The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me apologize on behalf the hon. Earnest McLean for not being here to present this statement but Mr. McLean is on the CBC radio program at this moment doing or trying to do the best he can with regard to making an explanation as it relates to his department at this particular point in time.

Mr. Speaker, for the information of members of the House of Assembly and the news media, I am today tabling additional information in an attempt to further explain the new Crown Lands Market Value Pricing Policy. I think the documents which I am tabling will serve to clarify any misunderstanding with reference to the new policy.

This information outlines all of the various options available under the new policy. It will be our intention to publish this information in the form of newspaper ads so that everybody concerned clearly understands the policy and all of the options available for existing commercial, residential and cottage owners. Prior to tabling this information, however, there are a number of points which I feel I should make with reference to this policy.

This is a good policy for leaseholders and, it is a good policy for the owners of Crown lands - the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Leaseholders will be able to purchase land at a fraction of the market value and, in so doing, they will acquire ownership of an asset as opposed to being the holder of a land lease.

Current leaseholders will be given the opportunity to acquire property under the old fee structure or to convert to the new fee structure - the leaseholders can decide which option is most advantageous to him or her.

The lease purchase option ensures the land is developed and serves as an interest-free loan which allows the leaseholder five years to pay for the property.

The new policy means that the cost of obtaining Crown land in most rural communities will decrease.

Revenues received through lease rentals only covered about 50 per cent of the cost of administering the leasing arrangements. What this means is that leaseholders, for a long period of time, have had the benefit of extremely low annual leasing rates. Basically, it ensures that the people of the Province receive a fair and reasonable return for the land resources of the Province.

The new policy means that the Province will no longer have a competitive advantage over private land developers.

The new system ensures a consistent policy framework throughout the Province.

It reduces red tape and makes it easier for the public to deal with government, and it will have a minimal impact on the majority of leaseholders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would first like to thank the Minister of Government Services and Lands for sending me a copy of the statement a little while ago. I appreciate that.

This is the second time we had a minister make a Ministerial Statement in this House to try to clarify the situation with respect to the new pricing policy. I have had time to basically skim the new information, and really, there is not that much more new information there. It is a bit clearer, I would agree, to the credit of the minister, I suppose, but it does not change the intent of this new policy. There are a couple of points I would like to bring out in this statement, the general statement and not the specifics.

The minister says `The lease purchase option ensures that land is developed and serves as an interest-free loan.' The lease purchase option is in place now and it takes a person having much more time to take advantage of that option, so this is only forcing the issue and forcing people to come up with money earlier on, when they may not want to.

With respect to: it serves as an interest free loan. Can you imagine leasing someone a piece of land and calling it an interest-free loan. Mr. Speaker, that would be quite a spin to put on it, to say the least. It also says: `What this means is that leaseholders, for a long period of time, have had the benefit of extremely low annual leasing rates.' Mr. Speaker, those rates are what allowed the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to have access to Crown land and to have access to cabins within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just in conclusion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. J. BYRNE: Make up your minds, is it leave or not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: `It reduces red tape and makes it easier for the public to deal with government and it will have a minimal impact on the majority of leaseholders.' I would have to question the accuracy of this statement. People now will still have to make application for leases, make application for grants, they still have to be processed, and it will not cut down on red tape for the applicant by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr. Speaker, they say this is a good policy. I have to make the statement that this is not a good policy for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

In view of the finding of the Supreme Court of Appeal, will the Premier call for a full public inquiry to determine whether the Public Tender Act was wilfully broken in the Trans City tender?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we just had a public inquiry. The courts dealt with this issue and we are analyzing what the courts have said and over the next few days we will make a decision as to where we go from here, as to whether we are going to appeal or whether we will take -

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The court was only asked if these companies were wronged. It was not asked and it was not within its mandate to render whether there was political interference or political patronage, even though, those suspicions were raised by Judge Orsborn. In fact, Judge Orsborn said: Viewed as a whole, the evidence before me is sufficient to raise suspicions that the award of the contract to Trans City was influenced by factors unrelated to the substantive content of the bids.

I ask the Premier - we had a decision by Judge Orsborn of the Supreme Court Trial Division, and now it is confirmed by three judges of the Appeals Division of the Newfoundland Supreme Court.

Now, evidence taken, raises reasonable grounds and clear suspicion that misconduct may have occurred, and I ask the Premier: Don't you think it is important to clear the air? Will the Premier clear the air and call a public inquiry into this matter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is ill-advised or misinformed. Neither did Judge Orsborn nor did the Court of Appeal, at any time, say there was any reason for punitive damages. There is no blame laid, so I would ask the hon. member to re-examine his facts. At no time, did either the trial judge or the Court of Appeal say there was any reason for punitive damages. That was thrown out in both cases.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was not within his mandate to render a judgement on political interference, I say to the minister, and I say to the Premier, prior to Judge Orsborn releasing his judgement, back on January 25, 1995, the former Premier of this Province felt it was such an important issue, that the former Premier stated on November 30, 1994: I give this commitment to the House. If at the conclusion of those court proceedings there is any basis whatsoever for the conduct of a public inquiry, I can assure this House that one will be ordered; and on December 12, he stated again -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind the hon. member again that he is on a supplementary, and that there should be no preambles and no reading of extracts from papers or other materials.

MR. SULLIVAN: If, according to the former Premier, anything arose out of the court case, he would definitely call one. In fact, in addition to evidence that raises grave -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member he is on a supplementary now, and to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, the Premier, in light of the fact that this contract was ordered, contrary to the Public Tender Act, to friends of the government and to friends of the minister's at a cost of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Would the hon. member get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier, will he call a public inquiry and do the appropriate thing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the questions of the Leader of the Opposition by pointing out to him that a judgement was rendered yesterday. I can tell him that the government has not had an opportunity to properly assess that judgement, or to decide what the next move on the part of the government will be. The Leader of the Opposition knows the range of possibilities are fairly broad, including the possibility of a continued appeal, but we have not come to any conclusion about that because we frankly have not had a chance for the Minister of Justice to render his advice in that regard, and frankly, we have to await the review by the Minister of Justice.

The reason I rise in my place is I believe the Leader of the Opposition to be, and I believe all members of this House to be, honourable members. The problem with the questions being put now by the Leader of the Opposition in advance of the Minister of Justice reviewing this decision, or indicating a next course of action by the government, is to extrapolate from a judgement - on the question brought by companies on damages, to extrapolate from the judgement opinions about whether or not there has been any political impropriety here, or any improper influence here, and, Mr. Speaker, more importantly - this is an important point - to call indirectly or directly into question the reputation of somebody like former Premier Wells, who has served this Province with honour, with integrity and with distinction. Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he really should think twice before he plays those kinds of games with the reputation of somebody who is not here, and there is no basis to impugn those kinds of motives with respect to the premiership of Clyde Wells while he sat in this place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was saying, the current Premier should show the same integrity and call an inquiry, as the former Premier said - that is what I indicated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, government and ministers at the highest level broke the very laws of this Province that they were asked and elected to uphold, I say to the Premier. There was evidence before the court that government had been warned on several occasions by officials that they were circumventing the Public Tender Act and violating the laws of this Province. The minister and Cabinet ignored this advice, I say to the Premier, and they allowed this scandal to occur.

I ask the Premier: Will you call an inquiry to make sure that all the facts are known, and so that the best public interests of this Province can be served?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what I am determined to see is that the proper process, at this stage of the game, is followed. The proper process is to allow the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice to review the decision which was rendered yesterday, to consider all the implications of that decision, and to bring advice forward to government as to the next step that should be taken. That is the proper way to proceed. To conduct a kangaroo court within twenty-four hours of the decision, across the floor, to impute motives, to slander people's reputations, to draw conclusions about improprieties, to suggest criminal wrongdoing when there is no basis for it, is the improper course; and I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to think twice about what he is doing, right here and now in this place.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Are you going to allow your Minister of Justice, who was a member of that Cabinet that broke the law of this Province, to weigh it and render a decision on what your government is going to do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition, if he is convinced that what he is saying bears weight, should leave this House, where he does not have the legal protections of the House, to name names, if he is suggesting there is any criminal activity involved here on the part of any minister, to name those ministers outside the door; and I will be waiting for him after question period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I wonder if the minister would update the House today on the status of negotiations between the crab processors and the crab harvesters in the Province; and number two, if he would indicate himself if he expects to see an early summer fishery within the crab industry this year?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The status of negotiations as of today is simply that negotiations broke off last Friday; so there are no negotiations ongoing between the harvesters, the FANL group and the union. There has been a mediator appointed by the Department of Labour and there has been an impasse reached, where the offer that was put on the table was ninety-two cents a pound for the large crab and seventy-five cents a pound for the smaller crab. The harvesters have said very clearly that they are not willing to accept that price, and negotiations have broken off until a further offer comes on the table; but there was no further offer as of today.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, if we don't see an early summer fishery and all the crab fishing effort is moved to August and September, I would like to ask the minister: What precautions are being put in place to ensure all of the crab fishing areas, I think 3L, 3K and 3PS, are not all open at one time, and we maintain some kind of a harvesting plan, so that we won't see chaos in this industry once it is allowed to open?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the management plan which recently came down clearly laid out a proper harvesting and processing of the different sectors across the Province. We all would have liked to have seen the crab industry start up now because it is a very lucrative industry, it is financially beneficial to all the people involved in the industry and to all of the Province as a whole; hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crab. The hon. member realizes that last year the market allowed to $2.50 per pound and this year it is less than $1.00 per pound.

The manner in which the harvesting plan has come down has clearly laid out that there is a very small amount of crab for most of the harvesters out there. So what they are saying is they can't see making any money at that price. So naturally negotiations are ongoing. If negotiations are settled, whether it is the spring or the fall, there is going to be a problem with the plan right now; because the one concern we all have is that all the crab will come in at the one time, and therefore causing a problem with quality and the way in which it is processed.

I will be talking to the federal Minister of Fisheries. We are talking to the local DFO on a daily basis to deal with this issue. I don't think it would be as much of a problem this fall as it would be this spring, because the real problem in the spring fishery, if it doesn't soon get started, is that in July month, in the warmer period of time, you get a lot of soft shell. You don't have that same problem in the fall.

With the way the harvesting plan came down for the Yukon, from Alaska I should say, for the Atlantic King crab and the reduction in quotas for the Atlantic Provinces, the market demand out there seems to be really good and I don't thing there will be a real problem catching them the fall, catching a full quota and supplying the market. The real problem is if it is not settled now and the fishery starts up in the middle of June.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the minister is aware by now that Newfoundland crab boats are presently fishing crab in at least the area 3PS that I am aware of and landing their catch in Nova Scotia. I ask the minister if he is going to allow such activity to be tolerated? I ask the minister if he would step in immediately and protect the jobs of hundreds of plant workers in this Province?

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

MR. EFFORD: If the hon. member had done the research to his question, or whoever wrote the question for him had done research, they would know what powers the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland or anybody in Newfoundland has in preventing somebody from going out on the Grand Banks and catching crab and selling it where they choose to sell it. We have authority to prevent somebody who lands crab within the ports of Newfoundland, to stop them from taking that crab and trucking it out of the Province but I don't have authority, nor do I have the ability, to go out on the Grand Banks and take a boat and say that you must bring that crab back to Newfoundland.

We are talking to Minister Mifflin's office about the issue and from the information - I just had a meeting five minutes before coming into the department, with Justice - what authority do we have? The advise I am getting from Justice is we don't have any legal authority. We are talking to the federal minister to see what we can do. The problem is that an individual goes out and catches his crab and he decides to sell it. I think it is just something that is happening within the industry, but it will be only one trip out to Nova Scotia and that's it because the real issue - it was tried a couple of years ago and it did not work out because with the time it takes to catch crab out here and bring it to Nova Scotia, by the time they get to Nova Scotia about 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the crab is dead and nobody will buy it. So I think in the matter of one or two trips it will take care of itself.

The authority in Newfoundland, we don't have it. We are talking with the federal minister's office to see what authority they have. It is a real concern because if it continues and there is a lot of crab going to Nova Scotia the hon. member is quite right, there are a lot of jobs lost here in the Province, jobs that we cannot afford to lose. What I am intend to do, apart from my legal authority -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: - is talk to the people in the fishery and try to negotiate something between them.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that there have been at least three trips made to Nova Scotia. I say to the minister that there are many other harvesters, as he knows, right from his own district, getting geared up today to make that very trip. I ask the minister if he has done anything to facilitate negotiations between the harvesters and the processors in this Province? If he has not, would he be kind enough to intercede immediately to get this crab fishery reopened so that we can all enjoy the benefits?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, again, I just came out of a meeting with my lawyers, getting advice from the Department of Justice on what authority I do have, even in a collective bargaining system. I have to be very careful in trying to interfere with the collective bargaining system and that is something I am getting further advice on. There is a proper system in place, a collective bargaining system where negotiations are taking place in an orderly fashion. I cannot go in and demand on an harvester or demand on a processor, you must pay a fisherman a certain price or you must catch a certain amount; I don't have that right as minister.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The industry minister indicated in an answer to questions on May 27, that he was due to meet with the federal Minister of Transport, David Anderson, about Marine Atlantic's refusal to let the Newfoundland Dockyard submit a tender which would have been a winning tender for the work on the coast guard vessel, Henry Larsen. It has since been reported that Marine Atlantic won't let the Newfoundland Dockyard bid on the Sir Humphrey Gilbert or the Canadian Navy vessel, the Iroquois. Since the work on these vessels would not be completed before the June 30 takeover deadline, dockyard workers now have about a week to submit their intensions on whether or not they are going to proceed with an employee takeover.

Has the minister now met with the Minister of Transport, David Anderson, on this matter? Has he obtained from the federal minister an assurance that if the employees indeed say, yes, to their intentions for an employee takeover that the minister will see that they can start bidding right away on work that will extend beyond the June 30 deadline.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, to the original question, the problem with the Larsen was that the dockyard workers and management had prepared a bid that could have been achieved within the parameters of the extension that had been put in place. In other words, that work could have been completed by June 30, and that is why I expressed the outrage of the people of the Province that the bid was withdrawn at such short notice. It could have been accomplished within that time frame which was, in fact, the second extension put forward by the Federal Government.

I have had a long discussion with the minister, Mr. Anderson. The problem that Mr. Anderson has had is that he has not had a firm decision sent to him by the steering committee that was put in place and facilitated by Mr. Baker. Now, I should tell the House that I had a briefing with Mr. Baker last night, a fairly lengthy discussion. There is in train now, in process now, the document prepared by the committee of workers that Mr. Baker was put in place to facilitate, being brought to Ottawa in the next forty-eight hours. Our position is that if this is the basis for discussions for an employee takeover - and there are some good things in what I saw last night - if, in fact, there is a basis, then, of course, bidding should continue for all work.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I ask the minister if he has met with Transport Minister David Anderson, and has he met with the President of Marine Atlantic, Rod Morrison, on this matter? If so, has he received word from David Anderson and/or Rod Morrison as to whether or not, if the employees submit an agreement to go ahead with an employee takeover, Marine Atlantic will let them start bidding right away on work beyond the June 30 deadline, work on such vessels as the Sir Humphrey Gilbert and the Iroquois?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I had a lengthy discussion for, I guess, about an hour with the federal minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you see him?

MR. FUREY: No, I didn't meet him. I saved the taxpayers a couple of thousand dollars and spoke to him on the telephone for an hour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the dockyard was slated, amongst other things in the federal Budget, to be shut as early, I think, as December of 1995. The then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the current Premier, caused an extension for three months to see whether, in fact, there were grounds there for an employee takeover. The current Premier then asked for a further extension and received an extra three months. That is six months. This is a very complicated objective that is set before the workers at the dockyard. You are talking about setting up a new corporation, dealing with share structures, working out pensions, dealing with severance matters, a whole plethora of very complex issues, looking at the financial statements, looking at the capitalization of the dockyard, looking at where the operating dollars would come in the aftermath, the marketing, etcetera. We believe - I believe, this government believes, that it should remain open, that bids should continue on that parallel track while these discussions are proceeding in a meaningful way for an employee takeover.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because of the details involved in the plethora of issues involved in an employee takeover, the number of issues involved, I feel that it is important that they be allowed to bid on work that will take them beyond the June 30 deadline.

The Evening Telegram made a good point on Monday when they criticized Marine Atlantic for disallowing the Henry Larsen bid, and I will quote: Does this mean that the dockyard should not function as a business in the meantime? Why would employees want to take over a business that is going out of its way to lose money before they hand the keys over to the new owners, I say? Does the minister believe that Marine Atlantic's decision to disallow such bidding by the dockyard is a sign of an unwillingness on the part of the Federal Government to make an employee takeover work? Is it a sign that Ottawa is reluctant to put any money into guarantees into the dockyard to make a takeover succeed? Will the minister tell his federal counterparts that such an attitude could destroy a 100-year-old industry, an industry that is important to Newfoundland -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: I am asking a question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member has asked several questions now.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: Will the minister tell his counterparts that such an attitude could destroy a 100-year old industry, an industry that is important to our economy at this point in time?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, there was a plethora of questions in that and the hon. member is going to be asked whether he understands and knows what `plethora' means or he will be banished to Rarotonga right after the House.

Mr. Speaker, we did make a case to the federal minister. The Premier made the case to the federal minister. The onus clearly here, is on the employees. Is there a firm willingness, a decisiveness, a decision by the employees to collectively take a decision to remove the assets from the federal Crown, take them over themselves on the conditions that they would spell out, where investment would be required by the employees, where there would have to be a marketing and management team put in place, where there would have to be a restructured union contract because they themselves would now own it? All of these have to be answered. I can tell you that a package is going forward through the facilitator who has worked very closely with all of the unions and the steering committee. It should be in Ottawa in the next forty-eight hours, and from what I have seen, there truly is a serious basis for further discussions and negotiations.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Besides having an interest in seeing that this industry succeeds and the employees remain working, the Province has a multimillion-dollar investment in the dockyard because we helped to finance the synchrolift. Indeed, the Province is suing CN at this time because of the millions of dollars paid in interest on a loan for that project between 1987 and 1991.

What leverage might our investment and our interest overpayment give us in the negotiations towards an employee takeover, and has the government thought about asking Ottawa, not only to acknowledge our financial contribution but to also use it to help cushion a takeover or finance modernization? In other words, is there something tangible that our Province can do to help make the employee takeover succeed?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I have had meetings with the unions and, in fact, the hon. the Member for St. John's South was invited to those meetings; we had some very good and frank discussions. There are a number of concerns that the unions have expressed with respect to the viability and future of the yard. At that time, I told them that the Province would look at all and every opportunity that we could lay before this process to make it work.

The member is quite right. The previous government, in 1983 put forward an $8-million loan to subsidize the recapitalization and building of the synchrolift. When he talks about we are now suing, we are protection our position in the courts on the principal and interest that is owed back to the Province. Of course, we would look at that debt, and of course, we would look at some creative ways to deal with that. If, in fact, there is a clear basis for an employee takeover and the Province can help, of course, it will help.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are also for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and they also concern the dockyard.

Mr. Speaker, there has been note made by CN Rail and CN Express and, of course, Marine Atlantic, of severance packages that they have not only given out in this Province, but as well, in other parts of Canada. One would certainly hope that this Province would be treated or its people would be treated the same as everybody else.

I have a document, Mr. Speaker, which was given to me today and if the minister does not have it or has not seen a copy, I would be only too glad to give him a copy of it afterwards. I would like to ask the minister - and I would just like to read the bottom part here which says: We are unable to be precise regarding a date of closure due to the conditions described above. However, request you accept this notice of group termination of employment in accordance with section 212, part 3 of the Canadian Labour Code. Is the minister aware that CN Marine and its Director of Human Resources have already served notice on the federal Minister of Labour on the closure of the Newfoundland Dockyard?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada served notice that they were closing it as of December 1995; I just finished saying in the early responses that the then Minister of Fisheries sought an extension of three months and achieved it, and the current Premier asked for a further three months so that the discussions could continue, and achieved it. Now, if there is a basis for meaningful discussions and there is a serious intention on the employees to take this over, I would assume that the logical consequence of that is that there would be a further extension. I have no idea what the hon. member is quoting from. I will take a look at it if he will send it across to me.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour. As people in this Province know, and certainly members in the House, there are serious concerns and issues regarding the clean-up of the Argentia base, previously held by the American Navy. Can the minister confirm that the federal U.S. Government has made an offer to the Canadian Government regarding the clean-up of not only Argentia, but Goose Bay? And can he enlighten the House on how much money is involved in that clean-up?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. The Federal Government has been negotiating with the U.S. Government as to the potential for clean-up at Argentia and a number of other sites. The dollar value has not been announced yet. The agreement has not been announced by the federal minister and the Federal Government. The line department is the Transport Department for the Federal Government. We are awaiting a further final decision from the Federal Government and an announcement, but that has not been made yet. They are in the process of finalizing an agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

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

MR. OSBORNE: I stand in the House today, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition on behalf of the many cabin owners in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who are voicing opposition to the change in Crown land fees. The many cabin owners, as I have mentioned, are opposing these fees because many of them find it is a burden, many of them just cannot afford to come up with this type of money or funding by the October 31 deadline, and many of them cannot afford to come up with the payments over a five-year-period.

These people have saved money for home renovations, purchases of cars, to send their children to university, what have you, and this extreme burden at this point in time is just far too much for many people in the Province to deal with. They have fears that if they are unable to come up with this funding by October 31, or indeed over a five-year-period, equal payments over five years, that their cabins may be taken. These payments that are demanded of the Crown land holders are much higher than the $75 a year that they have become accustomed to, and this is the reason why they are voicing opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I support the petition presented by the Member for St. John's South and in doing so I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the people who have contacted me in my district, and outside, who are also terribly concerned with this government's policy and the hardship that it will impose on them, in particular as cottage or cabin owners, who entered into leases with government to obtain Crown land to build a cottage on.

Let us fact it, Mr. Speaker, most of the people who are engaged in this kind activity, are not the kinds of people who are able to come up with a significant amount of money on fairly short notice as is required by these new policy changes. I think it is incumbent upon government to examine and re-examine this policy based on the fairness principle. We are not talking about people who can spent $30,000 or $40,000 building a summer cottage or cabin and all of a sudden they are called upon to come up with another $500, $1500, or $2000. We are talking, in many cases, about people whose only recreational activity is to spend their time at their cabin in the woods, or their cottage, and it has been a tradition for them to that, and they do not have the money. I have had calls from people who said: This will be a terrible burden upon me to have to pay this money immediately.

MR. EFFORD: Come on, Jack, (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now, we are concerned here - the Member for Port de Grave says: Come on, people cannot afford $2,500? What world is he living in? What world is he and his fellow Cabinet ministers living in if they are saying: Come on? There are no poor people in this Province according to the minister, everybody can reach into their pockets and come up with $2,500 and pay this government for a cottage lot when they signed a lease that said they only had to pay $50 a year. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what seems to be wrong with this government. There is a level of arrogance -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - about the reality and the real life that people have to live in this Province. That is why they can take $61 away from social assistance recipients. That is why they can continue to have a flat rate of social assistance for the last seven, eight or nine years with a 17 per cent decrease as a result of the cost of living. There seems to be an insensitivity here, Mr. Speaker, that is reflected in the attitude of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Not everybody has the same ability, as he has.

Perhaps every member of this House might be able to do the same thing, but we are here to represent the people of this Province who are - to a person, I have not heard one person - the minister is not in the House now, he is busy on the radio. I bet you not one single person called up to praise the minister for this policy. I bet you there was not one who phoned up and said: Well done, minister, you are doing a great job in increasing these fees and helping government revenues. Not one, because, Mr. Speaker, the people who are using these cottage lot leases are people who cannot afford to buy the land outright, who are just getting by, who are calling their members, and they are calling them on that side of the House too. I bet there are probably even a few who called the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to complain about this policy.

I don't know what he told them, Mr. Speaker, but what he should be telling his Cabinet colleagues and what he should be telling the minister is that this policy must change. There must be an amelioration of this policy to allow people who genuinely do want to buy out their leases at some point in time, a better method of doing it. There has to be some amelioration of this policy, not just the explanations that have been given here, not just these explanations but something to help them. Maybe the minister can deal with this when he responds to the petition.

One of his comments in his statement today says that current leaseholders are given the opportunity to acquire property under the old fee structure or convert to the new structure. Perhaps he can explain what that means because it does not seem to appear in the attached explanation. That may be what people want or need but perhaps he should explain that and explain whether they can actually stay by the old policy and acquire the lands in accordance with the old policy and the old prices as set forth in their leases, or whether he is going to continue with these punitive pricing changes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today on behalf of some members of my district and some other members that I would like to present and endorse, wherein they are requesting that,

WHEREAS the school bus transportation presently provided for Brophy Place, Kelly Street, Hunts Lane, McGrath Place and Blackwood Place will be discontinued in September 1996; and

WHEREAS the families who will be affected by the elimination of school bus service will have great difficulty in affording or providing alternative methods of transportation to and from school; and

WHEREAS there is no school within walking distance of Brophy Place, Kelly Street, Hunts Lane, McGrath Place and Blackwood Place, we the undersigned request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador continue to provide the same level of school bus transportation for our area as is currently provided.

This petition, Mr. Speaker, has been signed by some forty-six residents of the city area. I am very happy to present it and endorse it. I think it is a shame and unjustifiable to withdraw this bus service from the people of this area, in particular -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - and from other areas of St. John's, in general.

The people in this particular area are generally low income people. They are living in public housing; they are already living on minimum income. They cannot afford to pay the extra $25 a month per student to provide bus transportation themselves, and in some cases it would mean that a parent would have to accompany the child to school, and that is another $50 a month. They have concluded that it would cost a group of people in this small area some $65,000 extra a year in order to provide their own transportation, and these are people who are living on minimum incomes right now.

We are talking about some ninety families, and 140 children. They did a survey up in the area, and they found that only four families - only four of these ninety families - have their own cars, and only two of the families said that they anticipated being able to finance the extra cost of the transportation themselves.

Walking to school is not an option because all of the schools they attend are in excess of one mile, and the kids would have to cross two four-lane highways in order to get to them. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter for the people in this area, and I think that government has to reconsider what it is proposing to do in this regard.

I realize it has been suggested that the St. John's Metrobus could provide an alternative facility, but I would like to quote from a press release issued today by the Chairman of the St. John's Transportation Commission in which he says: Metrobus does not have the equipment or financial capacity to handle all these children. To carry the 1,400 students in a manner as now done on the yellow buses would cost Metrobus in excess of $1 million annually. Additionally, Metrobus would have to charge its normal fare to the children of $25 per child.

So in order to save a couple of hundred thousand dollars for the provincial government, we would be imposing a cost of some $1,300,000 on the residents of St. John's. I don't believe we can justify doing that.

The chairman goes on to say: The downloading of this service from the Province to Metrobus amounts to asking the citizens of St. John's to pay an extra tax of approximately $1 million annually toward the cost of education, and an additional $300,000 in bus fares.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of these petitioners, I appeal to government to reconsider what they are proposing to do. In this particular instance I don't see how we could possibly justify it. I don't see how we can continue justifying depriving St. John's residents of free school bus transportation when we are providing it everywhere else in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: That is unjustifiable and unfair, and it is time we did something to correct that, and it is particularly time we did something to correct it in view of the fact that we are continuing to provide free bus transportation for school students in Mount Pearl. Now, how can we provide it in Mount Pearl and not provide it in St. John's?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: I ask the government to reconsider what it is proposing.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wholeheartedly endorse the comments made by the Member for Virginia Waters. He is quite correct when he stands and presents this petition today and states that it is unfair and it is inequitable the way that certain constituents and certain members of our society and our Province are being prejudiced by the insensitive decision of this government in denying the right to school busing.

It must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that these are young people and families who have been accustomed to busing free of charge over dozens of years. In fact, the very area that the Member for Virginia Waters speaks of, I had the privilege last week of meeting with these same individuals, and he is quite correct in what he says, that they are sincere in their deliberations, they are sincere when they say that they are people of need. These are low income individuals who require the assistance of this government to attend to their needs.

I wholeheartedly endorse the petition as being presented by the hon. member. Let's remember, Mr. Speaker, buses of Metrobus are not school buses. They are not equipped to be school buses. The drivers are not trained to be school bus drivers. There are no student monitors and student aids aboard these buses.

Mr. Speaker, these buses do not drive onto the school parking lots. These buses can stop easily on the opposite side of a street from which the school is located, and regardless of the weather, regardless of traffic conditions young children, as young as five years of age, are being forced to cross streets to gain entry into their schools. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it is an insensitive, unkind decision and it lacks any attention whatsoever to what is right in our society, and I stand in support of the petition as presented by the hon. member.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the presentation of the petition by my colleague for Virginia Waters and the comments he made, along with the Member for St. John's East in support of the petitioners. We have indicated quite clearly already in this House, previously and publicly, that if in fact it is verified that there are differences in the information that the Department of Education has, and that the Department of Education received in meetings with officials of the City of St. John's Metrobus, and the school boards that serve the area as well - these meetings, by the way, Mr. Speaker, have been going on now for over two and a half years with respect to this issue. While there is a different issue that has been raised here, particularly by my colleague for Virginia Waters with respect to no busing in St. John's versus busing in Mount Pearl and the rest of the Province, the government at this point in time is not looking for ways to add monies to the transportation budget to increase the amount of school busing that is occurring anywhere in the Province.

We are looking at going in the opposite direction, not only in St. John's but everywhere in the Province, so that if we are spending money in education we prefer that it not be on transportation unless it is absolutely necessary, if people cannot get to school any other way; and that if we are spending money in education that it be for operational things, for instructional materials for students, for extra teachers, and for those type of things that impact much more directly on their learning environment than transportation systems.

Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out before that there is no point in anybody trying to make a comparison to Mount Pearl. Nobody in this House, including myself as the minister, has ever said that the Metrobus service is designed to be a school bus service. What we have said is that in the City of St. John's, and in the City of St. John's alone, that the information that the Department of Education still has is that the students who need to go to the schools in the city can be accommodated on the current Metrobus system. If the information from Mr. Andrews is proven to be correct, that they do not have the capability of handling these students, and that they cannot get to school, then we will have to find an alternate arrangement for making sure that the students can get to school.

We have already made that statement publicly and our officials are checking the information with Metrobus. The information that we had when we made the decision was that the system could accommodate all of the students in all neighbourhoods of the City of St. John's. There was no discussion about Mount Pearl or any other community because of the fact that there was no public transit system that was available to accommodate the students and take them anywhere close to the schools where they were expected to attend.

The issue is being dealt with, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the point of view presented by the petitioners. A department official from education was at the meeting with the parents in Brophy Place a week ago today, I understand, last Wednesday evening, because the issue was raised when I was on an open line show and we came back and made a commitment. Our official was at the meeting, and the officials are continuing to meet with Metrobus and with the school boards in St. John's, and the matter will be resolved so that students are treated fairly; and also that there is a consistent non-discriminatory policy with respect to school busing versus Metrobus opportunities in the City of St. John's, because it is the only city that provides a comprehensive public transit system. It does not happen in Mount Pearl, it does not happen in Corner Brook even though it is referenced in the press release from the Chairman of the board for the St. John's Transportation Commission, and it does not happen in any other municipality.

There are not any choices in other areas, but there is a choice in St. John's. We do not expect at any time in the future to be introducing yellow school buses into the environment of the City of St. John's to get students back and forth to school.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today, Mr. Speaker. The good news, of course, I gave you the last day is that I ran out of petitions from my own district, but the good news is that I started to get them from other districts. I have some from the Member for Exploits district, from Botwood, Valley Pond, Northern Arm, Glovers Harbour and so on. Mr. Speaker, they started to arrive a couple of days ago and I am sure they will keep me going for a few days anyway, as long as the House is open. Port de Grave petitions should be coming any time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a different prayer to this petition so I will read this for the sake of the minister and his district to make sure that we are all in order here.

To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador do hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support our petition to open up a food fishery for the people of this Province. Every ocean-bordering province in Canada except Newfoundland and Labrador has a food fishery.

We, the undersigned take strong exception to the treatment we are receiving from this government. We did not destroy the fishery and object to the fact that as a people, our heritage is being taken from us; we do not believe that a small hand line fishery would damage the recovering stocks.

Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray.

Mr. Speaker, even in this petition, although the prayer is a little bit different - and this petition, Mr. Speaker, is not from the Fightin' Nfld'ers as the initial ones I was making, this is a petition that these people in these communities made up on their own. They heard that petitions were being presented and decided to send them. So I commend these people for taking the initiative to do that and for putting together their own prayer, and in those lines repeat the same words that I have been saying for the last seven, eight or nine or how ever many petitions I have been presenting: That they are not the reason, Mr. Speaker. The people who go out to jig a fish with a hand line, with a little bit of bait and get five or six or ten fish, are not the reason for the collapse of the fishery in this Province.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I will go so far as to say, if those were the only people left in the fishery that we would not have the conditions we have right now. They are the last people who should be penalized. They again refer to the bay stocks and the small stocks, not the big biomass offshore; they are talking about the few fish in a bay to which they can row in a dory or bring a small boat out and jig a fish, not the ridiculous comparisons that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture made here in this House, or the Government House Leader made about the previous mistakes of John Crosbie and all the mistakes of the federal government and the big scientific research we keep hearing about. They are making a mountain out of a molehill, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking about when you can travel to Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, as a Newfoundlander, go on a holiday and go up and jig a fish, but you can't come down off Round Harbour where they never see an officer anyway. They look down and there are only about ten families living in the community and a man sitting there at his window - this is where they came to me initially two years ago - looking out towards a harbour where there is nobody around. The bay is full of fish and he can't go down to jig one to eat. That is what we are talking about; we are not talking about commercial fisheries.

I have no petition here supporting the opening of commercial fishery until, like the Premier, the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said: There is solid, scientific research that says there is enough in the biomasses to support a commercial fishery. Then we will have to debate it because we will not believe the scientists right away again. So even that question of a commercial fishery is one that we can debate and wait for good, solid scientific research before we open it; but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a small, food, hand line fishery.

The criteria as I have mentioned to the Premier already is something that we should sit down with people in the industry and talk about, not some bureaucrat in Ottawa or not some - with all due respect and I talk to them a lot - DFO officials in St. John's here. Yes, they know their expertise in certain fields, Mr. Speaker, but I am talking about the fisherman who says to me: He said we didn't get any fish that summer we opened the food fishery because, they didn't know where to go to fish, or the people who were going out to catch a fish didn't know where to go. That is what it is, Mr. Speaker. The people in Petty Harbour who said: You can go out all day long and circle their boats. If they are anchored on a berth, they will get their ten fish. But then the Premier said: One of the reasons we closed it two years ago was because we had reports that people went out, seven and eight people in a boat, and came in with no fish.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely right. They were lawyers, doctors and MHAs and so on, who could go out and circle Petty Harbour 500 times and not get a fish if they don't know where to drop anchor. Berths in a fishery are very important, and fishermen will tell you, you can sit in a boat - as a matter of fact, and I don't know it that well for sure, but I have sat next to people in a boat off Petty Harbour, ten feet away from their boat, and not get a fish, while they were on the berth and could jig a fish. That is the reality. It is simple. There is nothing more to it than that. The food fishery should be opened as long as it is used by fishermen, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: I will continue to present petitions, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: It is Private Member's Day, Wednesday, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Cape St. Francis, I believe, wishes to speak.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, today I rise in my place to present a Private Member's resolution:

WHEREAS the new Crown land rates are so great that they will deprive many people of the opportunity to have a cabin or cottage unless they are rich enough to afford it; and

WHEREAS unemployed, underemployed, pensioners, low-income earners and other hurting Newfoundlanders have long enjoyed the freedom to have a cabin or cottage in the great outdoors, and will be denied this freedom under the new policy; and

WHEREAS many cabin owners who have invested a great deal of time and manual labour in cleaning up the land, based on a traditional and historical low accessible rate for Crown land; and

WHEREAS this money grab is no less than an attack on Newfoundlanders' traditional way of life; and

WHEREAS there has been no public consultation on this new policy even though the government has promised to consult with and listen to the people before making decisions;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to delay implementation of this new policy, call public hearings, and only then implement policies according to the presentations made, and in line with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians' traditional access to Crown land.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of calls on this issue. It is a very hot issue, a very passionate issue for the people who own cabins and cottage lots throughout the Province. It is a major concern also with people who own residential lots within the Province, people who have a long-term lease on residential land within municipalities and communities in this Province, and who have basically included the cost of their lease per year in their payment for their mortgages over the year. It is a major concern for those people also.

This policy was put in place without any consultation with the people of this Province. This administration were not shy during the election to promise public consultation on major policy changes for this administration. The people believed what they were saying, obviously, and as far as I am concerned this government is going back on their word to the people of this Province.

We also have, I suppose, a situation where a lot of people will consider this policy change to be a breach of contract. We have people who entered into agreements with the Crown Lands Division, or through Government Services and Lands, or Environment and Lands, or Forestry and Agriculture over the years, whatever lands came under over the period of time since Confederation, I suppose, and they considered themselves to have a contract for a fifty-year lease or whatever, for x amount of dollars per year.

Mr. Speaker, these people are reasonable people. They would expect an increase in rates per year, for rates to go up a reasonable amount, I suppose, and we have not seen that in this situation. Leases have gone, over the years, from $50 to $75 for a cottage lease, and I believe it is $50 per year for a residential lease.

If it is within the terms of the contract, or the terms of the lease, to permit the government to change the rate per year every five years, I believe it is referred to so it could be reviewed, then yes, we could expect a $10, $15 or $20 per year increase per lease, but what is happening here is we are going from $75 a year to a minimum of $500 per year. That is for a cottage lot not fronting on a pond. For a cottage lot that is fronting on a pond, that will be $600 a year. That is in areas where there are no assessments.

MR. TULK: How much would a survey (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you asking me to do one for you?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't think I could do one for you, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Why?

MR. J. BYRNE: Why? I won't get into why I wouldn't do one for you. He is trying to detract me from my train of thought.

Mr. Speaker, back on the leases themselves, going to $500 or $600 - that is for cottage leases - in the long haul, that is quite a lot of money, I suppose, although the government now is saying it is for a five-year period. Again, I have to get back to the assessed value of property. This $500 or $600 per year is for areas that don't have assessments. The government was not quite clear when they first came out with their policy. I believe it was on May 16, Mr. Speaker, that they announced this policy, and the statement was pretty confusing.

We asked questions in the House of Assembly and the minister actually gave a response to the questions and then came out with a Ministerial Statement in the House of Assembly to try to clarify the situation, which really didn't clarify the situation but only confused things more. Then we had tabled in the House, answers to questions I had asked and again we didn't get the answers. Today they came out with a Ministerial Statement presented by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on behalf of the Minister of Government Services and Lands. The minister was on Cross Talk on CBC Radio today trying to clarify the situation, Mr. Speaker. I have to say the civil servant, Mr. Parrott, who was with him at the time, did a good job. He seemed to know his stuff, I must say.

To me, this policy is being developed as time progresses, Mr. Speaker. There were a number of people who got up against it. Certainly we can see why the policy had to be developed, as time went on, because, of course, of the total confusion out there with the public. I don't believe that the people in the department themselves can answer the questions, because I know that a number of people phoned Crown Lands and they could not get answers because they did not know the answer, Mr. Speaker. So, it is starting to be clarified at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, a point that I think has not been brought up yet, and I wanted to bring up, is Crown lands. The question is: Who owns Crown lands in this Province? Is it the government? The answer is: No, it is not. The Government cannot own Crown lands. The people of the Province own Crown lands, Mr. Speaker, and the government administers Crown lands. Basically, the people themselves now are being asked to buy the land, well not asked, but are almost being forced to purchase the land from themselves. I can see the Crown or the government charging a fee per year for administration.

Now, the minister in his statement basically says that the cost of the leases only covers 50 per cent of the cost of administering the leases, Mr. Speaker, and he should know what he is talking about, I imagine. I would have no reason to doubt that. If that is the case, if $75.00 per year covers 50 per cent of the cost to administer, why are we now going to $500 and $600 a year, Mr. Speaker? That is six or seven times the amount that is being charged now.

With respect to the grants themselves, in areas where there is a municipality or where there are assessments we don't really know what the assessment will be at this point in time. I remember last week when we were asking questions on this in the House and a situation with Deer Park came up. At that point in time the policy wasn't clearly developed, and I asked the question - I never asked the question, it was brought up in the media, and I made an example of Deer Park. If a piece of property in Deer Park is assessed conservatively at $10,000 a year, the actual cost per year would be $2,000 for a five-year lease, and you pay the full market value for that property. Since then, of course, we had some clarification that now in areas where there is no assessment, there will not be assessment, it will be based on a set rate, and it has been set now at $3,000 and $2,500, depending on the location.

So there are a lot of questions to be asked with respect to this new Crown land policy. One of the big ones, I suppose, from my perspective, is that again I believe it is morally wrong to take such a large jump, from $50.00 or $75.00 a year to upwards of $500 or $600 and higher. We really don't know how high it can go at this point in time, Mr. Speaker.

Now, in the statement today, the minister said that the lease-purchase option ensures the land is developed and serves as an interest-free loan which allows the leaseholder five years to pay for the property. Now, to be clear on that, the lease-purchase option is in place at this point in time. If a person has a lease today, a fifty-year lease, once he meets the conditions of the lease with respect to building a cabin and putting a cabin on that lot, he or she can apply to have that lease converted to a grant. So this is really trying to muddy the waters I suppose. I am almost insinuating that these options are not there at this point in time and it puts a certain spin on it.

The other point here is, it serves as interest-free loan. I mentioned this when I was up earlier with respect to the statement. It serves as an interest-free loan; you are getting a lease, basically from the Crown or the government, of land that is owned by the people and to consider that as an interest-free loan, Mr. Speaker, is nothing less than the purest, the purest of propaganda, trying to put a spin on this policy that makes it legit; and to my mind it is not legit. It could be legally right, but that is something to be determined in the future, Mr. Speaker, but morally right? It is not morally right from my perspective.

Mr. Speaker, the minister states: This policy will reduce red tape, make it easier for the public to deal with government and it will have a minimum impact on the majority of leaseholders. I said: I have to question the accuracy of this statement, and I do again, Mr. Speaker. If you are talking about red tape, if a person is going to apply for a Crown land cottage lease or a residential lease or commercial lease, he has to go in and make application. That is not going to change. Then, that application has to be sent to various departments for approval. It may have to go to Environment, it may have to go to Transportation and what have you; that won't change, Mr. Speaker.

Once it is approved, well then, Mr. Speaker, the application has to be processed and it has to go to the Crown Lands Division for documentation preparation and what have you; that won't change, Mr. Speaker. Then once the conditions of the lease are met, they have to make application for a grant. Now, maybe, this might change. If a person has a lease and the conditions of the lease are met, well then he may not have to make application for the grant. Maybe that would be automatic and the grant will be sent to him. That would be one step that could be cut out if the department so chooses to do that, but again, I would assume that the individual would have to make the application, the application would have to be processed, the documentation would have to be prepared and the person would have to come in and pay his $100 for his application and his $200 for his documentation preparation. Then, again, where is the reduction in the red tape?

Now the Private Member's resolution itself talks about how it may deprive people of the opportunity to have a cabin or a cottage unless they are rich enough to afford it. Mr. Speaker, many people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who own a cabin and a residence, many of them, many, many of these people would indeed have to build their cabins over a number of years, maybe two, there, four or five years. I personally know people who got cottage lots over the years and it took them a number of years to build their cabins. While they were building their cabins, they couldn't take holidays because every cent they had went into their cabins. The reason being, once they have their cabins built, the intent was that they would take their summer holidays or holidays in winter time at their cabins because they really couldn't afford to go outside the Province. Not many people in the Province do, Mr. Speaker, make trips all over the world, but there are a lot of people out there who have cabins, who just managed to get the money together, the big bucks together, to build their cabins. They scrimped and saved for years and then they built their cabins.

There are a lot of nice cabins - well, they are summer homes now, I suppose, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of people here in the Province also who have a lot of money. I suppose there are a lot of rich people in the Province too. I mean, they have their summer homes and they have their cabins and they have their homes in St. John's, or wherever the case may be, and they take their trips in the winter time down south and what have you. There are a number of people who do that, but for the most part, most of the people who have summer homes or summer cabins in this Province, as I said earlier, just managed to get them by scrimping and saving for years. They built their cabins and they go to them in the summer time.

Now, this new policy will quite possibly deny people the opportunity to go to these cabins. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, with this kind of an increase, if you don't have your application in by October 31, you may have to pay this $500 per year. Five hundred dollars a year is a lot of money, and if they cannot afford it now, I would say that you may see people in this Province being forced to put their cabins up for sale. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a sad commentary on this government today, to say that people may be forced to put their cabins up for sale. Some people may joke about that and make light of it, Mr. Speaker, but - and that is a very serious situation when people in this Province may have to put their cabins up for sale because they cannot afford to pay the $500 per year.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Topsail says that's not true.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Topsail said that's not true. Now, I must put out a press release saying that the Member for Topsail says, cabin owners in his district can well afford to have their cabins.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, I look forward to hearing discussion from members on both sides of the House on this topic. I know there are members on that side of the House who actually spoke to me and told me that the religious policy was a good policy, a right policy for the people of the Province, and other members on that side of the House said it was wrong and should not be in place. Do you agree with an increase that the people of this Province can afford? Mr. Speaker, who can argue against that? But to say that this is a good policy, I cannot. I have to say that it is not a good policy for the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I stand to participate in the debate this afternoon, not only as a person who is involved in owning a cottage lot, but also one, I guess, who regrets not having taken advantage of the opportunity to buy my lot at $1,500 some years ago, only to find out that by not buying it at that given date, I am now facing a $2,500 purchase like so many others.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt, as the hon. member has said, that on the surface, this may cause some hardship for some individuals, but I believe, Mr. Speaker, that, in itself, is going to be few and far between. For example, there are some 9,000 people out there who have licenses for their lots that are not affected at all. I think, Mr. Speaker, more than anything, what we are seeing this afternoon is probably the classic example of I need a parade to jump in front of and I think I have found one. I really believe that the motion being brought forward this afternoon reflects that policy. I think we have a parade, let me jump in front of it.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the remote cottage lots we also see that there is and will be no change. There are other realities that we have to deal with, Mr. Speaker, as well. There is the fact that the cost of the residential lots - I think in most cases individuals who have a lot within a municipality or within a community would welcome the opportunity to once and for all have full ownership. That ownership allows them to see the value of the homes that they have placed on those lots be enhanced by the mere fact that it is not leased land, that, in fact, it is now land that is owned by them, it is granted and, in itself, sees the property value increase.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to cottage lots that are either on the pond or off the pond, I don't think anyone would disagree that those of us who have been fortunate enough to acquire, over the course of being lucky enough to have a lot that is on the pond, I think all of us would agree that that lot, in itself, is worth substantially more than that of our neighbours across the street. I know, in the development that I am a part of, my neighbours across the street are fortunate enough that they actually have a piece of land set aside to give them an opportunity to share in the pond, a right-of-way for them to access the pond and enjoy it.

When we talk about a $2,500 fee for a cottage lot, I think, Mr. Speaker, if we were to look throughout Newfoundland at the value of - I would say in most cases, either homes in some, in the cabins in others that have been built, I would say that most people in Newfoundland and Labrador have done exactly as I have done, and that is, over a course of ten or twelve years we continually work on the property and we bring it to a degree where we are satisfied - and in my case, and most of my friends would agree, the bulk of my cabin was built out of things that I either begged or borrowed or gathered up over a period of time to enhance the property.

I am not much different from any other person out there who has a cottage lot in the sense of the pride that we take in it. I know that during the period of time when the road that we used to get to our lot, and my friends, some 150 of them, and now that has increased to almost, I would say, 300 using the same road, that for most of us, every bump on a Friday afternoon meant that we were leaving something behind. We were leaving that little extra burden of problems that we had during the week. We were leaving behind some of the cares that we had, and we were looking to rough it and enjoy the facilities with our families. I will tell you that in the last couple of years, the value of my own particular cottage lot has gone up dramatically, not in terms of the physical dollars but in terms of the need for a refuge to get away. And I don't think that my needs are much different from those of most people out there who have cabins, who enjoy the opportunity to get away and to relax.

The fundamental truth that we are dealing with is that yes, there will be a $2,500 fee; and, yes, if you want to acquire the property between now and the end of October, you can pony up the $2,500 and you will own it. I would say, and I would challenge anyone in this Legislature, or indeed, in the Province, to say to me, that anyone who has to put out that $2,500 won't see the value of their property in their own pockets go up threefold. In the majority of cases, it will go up threefold.

I have seen people, during my tenure in the cottage area that I am in, acquire lots for the $50 or $75 a year, not build on those lots, and sell them for anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 because they were within a reasonable distance of St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. WALSH: I could name them but I won't - but there are people who have done that. There is nothing wrong with it; they are allowed to do it, and they did. Well, one member in the House of Assembly is pointing to himself and saying that he did.

I am saying that the cost of the lot at the end of the day is a value that each of us has to put on what tranquillity and peace of mind, or relaxation, or time with our families are worth, whether it is our children or our grandchildren.

I was lucky that I built mine over a period of years when my family were young enough to participate in the construction and the enjoyment. I would say that, as with most people my age today, it is in reverse. If I am going to the cottage, they are not. If they are going, I spoil their plans by saying that I will.

The reality is, the $2,500, if you cannot afford it now, you can pay it over a five-year period, and at the end of that five years you will end up with a piece of property that, in most cases, will be worth $10,000 - in most cases will be worth $10,000 - increased value on the cottage that you have there.

The sad reality is that people today will pay more for their cable TV in the next twelve months than the $500 fee to own outright an acre or two acres or three acres of land in this Province, and enhance the value for themselves for the time they may wish to part with that property, with a home or cottage on it, or without. On the pond today it is probably worth $10,000-plus, in most parts of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and on the opposite side of the road, $5000-plus, in most parts.

If you look at it in the other reality, Mr. Speaker, this, I believe, will be a program that may, at the end of the day, put even more property in the hands of the people of our Province, not in leases, not in licenses, but granted land, something they have no worries about at the end of the day, clear title to enhance their own net worth. I do not know of a bank in this Province, or I do not know of an individual in this Province, who if they are able to maintain the cabin, that they have would not be willing to go the extra step to have clear title and clear ownership.

Maybe we should do it a little differently. Maybe our approach is wrong. Maybe we should not be asking for the $2,500 now. Maybe what we should do is totally reverse. Let's let people carry on with their leases, and when they decide to sell their properties, we will give them back $2,500 and the Government of the Province, will take the remaining value of the property and keep it for themselves.

Now, if you want a parade to jump in front of, Mr. Speaker, try that one and see how many people you will have hollering, screaming, and complaining, because most cabin or cottage lot owners know that the significance of the $2,500 for the right to own is in insignificant when it comes to what the value of that property and their cabins will be worth at the end of the day. I would support, if they wish, a motion that says: When we sell or transfer the property to our children, or sell it outright to someone else, the Government can give me back $2,500 for my maintenance of the land, and all the profit that is made in-between can be kept by the government.

Now, we know that is ridiculous and we know that is not going to happen, but the reality driven home, Mr. Speaker, is that for that $2,500, for that nominal price of $500 a year, clear title, clear ownership falls into the hands of the person who now has the lease for the property. It was not long ago that the City of St. John's tried to do something with all the people who had houses that were built in the city on leased land, on leased property. They could buy it if they wished for forty times the lease. They could own it outright, and most people in the city jumped at the opportunity, took the opportunity, because their homes were sitting on it.

Mr. Speaker, I contend that anyone who has a cabin, or a cottage if they so desire to call it, would welcome the opportunity, as they did in the City of St. John's to have that property freehold, clear ownership, clear title, something they could leave to their children or something they could sell at some future date. The $500 a year becomes insignificant in terms of what it is you have at the end of the day, and I don't know of a bank in this Province that wouldn't help you with the $2,500 immediately because of the value you would have at the end of the day.

The $500 a year - as I said, people will pay more for their cable TV in the next twelve months than that $40 or $50 - $40 a month is what it works out to. Ownership of an acre or two of land in the wilderness of this Province, ownership of land where each of us have the opportunity to have that peace of mind for the few days we are there, ownership of the cabin we utilize to do our Fall hunting, our Winter fishing, the cottage or the cabin that our snowmobiling is built around. We can afford the $5,000 for the snowmobile to get to it, yet someone would say we cannot afford the $40 a month for the ownership of the cabins. The ownership of that land will appreciate. The ownership of the car to get to it, the snowmobile for the wintertime and everything that you use surrounding that cabin, in itself depreciates the day you buy it but that property, Mr. Speaker, increases.

I think what we are seeing, more than anything, Mr. Speaker, is that members of the Opposition have found what they believe is a parade that they can jump in front of. They have found a cause that they believe will rally the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, the opportunity for the ownership of a piece of ground in this, one of the safest places in the world to live, for $2,500 - $500 a year over five years, interest free - is a gift that 98 per cent of the people in Newfoundland, who cannot get a cottage lot, would be so happy to have. Ninety per cent of the people in the immediate metropolitan St. John's would give their hearts to have that piece of ground. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, they cannot get it for the $2,500 today because those who own them have sold those lots, if they don't want them, for $15,000, $10,000, each of them have.

The hon. member said that he sold his and I wouldn't dare ask what he received for it, but I do know that at a $75 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WALSH: A minute to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more here than the Opposition finding what they believe is a parade to jump in front of and I think the wheels are about to fall off their cart one more time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest, first of all, if the member opposite feels so strongly about what he just said that he is invited to our meeting tonight at which we would be honoured to have him give the same speech.

Mr. Speaker, this new market value policy that the government has come forth with is putting a lot of people in a precarious situation. But before I go on to that, let me just read from a statement made in the hon. minister's statement that he released today: `Leaseholders will be able to purchase land at a fraction of the market value and, in so doing, they will acquire ownership of an asset as opposed to being the holder of a land lease.' In a prior statement given by the minister, he says that we want to replace the old arbitrary pricing system with one which is based on market values, not fraction of market values. He says, one which is based on market values prevalent in local areas. He goes further to say that government needs to assure itself that it is receiving fair value for the land resource base of the Province and the people of the Province in general. This was a statement that the minister released just last week, on May 27, and today he is coming out with completely different views. Again, I will say that leaseholders will be able to purchase land at a fraction of the market value. That seems to be a complete turnaround from what he said last week. So I don't know if this is an intention to fix what wrong they have been doing, if it is we welcome that for sure -

AN HON. MEMBER: Damage control.

MR. OSBORNE: Damage control, yes.

Mr. Speaker, a number of the leaseholders in this Province are unable to come up with $2,000 or $2,500 by the end of October of this year. A lot of these people, as I have said on a number of occasions in the House, have money put aside to send children to university, to do repairs to their own residential properties, maybe even to do repairs to their cottages, take a family vacation or purchase an automobile or what have you. These people have not planned for this expenditure of $2,000 or $2,500. It was completely unforeseen until the government took it in their wisdom to come out with the fair market value pricing policy.

A lot of the people who are not able to come up with this money by the end of October are going to be penalized because they will have to purchase the land at 20 per cent of - well, I am a little confused, 20 per cent of the fair market value or a fraction of market value or whatever the government decides to do. I guess it is the statement that has come out today that we will be going with.

AN HON. MEMBER: It may change next week.

MR. OSBORNE: Or it may change next week, exactly. But, you know, these people were not prepared for this, and as a result of not being able to come up with this type of money by the end of October, are going to have to pay 20 per cent of whatever value the government decides to put on the land. A lot of the people just cannot afford to do this either. Many of the people, that the hon. member across from me stated to earlier, as being able to pay for cable and paying more in the run of a year for cable then they are going to pay for their land. This is just not so and a lot of these people probably don't even have cable. These people cannot afford to have cable. They put sweat equity into building their cottages. They put sweat equity into clearing their lots.

AN HON. MEMBER: They could have before (inaudible) any changes.

MR. OSBORNE: They could have, they put in sweat equity. A lot of these people got material second-hand or for nothing, and put sweat equity into building their cottages, I remind the member across. So a lot of these people just cannot afford to come up with this type of money over a five-year-period. What is the government going to do, take their cottages because they cannot come up with this type of money? Are they going to resell them or burn them? This is something that has not been answered. It has been asked in the House by my hon. colleague but it has not been answered yet. So we still have no clear direction of where the minister is headed with this. The Minister of Government Services and Lands has not given us any clear indication of what his intentions are, whether he is going to burn their cottages or repossess them and sell them. Many people in this Province are not as well off as we, the members of the House of Assembly, and we have to remember this when we are making such policies that some of the people in our Province cannot afford to come up with this type of payment on an annual basis or to come up with this type of money by October 31.

We have to become a little more humane when we are coming up with policies to try to reap financial rewards from the people of the Province as opposed to giving them financial rewards. This new market value pricing policy or the policy that it came out with today, which I will be reviewing in a bit more detail, whichever one he decides to go with, is going to place a tremendous burden on the people of our Province. I think it is something that - we should take heed to what people are saying and I hope more members of the House attend the meeting tonight so that they can hear firsthand - we have been told time and time again that they are not getting complaints, they are not hearing negative remarks to this new market value pricing policy. Well, we are hearing them every day. We are getting phone calls every day from people who are opposing this. I have a stack of petitions in my office that I am presenting on almost a regular daily basis here in the House of Assembly, from people who are not happy with this new market value pricing system. This is a tremendous burden on a family that is in a lower income category or even in a middle income category.

I think that as members of the House of Assembly, we should reevaluate what we are doing with this market value pricing policy and make it a little easier for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to own a piece of Crown land. In owning Crown land the government will reap rewards because these people, the people who can afford it, will be purchasing building materials and supplies and purchasing materials to upgrade and beautify their properties whereas now many people are going to be restricted in the fact that they just cannot afford to purchase Crown land. In my opinion there is going to be less Crown land sold on an annual basis, or leased on an annual basis, and as a result the people who can afford to purchase materials as opposed to going and looking for used materials, are not going to be buying such materials.

I, as well as my two colleagues on either side of me, are going to be attending this meeting tonight and we will be bringing back to the House of Assembly the views and opinions of the citizens of Newfoundland who attend this meeting this evening. Hopefully the hon. members across from me will take heed as to what is being said, the opinions of the people at this meeting this evening. Hopefully, we as members of the House of Assembly, can use a bit of humane discretion and probably roll back the new rules and regulations put forth in this market value pricing policy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the resolution on Private Members' Day. I would just bring to the hon. member's attention - when he mentioned earlier when he was up speaking to the resolution, that there was no public consultation, I would remind him that during the Budget consultations the public indicated to us that government should reduce red tape and regulations. We were told that over and over again in the public consultations, and I can assure you that this policy does that.

People also told us, Mr. Speaker, to get out of delivering non-essential services, and long-term leases are not essential. Once the land is developed, government should not be involved. Also, the public indicated to us that we should not be subsidizing services. I also say to the hon. member opposite that we are talking about 1 per cent of the population of Newfoundland, 5945 cabin owners who are effected by this policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. McLEAN: One per cent. Mr. Speaker, one per cent of the population of cottage owners which is, I will say again, 5945 cottage owners are affected by this program, by this particular policy. Not all of these are in the category where they have to have their application in by October 31. Those who have to have their applications in by October 31 are not that total, some are in the category of being in a five-year process where they have probably two or three years left on that five-year anniversary date.

I also say to the hon. member that application deadlines are October 31, not payments. Payments are required within ninety days of the document being processed, and it is not mandatory to involve yourself in this particular program either. You can opt on your anniversary date for a five-year, interest-free lease purchase. So it is not a mandatory program; there are options.

I would also say, Mr. Speaker, that the ultimate goal is to give ownership of the land to the people who invest in it. We need not be in the leasing business, and perhaps I should say to the hon. member there is a difference. If you lease property you do not own it, you are renting it. If you have a grant you own it. Certainly government has a responsibility to obtain a fair price for the land it holds in trust for the people of the Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: The government does not own it. The people own it, government administers it. There is a difference.

MR. McLEAN: I also say to the hon. member opposite, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps he is confused.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McLEAN: We are quite prepared to talk to the hon. member and clarify the issues that he has a problem understanding.

I also say to this particular resolution, that government is prepared to work with all cabin owners individually to ensure that they have every opportunity to take ownership of their property. Certainly this policy, Mr. Speaker, is not aimed at forcing people off their land in any way, shape or form. As I stated, we are prepared to work with every cabin owner who is prepared to work with us in trying to resolve any particular issue that they might have.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I appeared on the radio talk show Cross Talk to answer questions that were presumably from a hostile audience, but I have to say to you, the audience that we were faced with were very professional, very understanding. We gave them clarifications, and the majority were very satisfied with what we were doing. There was no hostility on the radio program on which we appeared.

Mr. Speaker, the policy that we have just adopted to deal with the pricing for Crown land, we feel will be followed through. We have no reason at this particular time - we are dealing individually with every lease holder in the Province. We are identifying, through correspondence, what their situation is, what the options are for them to deal with, and when we receive the correspondence back from those people, or inquiries back from those people, they will certainly understand where they fit in the policy. Many of the questions that we have had, Mr. Speaker, are from people who are not even included in this particular policy because they own remote cabins or they are licensing areas where they can occupy cabins.

Mr. Speaker, to relay the hon. member's concern that residential property owners will have to pay $500, I would mention to him that residential lessees with no reopener clause can continue to pay $50 for the remainder of the fifty years that they own the residential property. The difference between residential properties leased and cabin properties leased is that all cabin leases have five-year reopener clauses for rates, and that is why we used the five-year anniversary date, because that is the time when you can reopen the lease agreements for a change in price or a change in policy.

I say, Mr. Speaker, under those terms I firmly believe that the majority of the 5,000 people who are affected by this policy will be able to own their property at the end of this process without any undue hardship to them. There may be some cases out there that we have to really take a serious look at because of the situations they are in, and we are quite prepared to do that, provided that the leaseholders apply to us by the deadline date of October 31.

I would also say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be attending the meeting tonight at the Holiday Inn to hear the concerns of the people who feel they are affected by the program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, we will be attending the meeting at the Holiday Inn tonight to hear all of the concerns of the people who will be attending. We will also be there for clarification purposes if they so choose to have the clarifications. We just want to have people in a situation where they know what the real facts are, rather than the myth. They need to know where they fit in this new policy.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this process, the thing that people seem to not understand is that all of these leaseholders now will own their properties, will be able to do what they like with that property following the implementation of this program.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that I will be voting against this resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to speak to the Private Member's resolution which has been presented by my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis.

The resolution states, Mr. Speaker, that new Crown land rates are great and they will deprive many people of the opportunity to have a cabin or cottage. It indicates as well that many unemployed, underemployed, pensioners, low-income earners and other hurting Newfoundlanders have long enjoyed the freedom to have a cabin or cottage in the great outdoors and will be denied this freedom under the new policy.

It also indicates, and there is a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that this is nothing more than a money grab by the present government. Perhaps, the significance of this resolution deals with the very issue which has just been referred to by the hon. minister and that is the issue of public consultation. Mr. Speaker, that is what the thrust and the spirit of this Private Member's resolution is all about, which is why we are asking, and the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis is asking, that this House request this government to delay the implementation of this policy and call public hearings and only then implement policies according to representations made and in line with traditional access to Crown lands.

This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, of consultation, and I suggest to the hon. minister and to the members opposite. the reason why we are in such a state of confusion today, not only with this particular issue but indeed many issues that this government is dealing with, the reason why there is such confusion and uncertainty by leaseholders for both residences and recreational cottages, is because there has been no input by members of the public, there has been no consultation process.

If I understand correctly, the minister indicated that he would be attending tonight's meeting at Holiday Inn. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker? Is that what the minister indicated?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am delighted to hear that because, as the hon. minister is aware, this public meeting tonight was called by several Opposition members in response to an inundation of complaints, criticisms, concerns and outrage.

AN HON. MEMBER: And unanswered telephone calls.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That as well, unanswered telephone calls from the minister's department, and outrage, Mr. Speaker, by the citizens of this Province who simply will not accept these new guidelines and these new provisions as being put forward by the hon. minister.

The purpose of this meeting was that we, as members of the Opposition, could hear the voiced concerns of what I anticipate to be hundreds of Newfoundlanders who are directly affected by this new change in government policy. We want to hear exactly what Newfoundlanders are saying. We want petitions that are signed by Newfoundlanders so that these petitions can be presented to the floor of these Chambers.

I am delighted to hear that the minister will be present because unless the minister can answer more effectively the concerns that are being raised by hundreds of Newfoundlanders, my fear is that they will leave tonight's meeting more confused then when they entered the meeting at 7:30. I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that by having the minister in attendance tonight that questions that we pose on behalf of those individuals present, and questions that are raised on the floor by the disgruntled leaseholders of this Province, can be effectively responded to. So I do congratulate the minister in his decision to attend. I sincerely hope that his presence will at least help answer some of the questions and will not further impede and just add to the confusion which is in existence at this present time.

Now, I would like to indicate briefly what I believe to be some of the difficulty with the new policy which this government has presented and has found fit to deal with at this present time. When we are dealing with a lease for a recreational cottage, the existing annual rental, Mr. Speaker, under Lease for Recreational Cottage, is $75. That is what all Newfoundlanders have expected, on an annual basis, to pay for Crown lands and have been doing so for at least the last fifteen years. That is significant, Mr. Speaker, the time line in this whole discussion is significant. Newfoundlanders have been paying on an annual basis $75 for their recreational cottage and that has been over a significant period of years.

The reason why that is significant is that when an ordinary person goes to Crown lands, fills out the application, it is then accepted by Crown lands and then there is in place a lease for a recreational cottage. All of this was done on the understanding that the annual amount of rent was very, very minimal. It was in accordance with their means, it was in accordance with their lifestyle, it was in accordance with what they could expect to pay, not only that year but in the year after, in the following year and quite possibly even after the five-year review period.

On page 2 of Leases for Recreational Cottages, there is a schedule attached, Mr. Speaker. Under paragraph 4, it says, `the rent reserved as set out in the lease shall be subject to review every five years,' and there is where the problem exists. For the last fifteen or sixteen years, Mr. Speaker, there has been no increase whatsoever from the $50 to the $75 annual fee. Now what this government is asking ordinary Newfoundlanders to do, is come up with significant dollars, within a short period of time, to satisfy the new policy which has been brought in by this government and to satisfy the rent-reserved clause as found in paragraph 4, on Schedule C, on page 2 of Leases for Recreational Cottages; and that is what I submit, Mr. Speaker, is unfair. That is why hundreds and hundreds of Newfoundlanders have objected to this policy and that is why I am sure the minister can vouch for this. That is why, I am sure, there have been hundreds of calls to his department. We, in Opposition, the limited number that we are, we have received as a group collectively hundreds of calls, so I am sure the minister has received a significantly higher number from concerned Newfoundlanders who have voiced their objection to this new policy. The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, mentioned this business of leasehold properties in St. John's. There is a significant difference in the analogy that has been raised by the hon. member and the situation before us, and I will attempt to explain why.

As I am sure all hon. members know, significant portions of the older part of the city of St. John's was, and continues to be, what is known as leasehold land. There are old estates, for example, the Davis Estate, the Gill Estate, there are literally dozens and dozens of old leasehold properties in, generally speaking, the older sections of St. John's. Leases prior to 1922 are referred to as ancient leases and leases after 1922 are referred in the legislation to modern leases.

Due to the fact that many of these lessors, the owner of the lease, the landlord or the lessor, due to the fact that many of these lessors were absentee landlords, and in many cases were unknown, unheard of, and the tenants or the lessee had absolutely no idea where these landlords or lessors were living. In most cases they were deceased.

The government, a number of years ago, saw fit to introduce `The Leaseholds of St. John's Act,' which allowed tenants or lessees, they can be called either, the opportunity - I am speaking of ancient leases now, in ancient leases it allowed these tenants or lessees the opportunity to purchase the ground or the freehold interest for forty times the annual ground rent.

In most of these ancient leases, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about annual rentals of maybe $20, $10, $50, but, as you can see, the amounts were very, very low. Obviously, if a person lived on Casey Street, which was within the Casey Estate, obviously, or lived on Bond Street, which I believe is in the Gill Estate, or McFarlane Street which I believe is in the Davis Estate, and if those annual rentals were $10 or $20 and the legislation made an offer to these lessees to purchase the freehold interest for forty times the annual ground rent, when in fact the annual ground rent was probably only $20, lessees or tenants would be ill-advised not to. It is in their interest to do so. The difference is, it was done for a value which was within their means, and there was no limit put on it. The legislation did not say it had to be done by a certain date. It did not say it had to be done within August, 1996. It was purely at the option of the tenant of the lessee to exercise that option and in fact purchase their freehold interest which was at forty times the annual ground rent at very minimal cost.

The reason why I make that distinction, Mr. Speaker, is because what we now are faced with are individuals who have been accustomed to paying on an annual basis for their cottage leases, $75.

AN HON. MEMBER: The significant difference here is that they are second homes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The second home but, in most cases, I would submit it is a very humble second home. It is, relatively speaking, a cabin. You used the word `refuge' and I think that is an appropriate word. It is a refuge for many people to get out into the country, drown a few worms, enjoy time with their families, enjoy time with their friends, and basically get away from the hustle and bustle of their weekly routine, in most cases. Clearly, I would even go further. The hon. minister said it was their second home. In terms of value, it may have been, in fact, their more significant home, but that is not the norm.

The norm is, we are talking about individuals who could expect to pay $75 a year, who entered into these lease arrangements because it was only $75 a year and, in fact, if they could afford more, would have bought out the lease perhaps outright, or perhaps bought another property which is not even leasehold. Most people who can afford it would much prefer to enjoy and own a freehold property as opposed to a leasehold property. They own the freehold; they own it outright. It is the best possible title that can be enjoyed in our property law system; but no, we are talking about significant numbers of our Newfoundland people who could not afford that and who opted for the $75 yearly assessment, and therein lies the distinction.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfair, and I would submit that is why I am prepared to support this resolution today. It is unfair to have ordinary Newfoundlanders put in a situation where they have to be expected to expend significant dollars, much more than in anticipation of what they expected, and well beyond their means and abilities to pay.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to tonight's meeting. Again, I make reference to the fact that the hon. minister indicated that he will be in attendance. I sincerely hope that in clear fashion he can answer the questions that are going to be posed to him, and he can give some assurance - I don't know what that will be, but that he can give some assurance - to ordinary Newfoundlanders that their traditions and their rights have not been affected, and that they can continue to enjoy their cabin property at a reasonable means, and not beyond the means that they can obviously cope with.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I support this resolution and I will certainly be voting for it in due course.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Governing is never easy; it is about making choices. Opposing, of course, is always easy; you rarely make a choice.

I recognize that there are some members of this hon. House who truly would like some clarification, some clarity, on this particular policy that the minister has brought forward. I understand that most hon. members simply would like some clarity on this particular policy, so what I am going to do, I thought I would take a couple of moments to go down through some of the issues. I want to provide some real information, not disinformation.

Now, market value pricing: what is involved? Move to outright ownership using fair market values based on municipal assessments, appraisals, or fixed rates, basically an interest-free loan to purchase property. Why the change? It converts from lease to grant, outright title. It removes government administrative and regulatory burden. It makes it easier for private marketability of assets. It brings the price of land in line with the private sector, and has not had a price increase in Crown land in over ten years. And it avoids a distortion of adjacent private land values. The objectives further government's policy of deregulation and use market values to ensure a fair return to the people of this Province for their land.

The difference between the old and the new system: The old system and prices were arbitrary, prices were inconsistent throughout the Province. The new system attempts to ensure a consistent approach. The new system is based on assessments, appraisals, and fixed rate. It moves from the long-term leases to a grant system. There is less involvement by government reducing administration and regulation. Who is impacted? All commercial, residential and recreational cottage leaseholders. Who is not impacted? The allocations as per Section 9 of the Lands Act, municipal buildings, churches, schools, municipal recreation parks, etcetera, agricultural or aquaculture usages and remote sites. How many remote sites do we have in the Province, Mr. Speaker? Well, we have 9,267 permits to occupy. I understand, minister, that the designation is without land surveys. So, if you have a lot that does not have a land survey, then you are a remote site and you don't come under this particular policy. Now, there was some view, I know, from people within my own riding who called me and said they have thought that a cabin up at the end of Ashuanipi Lake would come under this policy because that is what they understood through the media.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CANNING: There was confusion, absolutely. This is why we appreciate this opportunity to provide some real information to subject the disinformation to the test of what is actually there.

Now, the people who have these cottages or cabins on remote sites, those 9,267 sites do not come under this particular policy and that is an important point for all of us to recognize and repeat to those who wish to know. The implementation is effective May 17. The leases issued prior to October 31, 1991, given to October 31, 1996, to convert to grants under the old pricing structure. Leases after October 31, 1991, will be given five years from the date of issuance of the lease to comply with the lease conditions and apply for grants.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to give a little clarity to this issue and I don't want to take too much time of the hon. House. I know there are other members who wish to speak and wish to ask more questions so they can receive more information and that is a good thing but I look forward to this continuing debate. I am going to vote against this resolution. I believe that in the final analysis, when we have a $290 million deficit, Mr. Speaker, how is it that we should deal with this? Should we simply pretend that there is no such thing as a deficit? Should we tax people to death? Should you increase taxes? Should you cut expenditures? This is a policy of government that makes sense, that provides the people who own the land, the people of this Province a return on their asset. What I am suggesting to you is if you have an alternative to deal with a $290 million deficit, then I suggest that you should spend some worthy time standing up and telling the whole of the Province how it is that you should deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would say to all hon. members that this particular policy, once it is understood - and it will be understood tonight at this meeting. I understand that the hon. minister will be attending and he surely will be able to convey his views and the views of government with respect to this particular policy; and I am sure he will be able to deal with a lot of the misinformation that is out there. I again look forward to the continuing debate and, at the end of the day, I want to repeat that I will vote against this particular resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the resolution as put forward by my colleague. I don't know if it was mentioned in the Red Book or not by the minister when he got up and spoke. I think I did hear him say that they went out and had consultation, and this is what they had heard when they went around from place to place in the consultation process. I don't know if the minister could probably table in the House where he went, where cabin owners came forward and asked him to send them a bill, that they would be willing to buy their land for x number of dollars rather than pay a lease that they had entered into which was, as far as they were concerned, I suppose, very legitimate, an agreement signed between government and themselves in order to maintain a lease for x number of years at $75 a year.

Mr. Speaker, my own personal opinion is nobody should own land, nobody should own any land, whether it is land in St. John's or land out in Bay Bulls or land in North West River, I say to the hon. minister. There have been more bad friends and more enemies caused over land, I would suggest, than probably the two World Wars and the Korean conflict put together, especially in rural Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, nobody should own land, and it would be a way, I suppose, that the government would continue to get an income, because we could charge everybody x number of dollars, whether it be a $75 fee or a $100 fee to maintain ownership of that particular piece of land, and when you want to sell it, you sell what you have on the land. You sell your house, not the piece of land. The piece of land will automatically go on and return or go forward with that particular sale.

You look at rural Newfoundland - and I am sure many of us here today can relate stories where people, because - I don't know if we would call them smarter than other people, but maybe they had a little bit of foresight where they would go out in the old days and run a fence line down and they take in acres and acres of land and the next thing you know, the boundaries of the community would be expanded. The next thing you know, Mr. Speaker, there would be people looking to build homes, who wanted to get away from their brother, get away from their neighbours and go out and buy this particular area of land where the gentleman who had enough foresight and a few extra dollars to buy a piece of land had fenced it.

Because it is squatters rights, because they can go out and get four or five people in the community to verify that the land was occupied or the land was under fence or under some other control for a number of years, that they then could go and divide it into building lots and have done very, very well with it. You talk about feudal landlords, a prime example, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, I say to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, it makes me feel a little bit better.

I say to the minister, as well, you talk about coming here to St. John's or coming in to Mount Pearl and buying a piece of property, the first thing you have to do is go out and pay $40,000 or $50,000 for a piece of land before you ever drive a nail, before you ever buy a piece of building material, and where does it go? It certainly doesn't go back to government. So, I say to the minister, maybe we have missed the boat on this for a long time, but it does not make it right for the minister now to come in and say to those people that we are going to start allowing you now to buy your land and it is going to cost you $2,500 if you are not on waterfront property, or $3,000 if you happen to have a piece of land that borders on a particular lake or a particular pond.

Many of those landowners, I say to the minister, are people who are living on a fixed income; many of them are people who have retired and the only income they have is their meagre senior citizen's allowance and I can assure you that probably even to come up with the $75 a year might be a problem for them - not as some of the members on the other side shout out and say, that it is no problem because they don't know of anybody who can't come up with $2,500. Well, I say to the minister that I know lots of people who will find it very, very difficult to come up with $2,500 and I also say to the minister, I know many people who would never have had a cabin today if they knew that they were going to be confronted now with a bill in order to keep it of $2,500 or $3,000.

We look at some of those people and we say: Well, if you can afford to have a cabin then you shouldn't have any problem coming up with this amount of money. In the process of obtaining a cabin, I think the first regulation is you have to pay $50 in order to put forward the fee to have a search done on the title to see if anybody else has claim to it and to do some paper work, then you have to go and have it surveyed and you have to pay so much more money for the paper work that is involved and from what I understand - and the minister can correct me if I am wrong - those people, those cabin owners we talk about, will have to pay those same fees again, another $170 for paper work, another couple of hundred dollars for registration purposes. Mr. Speaker, they have to go back and do all of those same things again, money that they found very difficult to come up with in the first place. Now, what are they going to get in return for buying the piece of land?

Government is saying: We are going to sell you the land. The Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island said it was worth thousands and thousands of dollars, and he said you should go and disconnect your cable TV if you cannot pay for it. In order to give money to government you should disconnect your cable TV. If that is not good enough maybe you can get your telephone cut, or your electricity cut. The main thing is that we have to provide government with $2,500; first and foremost in his mind.

Mr. Speaker, many of those people entered into an agreement with government to rent Crown land. They enhanced the land in most cases. They cleaned up ponds, they cleaned up rivers, they cleared the land, and now because of that the government is going to go back and say: Now that you have a piece of land cleared and you have a cabin built, we are going to sock it to you. We are going to sock it to you now; we are going to come back and look for the value of it that you must pay to government.

What is the alternative, I say to the minister? How about the fellow in Princeton Pond who just cannot pay? Where does he end up? Is his cabin going to be burned? Is he going to be given a certain period of time and then be served an eviction notice? Those are the people, Mr. Speaker, and those are the cases he is going to be confronted with.

Here again we are dealing with the people who have abided by the rules and regulations. There are a lot of people out there today with cabins and trailers scattered around this Province who have not gone the route, if you would, that they were supposed to go. Many of those people are out there today with their cabins built, and verandas attached to them, their own little forty-five gallon drum put in the ground for a septic tank. Minister, how are you going to deal with those people? Are those people now going to be told that they must apply for the piece of land, and because they are already there they are going to be given the piece of land? Or are they going to be told that they must vacate immediately?

The member also got up and spoke about no changes to remote cabins. The Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island spoke about no changes to remote cabins. Well, my understanding, minister, is that there are going to be changes for remote cabins, and if the remote cabin is a certain square footage then those people are going to be expected to pay a different fee.

MR. J. BYRNE: Double.

MR. FITZGERALD: Those people are going to have to pay probably double what they are paying now; and in some cases maybe this is justified. If you look at some of the cabins that some of our people fly into via helicopter, who have the big establishments on some of the rivers, maybe they should pay, I say to the minister; but in your wisdom of doing that I beg with you not to go out and put the heavy hand on the people who are there who cannot afford to pay. For many, many people out there today this is their trip down to Florida. This is their way of getting away from the place where they normally live, and get a little bit of enjoyment and tranquillity in the bush.

I know some people in my district who have a nice piece of land up in Princeton Pond, a little place going down the Bonavista Peninsula. Two senior citizens are there side by side in a nice little spot; I had a piece of land there myself at one time. The only time those people go there is to boil up a few times in the summertime. They go up and cook their dinner there on a Sunday afternoon, or they may go there a couple of times during the week and cook up a feed. I don't know if they have stayed there either night this last two years, but it is something that they cherish. It is something that gives them somewhere to go. It is something, Mr. Minister, that they look forward to because they are seniors with a lot of time on their hands.

Now those particular people are going to have to make up their minds. Are they going to go and say: No, we don't want this any more, or are they going to go and try to find $2,500 from their fixed income - or in their cases it will be $3,000 - in order to pay government back an amount of money that they deem that piece of land is worth? This is what they are going to be confronted with, and it is of grave concern to them. I understand that, because I understand what it is to live in rural Newfoundland, and I understand what it is, Mr. Speaker, to come from a family that is not blessed with a lot of money, and is not blessed with the opportunity to run to the post office and pay a bill the very day it is received, and just say it is something we have to do, we have the money, so we might as well pay it and get on with it.

Mr. Minister, I do not know who you listened to, or who you consulted when you brought in those rules and regulations. The telephone calls you got on the open line show or on the talk back show today may have been positive in nature. I doubt if many people told you you were doing the right thing, but Newfoundlanders being the hospitable people they are, like to call and vent their frustrations, but do it in a way to let you know they would rather that you had not done it, would rather that you had not brought in the rules and regulations and placed this hardship on them.

We are not grandstanding here. I know that I am not. I am responding, Mr. Minister, to the calls that I have gotten. I think you will admit yourself - in fact somebody in your department told me that you had to bring in extra staff to answer the telephone because of the number of calls you were getting. The calls that came through my office were directed to your line, and I know that many times it was found to be busy. I would assume that was probably the reason why many of those were calling you, because they had a concern and wanted to voice their opinion, and rightly so because those are the people who are concerned and those are the people affected.

They called me and asked me: What do we do to get it changed? How do we go about not paying this fee which we feel is wrong? How do we maintain a piece of property that we have, and that we cherish, but we are now finding we are unable to pay for? How do we go about changing it? My answer to them was: Give the minister a call, chat with him. I think he is a reasonable man. I think the minister will listen to you. I think he will hear you and give you a fair hearing of your concerns. He will listen to your opinion, and maybe he can convince some of the people, some of his Cabinet colleagues who are responsible for formulating this particular regulation, to change their minds.

I know that the minister may be getting a rough ride over there since he is new in Cabinet. I think he might be listening to the people who have lots and plenty in the front rows, the same as he is getting from the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. That is why I think he is a reasonable man. I think, if the minister had his way he would be bringing back vehicle inspections today. I firmly believe that. I know that the minister is saddled by some of the front benchers who should never, ever be in the front benches. I think if you had more reasonable people, like the minister, you would see a lot of better and a lot more compassionate common sense decisions made.

Now, Mr. Minister, you are talking with the wrong fellow there. Do not confer with the Minister of Health because he cannot put himself into the position of the people I am talking about, and more power to him. He has been successful in business and he has made a lot of money, and that kind of thing. More power to him I say to the minister. He has made a lot more and he has got a lot more than I will ever have. God bless him, and more power to him to continue to do well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister in all sincerity, that the people you are going to be dealing with, the people you are going to be hurting out there today -

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Health and Wealth.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the Minister of Health and Wealth. That is what he is being referred to by my colleagues here.

Mr. Minister, the people you are going to be hurting today with those rules and regulations is not the Minister of Health or the Member for Bell Island, it is the common people out there who are living on a fixed income, and many of them are seniors. You are going to be depriving them of an opportunity that they always held dear to their hearts.

Many of them, as I said, have built their cabins with the sweat of their brows. They went in the woods and cut their logs. In fact, what most of them did was cut twice as many as they wanted, and in order to get them sawed so that they would not have to part with any money, they gave the people who sawed the lumber half of what they had extracted from the woods. Then when it came to furnishings, Mr. Speaker, many of those people went out and bought secondhand furniture, looked for `For Sale' items in the paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Looked for, `For Sale' items in the paper and that is the way they constructed their cabins.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I say it to the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: - if you would be kind enough and compassionate enough to change those rules and regulations you would help a lot of people.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's, Mr. Speaker, look at the other end. Mr. Speaker, to look at this policy and to try to understand, I suppose - members of the Opposition have had a difficult time with understanding and have even, I would not think for any political reason, but have even gone to mislead some would say, in the public, not here in the House, but have probably intended that people get upset about this. Some people genuinely do have concerns and we are as concerned as those individuals about how they will manage. That is our whole purpose as members of the House of Assembly in trying to help our constituents, understand their concerns, and the things that we bring in as policies, if they have difficulty with them, work with them in trying to come to some understanding of the situation where possible, help where possible, but we are also here to make the choices that need to be made.

We made a choice in bringing in this Budget. The choice was that we would do as the public consultation process brought out that the people wanted us to do. We were told they did not want an increase in taxes. We did not increase the corporate income tax. We did not increase the general tax rate of personal income tax; we held the line on that. They told us to look after the basic social services recipients, look after basic health care services, and those, too, were protected in this Budget process.

This case, this policy that has been brought in on Crown land, what have we done? Well what we have done essentially, is we have taken something that has been available to people in the Province for a nominal fee and we have said: Land is of value. Land is of very high value in this Province, not to the point of being available only for nominal fees, because if you look at the private sector of land, where the private sector is involved in using land, they will take land that has been, at one time or another, gotten from the Crown for a very small fee, and taken it and converted it into something of value.

So what government is now doing, as we have directed and been directed to do many times by the Opposition - we have been told by the Opposition: If something is of value then government should no longer be involved in it if the private sector can do it better. We have been shown time and time again, by the people in the private sector, that land is of value. People can sell land and make fortunes on it all throughout the country. Here in Newfoundland even, certain parcels of land that have been granted at one time or another by the Crown to an individual, have been turned over for a significant value to the individual and to the various people all the way through.

Because the person made a capital gain, unless that land was land that was tied to a primary residence, they had to pay tax to the government because of the increased value that they generated, the creation of wealth as a result of that particular situation. So as some hon. members opposite have readily admitted - and they probably had to pay tax on the value and increase that they received in this particular sale of land. So it is only right and proper, as a general policy of government, that we take something that is of value to the people of the Province and say: Look we are going to make sure and maintain that as a value.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come to the public meeting (inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: No problem, come with me.

Anyway your public meeting tonight, I am sure, will be a great bit of fun for hon. members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, well we will make sure there are a few of them there as well, but it is called the matter of hijacking the bus, I suppose, or jacking the bus. Yes, hijacking the bus or the Holiday Inn or wherever it may be held.

Anyway, just to look at the situation, if we say that land is something of value, everyone for time immemorial would want to own land. There are some who don't. The idea at one time was, a person couldn't vote unless they had ownership of land. If I remember correctly some of the historical aspects of democracy here in the Province, you had to be able to own land at one time in order to be considered able to vote.

The other thing we have to look at, of course, are whether this is reasonable. Is it some way that we are now going out to make a big tax grab or a giant way of grabbing something from the people that we haven't before? Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that that is not the case, that this is very reasonable. In a lot of cases, people will retain something of value, they will retain ownership in a piece of land for the fee that they pay, that amount of money that they pay to the Crown for the land over a period of five years, or if they decide to continue to lease it, at a very, very significant increase in rent, so to speak.

That is a significant increase, Mr. Speaker, but it is something that we have to do. It is one of the choices that we have to make. If a person can afford to have a second home or can afford to have a cottage, in most cases in a remote area, that increase will be marginal, from $75 to $150, or would stay the same at the $75 per year; a very marginal rate. It is probably even questionable as to whether that amount should remain, but at this stage they decided to keep that amount the same for remote cottage lots, those who have permits to occupy land and there is no survey in tact.

In an area where the land has been surveyed and a value has been assessed to the land, it will then fall under the other policy which would allow them to buy the land for approximately $2,000 or a little higher if they have waterfront acreage. That also is something that is very reasonable, Mr. Speaker, because no one looks at the idea of them paying upfront, but then owning the land and having no more payments required for the maintenance of that particular property. So that is a very good value to the property owner, as well it's value to the government is good in that we lessen the administrative burden, the cost of administering that particular aspect of the system. The reason for the leasing of land, possibly in the initial stages, was for people to be able to utilize the land for their purposes and it would revert back to the Crown at some future point. The Crown always had control. Or in the documents they could assign it or sell their rights in the land to others.

On the commercial side, often, if you go back through, there were people, many involved in government over the years. I know of an honourable member from the opposite party some years ago who had title in quite a bit of land that is now being utilized for the Outer Ring Road. That person, of course, somehow or other gained title to all of this land, and not to suggest any impropriety, but through knowledge and through some perception that there would potentially be a development there in the future, gained access to this land. It is now converted into something of extremely high value, as the appropriations had to be made and the activities had to be made in order to appropriate land for the purpose of putting in the Outer Ring Road.

There is a case in my own district. Some people came to see me about a piece of Crown land that they had recently which we were told, following their ability to keep that piece of Crown land in tact, paying their $50 fee every year, they sold that piece of land last year for $80,000, a very small piece of Crown commercial land inside the boundaries of the Town of Port aux Basques. They sold it for $80,000. Should they have sold it or should the Crown have the ability to sell it? Who knows! That one is done, it is over and done with, but it just shows that the value of that land was there and the Crown may very well have lost out on the value of that particular asset at this point in time. So we have to be very conscious of what we are doing in allowing Crown assets to go forward for the public to use, and speculate on the value and then getting windfall profits at the expense of the Crown and the total people of the Province. So these are things that this will bring into play, by assessing market values to commercial property as well as residential in the future.

There will be some hardship cases. We fully admit that. Although the hardship cases, I would think, would be more in certain residential areas. We intend to work very closely with the department and the individuals concerned, to try to see that these hardship cases are countered with whatever we can to do to help out. There are certain provisions that the minister and the departmental staff have made, there are others yet to be determined, but they intend to assist the hardship cases as much as possible and to help them in making the choices as to what it is they should do with the property in question.

Now, we have to look at, who does this affect? Well, the total number of leases that the Crown has, we have been told there are approximately 12,000; there are 6,000 cottage lots and that would be the non-leased cottage lots, I guess, where there is an appraisal in place. Some of these are more magnificent than the homes we live in, some of them are way beyond; some of them are not, some of them are very modest, as the hon. the Member for Bonavista South said, a very modest home to go along with the other very modest home. I have just one home, I don't have a cottage; I would love to be able to have one, but in some cases, in certain areas, the land has all been bought and you can only buy for fair market value pricing. So, in that case you have a different situation than the ability of someone to go out - unless you go to a remote area and you get a permit to occupy and away you go. I certainly would like to have a cottage, as some of the members of the Opposition who are speaking of selling cottages and cottage lands and so on have stated, but I don't at this stage - with a young family and everything, I made a choice; my family is my choice, I support them first and foremost. As opposed to going out and getting a cottage, that is the most important thing from a personal point of view at this stage in our lives and we take that and make that choice.

Now, if you apply that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the Opposition selling cottages? They are selling cottages, are they?

MR. RAMSAY: Some of them are, from what we hear, and more power to them as long as they, the individuals who profit from the sale of Crown lands or lands that they originally received from the Crown, pay the taxes on the profits made, we have no problem with the Opposition benefitting from the assets of the Crown at this stage, I don't think.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are making exorbitant profits with respect to (inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: I don't know about exorbitant profits but, you know, reasonable profits. But it exemplifies a value, when someone, a member of the House of Assembly, himself or herself, can take something that was originally a Crown asset, convert it into something of very good value and he and his family or she and her family benefit from that particular Crown asset, it just shows that it is worth it. And we do need this change; it is a very timely change, it is the kind of thing of which we need to do more and more in this Province to make sure that we go forward, and we don't put the blinkers on, that we go forward as a modern society here in the Province, taking account of the true value of what it is, the Crown assets that we have, and from there, making sure that we here, as a House, do not support this resolution. Because this resolution is full of inaccuracies, and on that basis I would ask all hon. members of this House of Assembly to not support this resolution.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will allow the mover of the motion to stand and make his final spiel here in the House before he goes off to be sacrificed later.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis. If he speaks now he closes the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, I would like to thank all members who spoke on this resolution today, on both sides of the House. I appreciate their point of view.

AN HON. MEMBER: And your colleagues on this side.

MR. J. BYRNE: And my colleagues; I said both sides of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: And particularly.

MR. J. BYRNE: And particularly. Okay, particularly people on this side. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the points that were made by members, as I said, on both sides of the House. I disagree with some of the points made by some of the government members, and I agree with some others, but I have to say, with respect to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, and the speech that he gave today, I have always considered the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island as having a few clues, but that speech he gave today, I certainly have to question what he was saying.

He said that it may cause hardship for some people, but very few people. Well, it depends on your point of view, I would imagine, regarding hardship. What about the people who do not have summer cabins or cottages at this point in time, were planning to apply for a cottage, and now because of the increased rates, at least $500 a year, they will not be able to apply? That, in itself, is a hardship on numbers of people we cannot even imagine to account.

Another point that the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island made was that this policy will give people the opportunity to have full ownership of their land, or clear title to the property, but the policy in place at this present time before this new one was put in place could do exactly the same thing. If a person had a lease, and the conditions of that lease were met, he or she could apply and get clear title or a grant to the land. There are a number of points that he made, but I don't think I will get into those.

The minister was on his feet making some comments about us asking for public consultation. You talk about stretching a point, saying that the consultation that was done by the Minister of Finance before he brought down the Budget was a form of consultation on the lands in this new policy. What kind of an imagination would you have? If that is the case, I would like to refer to something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Red Book. The only thing in the Red Book with respect to a policy on land would be `New wealth from the land and from the sea' on page 5. That's it, that's land, that's the consultation, Mr. Speaker, that is what they put out about it.

Mr. Speaker, I would say one thing to the Minister. He said that if a person made an application before October 31, he does not have to come up with the money until ninety days after the documentation is prepared. So I would put this to the minister: if a person makes an application to have his/her land converted to a grant, and they cannot come up with the money, will the department allow that person to pay it off over a number of years? Instead of that man or woman having to go to get a loan possibly from a bank and pay interest on it, if that person owes $500 or $1,000, would they give him five, six or seven years to pay it off and then it will be over and done with, Mr. Speaker? That is something I asked not too long ago in the House, what would be the policy along those lines or what would be the penalty? The minister did not have any answer to that.

Now, the Member for Labrador West was on his feet and the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. The Member for Labrador West talked about disinformation and the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile talked about the Opposition having a difficult time understanding this new policy. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to address that for a minute. On May 16, a press release was put out, very vague, giving very little information, and the minister did not actually know the policy himself. Questions were asked in the House of Assembly, and the minister could not answer the questions in the House. He tabled answers and they were no answers. A Ministerial Statement on May 27 muddied the waters - more information, he gave it to me afterwards and still did not clarify it. More information in a press release, or a statement in the House of Assembly today trying to clarify it again, and he was on the radio today, he and civil servants from Crown Lands. We have five or six different documents from that department, one contradicting the other and they are talking about confusion. Now, who created the confusion if it was not the Government Services and Lands department itself? That is it there, the documentation in black and white from the department, and I can assure you there are contradictions in this right, left and centre, Mr. Speaker. So there is the confusion on the policy.

Again, with respect to the policy itself, the Member for Topsail continues to interrupt or try to interrupt and try to get me off my train of thought. I did not see the Member for Topsail on his feet today to speak to this resolution, so if he did not bother to take the time to stand in the House of Assembly and speak to the resolution, I wonder if he should bother to try to interrupt, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, with respect to this policy itself, in all sincerity, I believe this is a bad policy, I believe it is a poor policy, I believe it is an unfair policy. And I can tell you, I can name members on that side of the House who told me they did not agree with this policy. Members on the government side of the House do not agree with this policy but more than likely they will vote in line with it.

Again, if you have a family who have a lease on a piece of land and they have yearly payments to make - they went and got a lease and put a cabin on the lot with the assumption that the amount they were paying per year would be place for a given number of years, Mr. Speaker, whether it be five, ten, or fifteen years, with normal rate increases, fair and reasonable rate increases. In the words of the previous Premier, `fairness and balance,' but now we have a situation where the payment is going from $75 a year to a minimum of $500 a year and $600 a year, and when you get into places where there are assessments in place on property on this Island, to say that could go to double or triple that figure. The minister doesn't know and he can't answer, because they don't have the assessments. To say that this is a fair policy and a good policy is beyond me, and how anybody in this House of Assembly can vote to agree with such a policy - but hopefully the meeting tonight will clarify some of this and we will see the people of this Province want to go.

Before I sit down, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands that actually I was planning to ask him to the meeting tonight, when I stood up to clue up debate on this today. I appreciate the fact that he is taking the time to come to that public meeting to answer questions, and hopefully he will have staff with him from the Department of Government Services and Lands who can answer questions and clarify this policy, to at least get that out so the people will know exactly what the policy is.

It does not mean that I agree with the policy, or I do not agree with the policy. It does not mean that members on this side of the House agree with the policy, but at least the people will know what they are up against when it comes to this new policy on Crown land.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will gladly meet with the minister tonight. We have a number of members on this side of the House who will be in attendance at that meeting tonight and hopefully the minister can clarify the situation.

I ask the Minister of Education: What's your problem?

Anyway, with that, Mr. Speaker, thank you, and I will see the minister tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those in favour of the motion, please say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Division?

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

We will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to put the bar across.

All those in favour?

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Osborne: Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. French; Mr. Harris; Ms Jones.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Education; Mr. Lush; the hon. the Minister of Social Services; Mr. Langdon; the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Health; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Noel; Mr. Oldford; Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ramsay, Ms. Hodder, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Mercer, Mr. Reid, Ms. Thistle, Mr. Sparrow, Mr. Wiseman.

Mr. Speaker, eleven yeas and twenty-five nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn I would like to inform hon. members that what we will be doing tomorrow is the Concurrence Debate on, I believe, it is Government Services and Resource Services. If we should happen to get to it, we will do the Department of Social Services, and then we will go into the Budget, and so on, and so on, and so on.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I understood the House Leader to say that we would continue that we would continue with the Legislature in Committee of Supply, followed by the resolution for the Contingency Fund Reserve, and then followed by the concurrence debates.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: The first time this year.

MR. SPEAKER: This House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.