader of the

Opposition's problem with the people he had with him, that we should certainly

make sure he has sufficient staff to do the job of a Loyal Opposition and the

hon. Opposition House Leader knows that we turned a very kind ear to the plea

and certainly maintained the staff at the level. So let me just say that all six

of those employees have step levels, as far as I am aware, as do people in

executive council -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Oh absolutely, yes but as the hon. member

knows, it is a function of government employment with the exception of the

people elected to this House, that there are in fact step progression and that

is true of hon. members opposite, the Premier's office and elsewhere.

Travel Expenses; yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Premier travels

at government expenses to do the work of the Province. In fact, I was delighted

to hear the Premier say that it is such a vital part of the operation of

government that even the Leader of the Opposition has seen the Premier to see if

he could have a special travel allowance as well because he finds it is -

MR. J. BYRNE: And so he should.

MR. DICKS: I see and I don't disagree with the hon.

member but I do agree with the principal that hon. members of this House have to

have a right and are funded with travel, certainly the Premier does and figures

are there for all to see. He certainly has done a good job doing that. In as

much other hon. members of the House, including the hon. member who asked the

question, has made such an excellent case for it.

Entertainment Allowance; Mr. Chairman, yes, the Premier is

called on to entertain officially - as the Lieutenant-Governor - and to invite

hon. members. I think in fact on Friday of this week there is a function that

all hon. members are required to attend and yes, there are some expense

associated with that.

Bodyguards; no, Mr. Chairman. The last Premier to have a

bodyguard was the hon. Brian Peckford, Premier of this Province and since then

we have not seen fit to - in fact, not only have we not seen fit, we have not

found it necessary for the Premier of this Province to have a bodyguard. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I say to the Premier, here is the question I asked and he

didn't answer: How many trips has the Premier taken at public expense since

coming to office? We all know he has to travel - that is a specific question

requiring a specific answer - and will he table a detailed breakdown of all

expenses claimed from the public treasury relating to those trips - travel,

rentals, fuel, accommodations, meals, entertainment and gifts? That is a

specific question requiring a specific answer.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The answer should not be hard to find. I don't have it with

me, but I can assure the hon. member that periodically The Evening Telegram

sends in a Freedom of Information Request, every three months or so, and that

information is made public.

I am sure that the hon. Parliamentary Assistant would be

delighted to provide the hon. members with copies of those articles as they

appear from time to time and to update them. It is a regular matter, quarterly

or whatever. Offhand I don't know what the number of trips are. I don't read the

papers as faithfully as the hon. members opposite find it necessary to do, but I

am sure he would be delighted to provide you with that information in due

course.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

The Minister of Finance just said he does not read the papers

very often. That is not where you get the answers. He should have the answers at

his fingertips.

I also ask the minister: Does the Premier get the $20,000

entertainment allowance that the former Premier enjoyed? That is another

question that you can answer the next time you are up, if you might.

Premier's renovations - has the Premier's office been

renovated or in any way altered since the Premier took office in January, 1996?

Could you give the details and costs? Are these costs specified under the

Premier's Office subhead or placed elsewhere?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, leave

him alone. He is paying attention to some good questions being asked, and he

needs to make notes to remember them.

Also, have there been any renovations to any offices owned by

the Executive Council? The Economic Policy Analysis Branch moved to the ground

floor from the tenth. Give details of the move and the total cost. What is the

total bill for renovating the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh

floors? Have any furnishings in the Premier's Office been replaced since this

Premier took office? Have any furnishings in the Executive Council been

replaced? What is the destination of the old furnishings? What is the source and

cost of the new furniture? And has the Premier charged any renovation to his

personal home to the public treasury?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going too fast; you have him

lost.

MR. J. BYRNE: Has the Premier charged any renovation to

his personal home to the public treasury?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: The answers, by and large, are: no, no, no,

no, no, no, yes, no, no.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. DICKS: As the hon. member knows, there has been an

ongoing capital works program in my colleague's department, my new colleague's

department, my same colleague in a new portfolio's department, as matters

presently stand. The floors have been renovated here going on up through, but

since the Premier took office in January of 1996 there have been no renovations

to the eighth floor.

There have been renovations, as you know. The main structure

here in the tower was unstable and as they went through it they had to put some

sealant in. There have been no cosmetic or other renovations.

I think the most recent area completed, interestingly enough,

was the fifth floor where the hon. member holds an office. Now I don't know what

the cost of that was but I notice the Clerk is here and it was funded through

the House of Assembly.

I respect the hon. member's questions. Is there any improper

or inappropriate or lavish use of taxpayers' money? There is nothing I have seen

with any evidence of that. Certainly the Premier has not had his home renovated

at the taxpayers' expense; nor would he.

In the ordinary course of government we have had to renovate

this building because of its age and some structural deficiencies, and if the

hon. member is displeased with his office space he can certainly petition the

hon. House for some more appropriate space for himself and we will certainly

consider it in the normal course of government business.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Finance, he would

be lost without the Opposition, wouldn't he, for answers?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would rather be the moon man than the

fool man sitting on that side of the House, I say to the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture.

Anyway, Mr. Minister, you never answered the question with

respect to the $20,000. Is he or is he not getting it?

Does the Premier use a chauffeur? How often, under what

arrangements and at what cost?

I am just seeing which questions would be appropriate, I say

to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Okay, Cabot 500.

MR. DICKS: If I might reply, Mr. Chairman. There is no

chauffeur for the Premier. We have not had one for quite a number of years.

MR. J. BYRNE: Treasury Board, page 24. Which public

sector negotiations is the government preparing for? Can the government give us

details and dates for upcoming negotiations? Funding has dropped. Is there any

reason to believe demand for Treasury Board services may also decline this year,

or is it possible we will end up spending more than budgeted, as we did last

year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: Three questions, I believe, Mr. Chairman. Is

Treasury Board preparing for negotiations, and which? We are preparing for all

of them. It is interesting to note that we met with all our unions as recently

as last fall. All of them indicated they did not want to commence negotiations.

I remember specifically meeting with Dave Curtis. The only ones who did indicate

they wanted to negotiate were the NLTA, and we did enter into negotiations with

them.

Secondly, the question - Were the expenses expected to

decline, I believe was the question, something to that effect. We have downsized

by 40 per cent in Treasury Board the number of employees, so we have had a

substantial reduction there, and we are changing the nature in which we perform

business at Treasury Board. We are basically delegating a lot of the functions

that were centralized in government to the various departments. Because we

believed that too many of the day-to-day decisions were being handled at our

level and, to some extent, cluttering the system, and that it was poor

micro-management that is not necessary if we have responsible, conscientious

management at the departmental level. To encourage that, we are basically

decentralizing and putting a lot of those responsibilities for decision-making

back in the departments.

I do not know if you had a third question. I did not get it

if there was one. I thought there were three. Essentially, yes, we are preparing

for negotiations.

MR. J. BYRNE: But Treasury Board declined (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, 40 per cent over the last two years.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. member I would like to read for

the benefit of all hon. members the three questions that will be debated in the

Late Show this afternoon.

Number one, from the Member for Cape St. Francis: Mr.

Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs concerning my question regarding infrastructure money.

Number two, from the Member for Bonavista South: Mr. Speaker,

I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Premier re my question on

unemployment and out-migration of Newfoundlanders.

Number three, from the Member for St. John's East: Mr.

Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Education

re my question on reform.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: I will ask hon. members to ignore the first

question that was read out. I have been given a new one.

From the same member, the Member for Cape St. Francis: Mr.

Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of

Environment and Labour concerning my question on the Argentia base.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

To the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board again. Under

Cabinet Secretariat: Why does the government foresee spending more money next

year on Salaries under that subhead than they did last year?

MR. DICKS: Under which subhead?

MR. J. BYRNE: Cabinet Secretariat. Why are they

projecting more money this year than last year?

MR. DICKS: Do you have the number of the subhead?

MR. J. BYRNE: No I do not. Cabinet Secretariat, page 16.

It has to do with, I think, a certain individual hired on up there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In Cabinet Secretariat we have done consolidation there and,

in effect, there is a savings overall. We consolidated the Economic Policy

Analysis Board, and I will just give you some details.

The Ministerial Support, in last year's estimate was $57,500;

that is combined with the Executive Support and Cabinet Secretariat sub-program

of $16,700 and Financial Administration sub-program of $40,800. What we had

here, Strategic Social Planning and Advisory Group on the Economy were combined

into one group so we have done some consolidation there into a new one on

advisory groups on Social and Economic Policy. That is now down to $226,000,

which is down $327,900 from the original vote. What we had done last year, was

the Economic Renewal Agreement was budgeted in Intergovernmental Affairs

Secretariat, so the implementation for that is reflected in the estimates for

the new year.

Just one final note that the hon. member may find helpful is

that the overall revised cost for Cabinet Secretariat is down by $410,000 from

the original allocation and what we have in that is a block funding of $300,000

under the Economic Renewal Agreement for anticipated projects and the management

of them. We did not have to use those funds because of the delay in getting some

of the Economic Renewal programs up and running and we had a savings of $110,000

as a result of managing the positions more efficiently and filling them later,

so we only fill them as and when needed.

So overall, in terms of consolidation that is going in

government, that represents an overall decrease in government spending, although

it represents, as the hon. member has said, an increase in some of the subheads

here. The hon. member may note that the total last year, was $2,078,000, this

year it is down to $1,664,000, so the overall spending is actually decreased

rather than increased.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to ask the minister a question with respect to the

gasoline for vehicles.

In November of 1996, exceptions to the Public Tender Act

indicate Executive Council spent $40,172 on October 31, 1996 to purchase

gasoline dye directly from the manufacturer in Quebec. We were told it was the

only available source. How much gasoline dye was purchased, and why? Was this a

justifiable expenditure of public funds? What is the total number of ministerial

vehicles and their cost and, what is the total number of Executive Council

vehicles and their cost?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suspect what the hon. member is referring to is the dyed

gasoline program. We have in the Province, a number of businesses which are

exempt from the gasoline tax. We do not do it on an individual basis, go out and

inspect them and give refunds, what we do is we allow people to purchase it at a

reduced price, that is, the price at which it would be retailed less the tax. In

order to ensure that there is no cheating, which in fact, there is, we dye the

gas and this is why we have gasoline tanks inspectors who inspect vehicles that

are of another type of motorized - boats and other types of conveyances that are

allowed to use this gas.

Also, for some commercial premises, diesel trucks and so on,

for example, are allowed to buy at reduced rates and different forms of

taxation. So the dye to which the hon. member is referring, I suspect, is the

dye that we use to mark the gasoline that is not subject to the tax. That is why

that is and the reason it was an exemption to the Public Tender Act was that

there was one supplier. If the hon. member can come up with a cheaper source, we

would be delighted to patronize that instead.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

A question regarding the Premier's letter in the tourism

package: The November 1996 exemptions to the Public Tender Act indicated

Tourism, Culture and Recreation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It was not mine. Tourism, Culture and

Recreation spent $10,598 on November 13, 1996, printing the Premier's letters

for the Cabot Marketing mail-out. The reason given: `Pressing Emergency',

immediate requirement for the inclusion of the Cabot 500 mail-out to residents

and non-residents. There were four quotes received and the contract awarded to

the low bidder.

With people dying while waiting for surgery in the health

care sector, the Premier has an interesting way of defining `pressing

emergency'. Obviously, all the Premier's expenditures are not covered in his own

section head. Was this letter requested by the Premier or by the department? Do

you know anything about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You do not know anything about that?

MR. DICKS: It was a frivolous question.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Finance says it was a

frivolous question and he does not know anything about it.

The Upper Churchill - are appropriations made in anticipation

of resuming negations on the Upper Churchill and where?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the negotiations

that are ongoing between Hydro Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, those

are funded through the normal activities down in Hydro, I do not think they

would show up in our estimates in any specific form. To the extent that it is

necessary to involve other government officials that would be a normal

allocation, people we employ in our executive council to attend to fairly high

level negotiations. So, there is no specific amount set aside of the Churchill

Falls negotiation that I am aware of.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

With respect to Women's Policy Office, page 23. Part of the

functions of the Women's Policy Office outlined in the estimates is to enhance

the economical and social status of women in the Province. With the Province's

refusal to pay the pay equity amount they owe to the Provinces women, would the

government take that as a failure of this office and would that be his reason

for cutting the funding by fifteen per cent this year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Quite the opposite, the Province has just settled, as the

hon. members knows, with NAPE the whole question of funding for pay equity which

has been the outstanding issue and the hon. member remembers the discussion and

the press conference that we had here in the building, which he, I am sure, so

loudly applauded last fall. What the hon. member, I think, is referring to is

the decision as to whether or not government was obligated to pay it from 1988

to 1991. The matter was decided by the board of arbitration by Mr. David Alcock

and were -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, because in our view the decision as we

have advice is wrongly made by the arbitrator in that case. Interestingly

enough, the two nominees both descended from the opinion. So, it would be

interesting to see, but obviously government owes a debt, we will pay it. It is

our view, at this point, that that has not been clearly defined, given the fact

that there is no unanimity of opinion and even if that opinion were contrary to

government position we would have serious reason to doubt that that was the

case.

The consolidation at the Women's Policy Office, we believe,

was fairly modest given the overall necessity of government to review it's

expenditures and I feel quite certain that under the leadership of my hon.

colleague the minister responsible for the Status of Women, that the office will

be functioning very well. In fact she might wish to speak to this because last

year we increased funding substantially having to do with domestic violence. She

might wish to speak to that, but certainly the efficiencies we found there are

ones that are completely justified and we think will result in more efficient

operation and we certainly continue with our commitment to fund the whole area

of domestic violence as well and if you look at it year over year, you will see

that over the last several years there has been a substantial increase in

funding in these areas.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member