The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin routine proceeding, the Chair would like to welcome, on behalf of all members, fifty-six Grade V students from Woodland Elementary in the district of Trinity - Bay de Verde. They are accompanied by their teachers, Barry Smith and Richard Woodrow, along with chaperons, Ms Pike, and Ms Hefford, and bus driver, David Warford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker. I would like to inform hon. members that 2 June to 8 June has been proclaimed as National Transportation Week, and this year's theme is "National Transportation: The Urban Connection."

National Transportation Week is a time to help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians learn about what transportation means to them. It is a time to celebrate the efforts of many thousands of Canadian workers in the transportation industry, and to appreciate their role in the economic and social development of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as this year's theme appropriately states, urban linkages are an essential component of our national and provincial transportation system. As goods and people pass through the urban network to their ultimate destination, an efficient system is crucial.

Because of its geography, Newfoundland and Labrador's residents and businesses strongly depend on an efficient transportation network for the fast and capable movement of goods and people in around the Province. This is essential for our Province's continued socio-economic well-being and development, both at home and globally.

Mr. Speaker, at the National Kick-Off ceremonies this past Friday in Vancouver, I am pleased to announce that Mr. Craig Dobbin was awarded the "Transportation Person of the Year" award for Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Dobbin is the Chief Executive Officer of CHC Helicopter Corporation.

In addition, Awards of Valour were presented to the crew of the Leonard J. Cowley for the rescue of twenty-four crew members from a sinking bulk carrier. Receiving as well this award of valour was Michael J. Ledrew, the CN bus driver who averted a major tragedy from occurring when the bus carrying figure skaters collided with a moose earlier in the Spring.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to salute the many hundreds of men and women in Newfoundland and Labrador who work in our transportation industry. It is these people who really keep Canada moving.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

On behalf of my colleagues, I want to join the minister in noting "National Transportation Week: The Urban Connection", and to also join her in taking note of the tremendous part that good transportation plays in the growth of the Newfoundland economy and, of course, in the economy of all of the country.

Mr. Speaker, we, as well, would want the minister to reflect on transportation in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly the connection with some of our remote areas and the important role that highways and ferry connections play in the continual growth of our Province.

We would also want to join with the minister in congratulating Mr. Craig Dobbin as the Transportation Person of the Year for Canada. It is indeed a distinguished honour and a distinct honour, and we, on this side of the House, take great pride in being able to join the minister in this particular credit to Mr. Dobbin. In addition, we would join the minister in congratulating the crew of the Leonard J. Cowley involved in the rescue of twenty-four crew members from the sinking bulk carrier.

A note was made, also, of Michael Ledrew, and we all remember with pride, his efforts to avert, what would have been a tragedy to the figure skaters when the bus collided with a moose.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we are very delighted to join the minister in these particular comments.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Does he have leave?

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, of course, join with the minister and the Member for Waterford Valley in acknowledging National Transportation Week, also to congratulate Mr. Craig Dobbin on his recognition in the field of transportation, and to honour, as well, the crew of the Leonard J. Cowley and Michael Ledrew for their efforts.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the people of Bell Island would be as enthusiastic in their praise of this government, or the people whose services around the Province were taken over by this government and downgraded since that time, would be congratulating the government on the role that it plays in transportation; or the bus students in St. John's who can't travel back and forth to their schools because there is no provincial subsidy for urban transportation in St. John's.

So, while we recognize that it is an important issue, there is a lot of progress to be made and a lot of room for criticism of this government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the acting Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

The Federal Government's labour market proposal offers provinces and territories an opportunity to deliver active employment measures such as wage subsidies and income support, as well as labour market services such as screening and employment counselling. Will the minister tell this House what the Province's position is on this, and will you be signing an agreement?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I apologize; the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal is in her district today with the Minister of Fisheries on Her Majesty's business, but we will take the questions under advisement and have her respond at the appropriate time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Will he tell this House what the Province's position is, and will you be signing an agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Indeed, the minister responsible for Human Resources Development, the hon. Doug Young, issued a statement last week suggesting that the Federal Government was prepared to take a flexible approach to the issue of manpower training across the country, and that is, one presumes by the statement made by the minister - we certainly did not have an advance copy of it - that for those provinces that want to take up a greater share of the $2 billion in the unemployment insurance fund set aside for training uses, to administer those programs more directly, there would be an opportunity for a transfer of those funds for administration by the provinces. At the same time, for those provinces that believe that the Federal Government is better able to delivery those programs, and should continue to deliver those programs, existing arrangements would be maintained.

Mr. Speaker, I think most provincial governments have responded positively initially to the statement. Obviously, we all want to have an opportunity to examine it in detail. We all want to ensure that the dollars which are currently being spent from the account for this purpose continue to be spent, and that if there are going to be efficiencies in the administration of dollars between governments, there must also be some clear and constructive benefit for those people who require manpower training.

So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say more than that today except to say that we respond positively to what we have heard. We want to explore it in detail, and indeed, we are awaiting the analysis of the minister and the minister's department.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Young did not refer to a flexible program; he referred to flexible federalism - in other words, the devolution of powers in the labour market training to the provinces, that is where he used the term `flexible'.

Also, the program, I say to the Premier, was first announced by the federal minister on November 27 and was released in reasonable detail on December 1. I had a copy and went through various analyses of it and asked questions of the Premier in this House before. It makes reference in this release and the backgrounders that were made available last Thursday afternoon - is it mandatory, I ask the Premier, that the provinces enter into this agreement? And if it is not mandatory, will the Government of Canada continue to provide those services to Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are all awaiting more information on the initial statement that has been made by the Minister of Human Resources Development. My understanding at this stage of the announcement - which is why I cannot tell the Leader of the Opposition that we will or will not sign an agreement, that we will or will not proceed down this road until we have further information and have had a chance to have a discussion or dialogue, which I haven't had yet, which the minister hasn't had yet. I presume the Leader of the Opposition would want us to carefully assess what is being put on the table before we come to any firm conclusions about it.

My understanding is that there is provision in the way in which the Federal Government is offering to run this program in the future, and this is why I made the reference to, not flexible federalism only, but to a flexible program. There is provision that for those provinces, a good example being the Province of Quebec, that want to administer manpower training themselves directly, that that would be possible out of Quebec's share of this $2 billion fund. For those provinces that may decide the Federal Government should continue to administer this program itself, versus having the responsibility transferred to the provinces, that that would also be possible. That is why people have referred to this program as a good example, if it works, of flexible federalism.

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition - something I am sure he knows - that the funds in question are one hundred per cent contributed by employees and by employers. This is not a fund out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federal Government. It is not a fund that comes from the Department of Human Resources Development, but rather, it is a fund set aside within the EI envelope, contributed by those who work and by employers, and what the Federal Government is saying is: How should we use this money? How does it best fit your Strategic Economic Plan in your province? And we are prepared to be flexible enough to administer the program in a way that best suits the needs of any given individual province. It seems to me that, on the surface, that is a pretty fair approach, providing the details -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to finish his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: - substantiate what is being offered.

MR. SULLIVAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I still don't know from the Premier the answer to my question: Is it mandatory? Do we have to buy into the three-year program? And, if we don't, will the Government of Canada still provide those services to this Province? That is all I am asking.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the program is mandatory, and secondly, I believe the Federal Government is indicating in its approach that for those provinces that don't want to totally repatriate manpower training, they will continue to provide manpower training services out of that fund. That is my understanding based on a statement of only a few days ago. I said to the Leader of the Opposition at the very beginning that we still have not had an analysis from the minister or from the minister's department. I would suggest that what the minister and her officials will want to do, is to arrange meetings to explore all of these questions in great detail to be able to give a reassurance to the Leader of the Opposition and to all the people of this Province that the program is in our best interest. If the Leader of the Opposition is asking me, and I know he is not, to make a snap judgement and to say today, cast in stone, we will do this and we won't do that, the Leader of the Opposition would be the first to stand and criticize us for taking such an approach, and of course, we would not do that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I certainly don't say that to the Premier. I have seen too many of those already, Premier, I want more input into the decision-making.

Has the Premier and his government - since this was announced over six months ago, has been ongoing and provinces are ready to begin on July 1, some have indicated positively already, the Premier has said, and our Province has not, as yet, assessed it while other provinces are ready to say yes. I ask the Premier: Have you looked at what we were receiving in the past in comparison to what this new three-year program is going to offer? I find it hard to believe that we do not know - a federal program was announced and days later we don't have any details. So could you provide that to us, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, the announcement by Minister Young was only a few days ago, as you know. There was a public statement in the House of Commons last week, last Thursday - this is Monday - and I think it is quite reasonable that we would give the minister and the department here in Newfoundland and Labrador a few days to assess the program and then to give the Leader of the Opposition's questions the informed response that they deserve. That is why the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has taken the questions under advisement, it is why I take them under advisement and, in an appropriate time, I am sure we will have a full Ministerial Statement by the appropriate minister, responding to this offer by the Federal Government and, at the same time, taking note of the questions you have raised and responding to those in detail as well.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A particular concern I have is that recently the Federal Government has moved, under the Canada Health and Social Transfer, from a needs basis into and towards a population-based payment to this Province.

Under this new proposal, I ask the Premier: Is this a new proposal by the Province, and will he ensure, if it is not, that he will address the needs of this Province and not be given to us on a per capital basis?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is on the one hand asking us to be very careful what we do, asking whether we have to sign an agreement, asking whether we have signed it yet, asking whether we are going to examine all of the issues before we sign, and these are all good questions, but they all deserve good, informed answers. Given that we have only had a statement Thursday afternoon past in the House of Commons, given that the minister responsible is in her constituency today doing other important public work, I think we should give the minister and the department a day or two, and then would be quite happy to come and respond to each of these questions being raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

That is the job of government, to examine these questions, to prepare positions that reflect the best interests of the Province, and then on an appropriate occasion to respond accordingly in the House and elsewhere in the public to the questions that are being raised.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It states here that agreements will be entered into after July 1 with all provinces; they will stay into effect as long as the desired results are being achieved. It furthermore states that the Government of Canada and the Province and Territories will agree on the results to be achieved, and the process for evaluating them.

Has the Premier given consideration and reached a bench mark on what they consider to be desired results for this Province, seeing July 1 is the potential date that we could put this into place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, in asking the question and referring to the document he has referred to, has answered his own question. Agreements will be entered into after a certain date.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, listen to what you have just said; agreements will be agreed to by the federal government and the provinces, so nothing unilaterally is being imposed upon the Province. The agreements will stay in place as long as the agreed desired results are being achieved. It seems to me it is pretty clear, then, that once the minister comes forward and sets out the objectives that we are pretty well covered, and we should give the minister a day or two to do her job.

I understand the Leader of the Opposition's anxiety, but even the Leader of the Opposition, I know - because I know he is a reasonable man - will agree we ought to give a day or two to the minister to come and give a response in the House and to respond to these questions. Perhaps he might put them again in a week or so and get a more detailed response.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am a little appalled that there is no planning and discussion days after the minister has announced programs with provinces.

I ask the Premier: Will the Premier confirm that a special UI program for fishers is about ready to be announced; it is under development and there have been extensive discussions? I understand this Province has been briefed. I ask him: What input did the Premier have in addressing our Province's major concerns when those issues were discussed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that. I can tell him, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Premier of the Province, nobody has given me a briefing on a special program. If the Leader of the Opposition knows about it, he might brief the House.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, so maybe in her absence I might direct it to the Premier.

The federal government admitted its liability for mismanaging the fisheries and for enforcing the groundfish moratorium by qualifying 27,959 Newfoundlanders for compensation under the TAGS program. Ottawa's liability, I say to the Premier, has not ended, and up until now the moratorium has not ended. Can the Premier tell us how many of the 27,959 eligible Newfoundlanders are actually drawing TAGS benefits, since I am sure the government is monitoring this number on a frequent basis now that thousands are being kicked off this particular program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the question that is of concern to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is the fact that the federal government, in recent days and weeks, has been examining the TAGS program, and has been examining what has been estimated to be anywhere between a $300 million and a $500 million cost overrun on the program; and the numbers vary depending on who seems to be talking on the federal end.

The real issue that concerns the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - and I would suggest to the member that I suspect he might agree - that concerns fishermen and plant workers who are eligible for the program, is whether or not as part of the cost consolidation and the savings that the federal government wants to achieve, whether or not there is going to be a reduction on the income levels paid to plant workers and paid to fishermen?

Indeed there was a report in the telegram over the weekend. A reporter called me and asked me to comment on information that the telegram had acquired, that there may be a roll-back in incomes by as much as 6 per cent in July and a further 6 per cent, according to the report, in January. Now the position of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on this question is clear and indeed it was certainly the position, and I suspect still is the position, of all the federal MPs in Ottawa, and that is that rolling back the wages of plant workers or fishermen on the program, for as long as they remain on the program, is absolutely unacceptable. We have said as a government in the past, the members of this House generally have said, that if efficiencies must be found by consolidating administration, sobeit. If efficiencies must be found by rolling back some of the training programs associated with TAGS, sobeit. Indeed the fishermen's union itself has supported that measure in the past, but it is not acceptable - and we say this clearly and unequivocally - and the Provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will not support any decision by the federal government to roll back the income levels of plant workers and of fishermen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Premier.

I still say that you should have taken just as strong a stand a few months ago when they already took 6 per cent from them and tried to take two weeks pay from them as well; when you were the minister, I say.

PREMIER TOBIN: They didn't take it off.

MR. FITZGERALD: They rolled it back 6 per cent, I say to the Premier. They rolled back 6 per cent from the NCARP program to the TAGS program.

Won't the Premier admit the reason that there are cost overruns is that the program was underfunded from the very beginning? Will he pressure his federal counterparts to find this money without taking it out of the pockets of fishermen and fish plant workers that are going through severe hardship in this Province today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is delightful to have the member ask me to do something which I have just announced, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we are already attempting to do, which is to stop any roll-back in the income levels of fishermen or people on TAGS.

Now the member doesn't want, I know, to be partisan about this and it is not his intent. His only intent in rising is of course to represent the interests of fishermen and plant workers because he would not want to be partisan. If the member were being partisan it would force me to ask him where he was when the former Conservative government would not give any commitment to continue any program past NCARP, and it took the election of a Liberal government to bring in a five-year income support program called TAGS!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the Premier that he was in office for quite some time and had lots of time to implement a much better program than he had already put in place known as the TAGS program.

Coupled with UI cuts, federal job cuts, transfer cuts, these deeper TAGS cuts would devastate the Newfoundland economy, I say to the Premier. Can the Premier give us some figures to tell us the implications of the cuts in TAGS for this Province's economy during this already difficult year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give you some figures to tell you what the impacts of a cut will be unless we know what the cut is. I have certainly told you the position of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that there should not be any roll-back on the income of plant workers and of fishermen.

Now a little while ago the member asked, `Isn't the reason the program is in difficulty that it was underfunded in the first place?' What the member should know is that when the program was announced it was announced as a $1.9 billion program and on top of that another $100 million in total was set aside for economic development over and above the TAGS funding. Of course that is the fund which is now available for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to use in diversifying its economy in a number of ways which of course are fully supported by the Leader of the Opposition and his party opposite.

In answer to the question: Why has the cost gone up? The simple reason the cost has gone up is that additional fisheries across Atlantic Canada, including Newfoundland, have closed. The real question for the Minister of Fisheries is - and this is the dilemma for the Minister of Fisheries today, it was the dilemma when I was the Minister of Fisheries. When you have evidence that a stock is in trouble, a fisheries stock, do you say I am not going to close that stock, I am not going to close down that fishery and put more fishermen and more plant workers out of a job because the consequence of doing that is to put more people on TAGS, therefore to cause a cost overrun on the TAGS program?

What is more important to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and more importantly, what is more important to Canada, maintaining the integrity of the budget of the TAGS program or maintaining the integrity of the conservation program of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans? I say, the right thing to do, when you have to, in terms of the long-term health of the fishery, is to close additional fisheries and the consequences budget-wise, will have to be dealt with later. That is why the national government should maintain these incomes for fishermen and plant workers, because the cost overrun is not their fault.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and it relates to a couple of job offerings that were posted in The Evening Telegram last week, one for Director of Policy and Planning for Labrador and another, a Regional Manager for the Labrador Region.

I want to ask the Premier: Why is it that these jobs are not being selected and hired through the Public Service Commission? Is there some other relative of the Premier who has yet to get a senior position in the government? Why is the government not using the Public Service Commission with thirty-five employees designed to look after hiring on the merit principle in relation to these jobs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the Leader of the NDP is talking about. I could only offer to take it under advisement. Perhaps if he could take some time from his full-time job as a lawyer, acting on behalf of certain clients who are suing the Province, then he would have more time to write me and give me advance notice of the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this appears that Saturday's paper, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Public Service Commission is legislation designed to hire on the merit principle, which idea is to promote and hire free from political, bureaucratic and personal patronage. I wonder while the Premier is checking into this position, which he knows nothing about apparently, could he tell us why the Public Service Commission is only involved indirectly in the selection process for approximately one-twelfth of the positions; for example, in this 1994 Annual Report, fifty-one positions out of over 600?

Could the Premier tell us why the Public Service Commission with its thirty-five employees is not being used for the hiring and in particular, why it is not being used for hiring for these two positions for government work in Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Leader of the NDP that when I go back upstairs to my office, I am going to ask my acting Chief of Staff, Phonse Faour, exactly what is going on and whether or not we are making sure these jobs are being filled in the proper fashion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, we know that 1,200 applications for Crown lands are processed each year by the Lands Division. Could the minister inform the House of the number of residential leases and the number of cottage leases in the system, and the amount of revenue received per year by the department through these leases?

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

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, for me to supply that kind of an answer right now, I would have to get my officials to determine how many cottage leases, how many residential leases are issued each year and what the general revenue is. I would certainly take those questions under advisement and have them for the hon. member tomorrow.

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

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

Mr. Minister, this question has been asked of me by numerous people and they need an answer to it.

If a person makes application under the new policy by October 31, 1996 and finds that he cannot afford to convert to a grant and cannot afford the newly increased lease fee, what is government's policy to deal with this situation, and will we see evictions or confiscations?

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

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process right now of corresponding with all leaseholders in the Province. At the time when we receive correspondence from these people we will be in a better position to determine what might happen. We feel that most of these people will comply with the policy without any trouble.

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

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

So, Mr. Minister, you are saying there is no policy in place, no plan in place. Once the majority, if not all leases are converted to grants, will we see property tax on these properties to make up for the lost yearly revenues?

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

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not exactly know what the hon. member is referring to, whether it is cabin lots or whether it is residential lots. Residential lots in many communities right now are under property assessment. The cabin lots in a very few areas are under market value.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: What I am asking the minister is with respect to cottage lots in the Province. We will now see these lots, or most of them, converted to grants. Once they are converted to grants, the Province will not have revenue coming into the Province because the yearly lease will not be there anymore. Will we see property tax in place to offset the lost yearly revenues for leases?

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

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the leaseholders right now pay $75 a year for the lease itself and it is costing government well over $300 to administer this particular program, so we will have, in the end, by transferring all of these to grants, far more revenue and we will not need as much revenue because we are not administering the 22,000 leaseholds.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General. Is the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General for this Province concerned about the principles of equity and fairness regarding these proposed huge hikes in Crown land leases for recreational cottages and the effect these hikes will have on our citizens?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that I am a member of this government and when this government makes a policy I have two choices, either to accept that or resign. I have not given my resignation to the Premier, nor do I intend to.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is again for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. The people of this Province have signed in good faith leases for recreational cottages for a term of fifty years at a yearly rate of $75 a year. It is true that a provision of this lease is that the rent reserved, as set out in the lease, shall be subject to review each and every five years. The last rental increase occurred approximately fifteen years ago and at that time the increase was from $50.00 to $75.00.

I ask the minister, as the Minister of Justice for this Province: Does he not find this increase from $75 to some $500 both unconscionable and unacceptable during these very difficult times?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose if it went back to the turn of the century you would find that there was again a different rate for leasing land and property. Policies change from time to time. I am not aware that we are doing an injustice to any agreements that are in place, and I would certainly assume that before government took the decision to increase that there would have been discussions with the Department of Justice to ensure that was being done is perfectly legal, and I have no reason to agree that it is not legal.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree that if people could afford to own their property outright they would do so at the existing relatively low annual rental for these recreational lots which is within the means of thousands of Newfoundlanders? Does the minister not view what is happening at this time as a breach of contract in that persons who in good faith opted to lease land at relatively low annual rates are now being forced to purchase the freehold interest at significant cost, and for which many people in this Province, that cost is well beyond their means?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to respond to the member's questions, because one of the realities of making a Budget is that a Budget is about taking choices, and when the government has a deficit to deal with of nearly $300 million, there is no scenario - and the Leader of the Opposition knows this - there is no scenario under which you cannot make some choices to reduce some of the expenditures of government and, where it is appropriate, try to bring in some additional revenues.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues opposite in this House, it is not enough to single out each of the areas where Budget impacts are felt, and to stand in the House and make the case why the adjustment in question should not be made, unless members opposite are also prepared, in fairness, to put forward their plan. None of us can have it both ways.

If we say - and, as members opposite have said; the Leader of the Opposition has said this on behalf of the Conservative Party - that you would move to a balanced Budget within a few years, at some point you must begin to lay out where your priorities are. We have held the line on health care expenditure in this Province; it wasn't without pain to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: We have held the line on expenditures for the poorest amongst us, those on social services. It wasn't easy to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: We have brought in a Budget with no tax increases for ordinary people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It wasn't easy to do so. We made our choices, and I ask: What choices would you have made in the same circumstances?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following private member's resolution:

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

WHEREAS unemployed, underemployed, pensioners, low-income earners, and other hurting Newfoundlanders having 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 our 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 people before making decisions;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. 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 presentations made and in line with Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians' traditional access to Crown land.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in the House today, on the very day we have been told by the Premier that there have been no tax increases that affect the average people in Newfoundland. He seems to forget the ambulance fee increases, the changes to Crown lands, the cuts in education, the discontinuation of school buses. My petition is on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, to voice their opposition to the change in Crown land fees.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the petition presented by the Member for St. John's South. Of course, since this new policy was announced in early May, there has been nothing but total confusion with respect to this policy. I have asked questions in this House to try to clarify the situation. The minister has been forthcoming with some answers, but again, I don't believe they are quite clear. The people of the Province are quite concerned with these large, dramatic increases in their yearly fees. There are going to be a number of people - I firmly believe this, by the way - that there will be a number of people in this Province who do have cabin lots, who scrimped and saved over the years, probably built their cabins over a period of two, three, four or five years and saved every penny they could to put it there, because the only form of recreation they could have, Mr. Speaker, was to go out to their cabins; mostly in the summer time. Mr. Speaker, we do have cabins in the Province that are utilized over the winter months but mostly, I think, people utilize their cabins in the Province over the summer months. Again, cabin owners in the Province need to be consulted on this new policy before it is implemented, and that is the reason why today I gave notice today of a Private Members Resolution to be discussed, hopefully on Wednesday, in this House.

I remember during the election that this government said they would consult with the people before they made any major policy decisions. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board went around this Province, after the election, to try and get some input to the Budget. He did have some public meetings around the Province, Mr. Speaker, but the people would not really listen to him. There was a firm commitment that this government would consult with the people. This policy change, Mr. Speaker, is a major change in direction for Crown lands in this Province. It is a major, major change in direction and the people I believe, need to be consulted; going from $75 a year, Mr. Speaker, to $500 a year in some cases, $600 a year in other cases and maybe upwards of $2,000 and/or more depending on the process.

We are not quite sure yet, Mr. Speaker, what the process is going to be, especially with respect to properties that are to be assessed. The minister stated that properties that have been assessed within municipalities in the Province, that money would be based on 20 per cent of the assessed value of properties within municipalities. For example, for a residential lease or a cottage lease within a municipality, a person who has a summer cabin within the boundaries of a municipality could actually pay much, much more per year than a person who has a cabin in an area that is not within the boundaries of a municipality.

The minister has stated in this House, that the assessors from the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will be doing assessments. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has stated that the assessors at the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will not be doing assessments. That in itself is a confusion there, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as I said earlier, I stand to support the petition of the Member for St. John's South.

Actually, I have announced today, that we will be having a public meeting at the Holiday Inn on Wednesday of this week, at 7:30 in the evening, a public meeting for people to come forward, to make presentations, to show their concerns and to come up possibly with some resolutions that could be presented to the minister to try and offset this drastic increase of fees to the public of the Province.

With that, I am sure there will be a lot more forthcoming in this House in the very near future.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to the House of Assembly, a petition similar to what have been brought forward here on a daily basis in the past and it reads:

A petition to the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, that:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities Board to approve an increase in electricity rates; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power having made some $27.8 million in profit last year is not in need of extra revenue from consumers; and

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders suffering from the fish resource crisis, general economic downturn and deep government spending cuts, can ill afford increases in essential commodities like electricity at this time; and

WHEREAS not having had a rate increase since 1992 is no justification for a rate increase in 1996

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador do whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity rates.

Mr. Speaker, a prime example of the concern of people out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when they express their thoughts by putting their names on a petition, is the fact that Newfoundland Power recently applied for a 4.9 per cent increase in electricity rates, coupled with the cost, Mr. Speaker, that will be incurred and will be shown on your hydro bill when you see the harmonization of the PST and the GST, taking that into consideration, which is another 8 per cent, Mr. Speaker, it won't be uncommon to see a 13 per cent or 14 per cent hike in electricity rates in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This particular utility is providing a commodity on which it has a monopoly. You don't have the luxury of saying: because you are raising your rates then we will go and purchase our electricity from some other company. We don't have that option, Mr. Speaker; we have no other choice. If we burn electricity here today then we have to go to Newfoundland Power, or if they are not in the business then we have to go to other areas, if we live in other areas of the Province, where Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro provides that particular service.

One of the arguments that they put forward is that, we have not had a rate increase since 1992. Well, I can tell you of lots of people who have not seen an increase in their pay cheque for much, much longer than that. Mr. Speaker, when you look at providing the service here to home owners and to industrial users in Newfoundland and Labrador you will find that not only do we have to pay for the electricity that we consume but we also have to be responsible for the provision of that particular service as well.

It was only a few years ago that this particular utility had work crews or employees in just about all the populated areas of the Province, and if you had a problem it was only a matter of picking up the phone and calling them; and they gave excellent, excellent service. In the last couple of years, Mr. Speaker, we have seen that service deteriorate. I know in the area where I live, Mr. Speaker, we at one time had two Newfoundland Power employees stationed in our community and if there was problem, if there was a fire, those people were always the first people to be on the scene to disconnect your meter base or to go up on the pole and disconnect the electricity going to that particular household. Today, Mr. Speaker, those same people have to access the employees in Clarenville and if you call in with a problem with your street lights, until there are a number of them that have been extinguished or they have had problems with, that they can justify driving from Clarenville to a particular area - in order to justify going there, then you have to have a couple of hours work for them. They have to make it worthwhile, I suppose.

Now when the bill comes you don't get any credit for that particular light being out for six days this month or ten days some other month. There is no decrease in the rates that you pay. The only thing is that you had to do without the service. You have the same utility company making $28 million a year in profits coming back down and saying that we need another 4.9 per cent in electricity rates. If you turn on your television, if you look at the glossy ads that you see in the papers and you look at the catchy ads on television, who is paying for it? It is certainly not Newfoundland Power, it is the electricity users in this Province today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: So, Mr. Speaker, with my time being expired I call on government to listen to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and make representation on their behalf.

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

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

I rise today to again support the petition offered by my colleague on the application by Newfoundland Power for a rate increase.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased this afternoon as I listened in the House and heard the Premier say that he was against the 6 per cent roll back for recipients on the TAGS program. I thought to myself: this is very, very good. The Premier of this Province is standing up for the people in this Province who have fallen through the economic net. So therefore I was delighted to hear that.

However, I don't take much comfort in the fact that that decision is relative to a program that is being funded through his friends in Ottawa, but when we look at Newfoundland we don't see the same Premier standing up and having a position on the application by Newfoundland Power or I don't see the same kind of philosophy prevailing when it comes to the rate increases for people who have need to access ambulance services.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is an advocate when it comes to policies that are coming from Ottawa but he is not taking the same position when it comes to those things which he is able to control. When it comes to the things he can control we see the Premier nibbling away at the poorest people in the Province, those people who can ill afford the extra expenditures that we are talking about when it comes to denying the children of St. John's access to school busing. As we know, this is going to cause great hardship on the very poorest of the people in our society.

In the same way, we don't know the position of government relative to Newfoundland Power. We know that the government have appointed an advocate but we do not know what the government's position is. We do no know what government's response is when it comes to Newfoundland Power. While I say to the government, we applaud their position in talking to their friends in Ottawa for those people who are TAGS, we want to know what their position is relative to our very own people of Newfoundland on an essential commodity, the access to power which, of course, is under the Newfoundland government legislation.

We know that Newfoundland Power had great profits last year. We know that the poorest people in the Province have to balance their budgets over a year-long program so they pay the same amount each month. We know that people who are on social assistance cannot find the money to be able to keep their children warm in the Wintertime. We know they have to economize every way they can. So what the people are saying in the petitions we have presented is, would you hear what we are talking about? Would you care to listen to what we are saying?

Mr. Speaker, we know that we presented many petitions. I can tell the hon. House there is a petition on the way now that has over 50,000 signatures on it. It is not here yet but it is on it's way, and if that is not a substantial part of the Newfoundland population I would like to know what is. This is a very great concern for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are saying to the government: Would you please stand up for us, stand up for the ordinary citizen who is finding it difficult enough now to pay the cost of electricity? How are they going to be able to pay the extra cost if Newfoundland Power is given the approval to increase its rates?

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about consultation, we are talking about hearing voices, we are talking about the ordinary person, we are talking about those who live without adequate means all the time. We are saying, listen to what people are saying and hear their voices because not to do so, I think, would be a tragedy for our democratic system, not to say anything about the personal hardship it will cause their families, individually and collectively.

Thank you very much.

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

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the known fighting Newfoundlanders again. The good news and bad news I say to the House Leader: The good news is that this is the last of the petitions of the first lot, but the bad news is that there are other lots coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this weekend a constituent from Bonavista North asked me, although we do hear members saying that people do not hear you with your petitions and so on - that may be true but somebody is getting the word somewhere because a constituent from Bonavista North asked if he could organize a petition and if I would present it on his behalf. I said: You can ask your member. He said: I don't think my member would support me, so would you present a petition? I said: I would be glad to. After that, Mr. Speaker, I started to get a few calls, on Thursday and Friday of last week, from other communities.

Now, this particular group known as the Fightin' Nfld'ers will be presenting a humongous size petition, 40,000 or 50,000 names, to the federal Minister of Fisheries in the next little while, I think some time this month. Aside from the Fightin' Nfld'ers group there are also individual groups from all districts. I say to members opposite, I cannot say every single district I talked with, but many of the districts are organizing their own petition just to have a say on this particular issue.

I know a lot of members try to blow it off as not being really important or it is not the most crucial, Mr. Speaker, but the bottom-line is there are a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in rural Newfoundland I say to members, who believe that this Summer they should be allowed to go out and jig a fish to eat. That is a simple, simple line, Mr. Speaker. They do not want to make a mountain of a molehill. They do not want to talk about a big issue like when the House Leader got up the other day and talked about John Crosbie and all the mistakes he made, all the mistakes the federal government made over the years, and the big bycatches and biomass problems. They are not talking about that, they are talking about a small food fishery, 1000 tons, maybe 1500 tons. That is all they are talking about.

They are not talking about how the Minister of Fisheries gets up and says: Oh, are you going to open up the commercial food fishery, now? No, they are not talking about that. We are talking about places like Round Harbour, Fleur de Lys, Fogo and all of those that say: I should be able to go down and catch ten fish.

It was just last week, Mr. Speaker, that two more people in my district were caught with nine or ten fish in their boat, were fined again, a $2,000 fine, lost their boat and so on; and they won't give up on it. It's not that we condone anybody breaking laws, but I can certainly understand why they are so frustrated.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, it is new every day. I say to the Minister of Education, it is new every day. There are so many different angles on it, and there are so many people telling me different things, that I can say it every day, I say to the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I have told people that if they send petitions I will present them so, of course, I will continue to present them. I say that to the minister also. If he wants to call this one to order I will read out the whole thing for him again, but I don't think I need to do that.

As a matter of fact, that relates to the point I am trying to make at this particular time today as I present this petition. Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill. The Minister of Fisheries gets up and says: Oh, you're not supporting opening a commercial fishery; no, I am not. I don't think anybody here is. There is not one person's name on this petition that supports that. We are talking about the average Newfoundlander who wants to go out and jig a measly ten fish to eat, and it is not going to hurt the bloody stocks; that is what everybody keeps talking about. We are talking about biomass, we are talking about fish inland in the bays. The scientists in Ottawa don't know what I am talking about either, but a fisherman in Newfoundland does.

He says: Paul, really what bay stock is is just a break off of the major stock out there, and they go into the different bays and inlets. They are not talking about going out in a long-liner with a dragger to get their ten fish, or putting out a net. They are talking about going out in a dory, rowing out, or with a tank of gas and an outboard motor, going out with a hand line with a bit of bait on it to jig a fish; and everybody keeps going on about the big history of the biomass problem and so on. Don't make a big issue of it. I don't want the Premier to make a big issue of it, or the Minister of Fisheries, or the federal Minister of Fisheries. Make a simple issue of it. They want to catch ten fish to eat, and they want to do it at the right time, and they want to do it properly. The criteria is, as when the former Minister of Fisheries, now the Premier, stood one day and said: We don't want to make a big issue of it, of surveys and scientific research and so on. This does not even need to be related to it.

Mr. Speaker, if that poor argument is there of somebody who would say: Oh, we don't want to take the last fish out of the bay; is that what you want us to do? No, if it is that bad, if we are going to lose our conservation recovery because of a small food fishery, I would then say to the Premier or the minister, that it is too late anyway; we are gone too far. If it is that bad, we have missed it already.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: So I will continue to present these petitions every single day, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again today I rise in my place to support the petition presented by the Member for Baie Verte. There have been a number of petitions presented in this House with respect to the food fishery, and I am sure there will be many more to come until we do get a food fishery.

There was a food fishery opened up, I believe it was two years ago, and the food fishery at that time was being questioned by a lot of people because I think it was put in place so that there would not be many fish caught at that point in time, to make it appear that there weren't any fish in the bays. Although, just the same, if you went out with a local fisherman in the area who knew the berths you would probably get a few fish type of thing.

The question I have to ask is: Why is there no food fishery in this Province at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, when there are fisheries going on with respect to cod in other areas of this country, in Atlantic Canada in particular? Why is there no food fishery?

I believe it basically boils down to public relations. If you compare, or think about the number or the pounds of fish, and probably the tons of fish, eaten each year by seals in our waters, and compare that to how much fish will be taken by a food fishery for a couple of weeks at the right time of year, there certainly would be no comparison whatsoever. So basically you have to say: Why is there no food fishery?

The present Premier, the former Minister of Fisheries federally, will try to make a case for basically the environmental aspect of it, and conservation. To his credit, to a certain extent he became the great terminator, the Tobin terminator type of thing, with respect to the Spanish fleet off our coast last year with respect to the Estai, going out and having the Estai arrested and brought into St. John's harbour by the Coast Guard. I remember being down there and fully supportive of it, really not knowing what was going to happen in the long haul.

In the long haul what actually happened was that boat was basically towed into port and tied up. The people who were on that, the fishermen or the operators of the vessel, were put in a hotel for x number of days or what have you, and sent home. The fish was confiscated but given back to the people of Spain. From what I can gather there were at least two cheques paid out to send that fish back, a cheque for over $100,000 and another cheque for over $40,000 to send the fish back that had been confiscated and the boat left - from my memory now, Mr. Speaker, I could be corrected on this one - but the boat left in the dark of night. So then -

AN HON. MEMBER: It was more like a cruise ship.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, she left in the dark of night. So now we have a situation of: what was the benefit of all of this publicity, Mr. Speaker? Was it to get the present Premier back into this Province, to make him the hero of the conservation of the fishery in this Province? Was that the underlying reason to have the Estai arrested or was it actually the conservation of the fishery itself? That is open to interpretation. Anybody can answer that question and they can look at the facts themselves, Mr. Speaker, and make that determination.

Now, again as I said, the food fishery in this Province, I think, should be reinstated. I mentioned here last week that an individual back in pre-Confederation days made a statement that if we joined Canada that the day would come when we would not be permitted to go out and jig a fish. Now, Mr. Speaker, that was pretty thoughtful; a person had to have some foresight to see that happening, and to say that it actually came true is pretty discouraging.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Baie Verte has presented many petitions on this issue and I am sure, as I said earlier, there will be very many more to come. Hopefully we will see a food fishery in this Province, this summer at the very latest.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR: Order No. 2, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything to say. I am just rising for the purpose of introducing them. However, I would be delighted to answer any questions which I think is probably a better way to proceed. So, unless the members want me to say something by way of introduction, these are the general estimates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, there is no need to say anything in an introduction. I would just appreciate it if when I ask some of my many, many questions, in the hundreds, hopefully I will have some answers. I say to the minister, I won't make them too complicated. I guess with the Chair's permission too, it might facilitate things, I say to the minister, if I ask a question and it is a yes or no rather than keep recognizing different speakers. I can certainly give leave within that time if that is suitable with the Chair and see how it is progressing.

With reference to consolidated fund service - to make it a little easier, I say to the minister, I was going to move along by section, each particular point; that way I am sure the minister can answer questions. On page 5 in our Estimates, Treasury Bills, I would assume that is just because of a lower need to have treasury bills in borrowing. That is why the interest is down, a lower amount and probably lower interest, no extraordinary amount I would assume.

MR. DICKS: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

Canada Pension Plan, that is quite possible, with no borrowing this past fiscal year really, as such, except to refinance any debt; that is probably at reduced interest on the market today because of a decrease in rates as opposed to last year?

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is roughly the same amount we have had borrowed from the Canada Pension Plan I think, with a slight surplus this year on our total debt. I will make some assumptions and if I am incorrect there I am sure it might speed up things, the minister would certainly correct me. I am quite sure he would do that. Interest earnings on the Province's available cash, money markets and the bank, I would assume that situation also would be very similar because last year we were into a situation where we had to borrow more heavily, so, in other words, we would have more credits coming in this year, more revenues in that area on our investments because we didn't need to be extended as much as last year, that would probably be the reason, I say to the minister in 1.1.06, Temporary Investments? We had a little bit improved cash flow situation and we should have had a better return on our assessment, I would assume, more money available.

Now, Recoveries on Loans and Advances, the next one, we collected a significant increase there, we received from the previous year, why do we call in loans - are loans to loan boards directly loans under government, are they included in this, too, by calling in some government loans? Why would we receive - and I am looking at 1.1.07. We are up from $6.1 million up to $7.9, almost eight. We have there, about a 30 per cent increase? Why would we have increase 30 per cent more revenues under that item as opposed to last year?

MR. DICKS: We have 1.1.07.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. DICKS: Okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: Our recoveries are up fairly significantly. The year before we anticipated 6.6 and we had 6.1, now we have almost $8 million so, does that mean the government has taken a fairly strong-arm approach now in getting out there and twisting those arms, forcing people to pay back or making deductions in cases from people who owe money, from other sources to get their money back?

I will use the example: Somebody had a loan from the Fisheries or Fisheries and Farm Loan Board, they might have excess revenues within their family income to get money back as opposed to taking it directly from that fisher? Could that have accounted for some of that?

MR. DICKS: Yes. Just on the point. I have the details here, It is just taking me a moment to get exercised here. There might be an extraordinary item in there, that is 1.1.07, I think you said. This covers the various loans that interest payable to the Province includes, as you say, the Fisheries Loan Board, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. What happened last year was that there was a reduced estimate of interest to be remitted by Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador last year 1995-'96. Part of it is that we are getting an increased amount from that, but the major increase this year is a payment by Corner Brook Pulp and Paper of $1.2 million, from five years of accrued interest on a $4.3-million loan, at $5.6 million from the Province that was advanced in 1992 and there was a five-year interest moratorium on that, so that is the main item that has bumped that up and other than that, that accounts for most of the amount there.

The reason that the revised figure was more than in the Budget had to do with a reduced amount of interest earned by ENL. The exact reason for that I don't know; they may have taken some greater time to either get their money out or they might have had greater interest losses than they presupposed at the time during the Budget, but the main item there was the payment by Kruger or Corner Brook Pulp and Paper that we didn't have last year.

MR. SULLIVAN: Or maybe, more actively pursued interest like last year there was a fairly good crab fishery and maybe they had more interest payments back on previous loans. As an example:

MR. DICKS: The main reduction last year was that, we budgeted last year for $6.652 million, we only collected $6.187 and the main factor there was ENL remitted less interest than it had forecast. I don't know the exact reason for that; it may have had to do with either interest that was written off or perhaps they lent out less money than they supposed, because we carried forward $5.5 million in commitments from last year. It could be due to a variety of reasons. The main reasons up this year is as I say, the one we started getting that remittance from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, thank you.

On 1.2.01, that is Rental Purchase, a capital there, that $77,200, is that entirely the Trans City money put aside to buy back the three hospitals in that deal? Is that exclusive before that?

MR. DICKS: Yes. That is the sinking fund for that.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is the only one in that category - the total amount per year, I think, for thirty years?

MR. DICKS: Yes, well, over the thirty-year lease it provides for the $15.9 million purchase price, so we have estimated here.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Once again, under l.3.01, Guarantee Fees Non-Statutory, we used to collect roughly $10 million for guarantee to debt of Hydro and now it is up to - is this all related for guaranteeing the debt of Hydro?

MR. DICKS: No. If you talk about 1.3.01, that doesn't have anything to do with guaranteeing the debt of Hydro, it is when we are called upon to honour a guarantee. When the person defaults or the corporation defaults, we have to honour that. Sometimes it involves taking possession of goods, so we, for instance, would have to store assets, appoint receivers, legal fees, hiring of consultants and so on. So we put in an estimate each year of $50,000. (Inaudible) we have to spend, I suspect, in other years we may not have to actually realize or seize the assets or realize upon them. So that figure is put in there. That is not a fixed clause, that is variable, depending on what actions are necessary as a result of guarantees being called.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, that is the $50,000 on Professional Services, but underneath is the Provincial Revenues aspect.

MR. DICKS: I see, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am wondering - I didn't see (inaudible) here the amount for Hydro. I am under the impression that that might be the entire amount we are getting for guaranteeing the debt of Hydro.

MR. DICKS: Not exactly. It is composed of a number of things. It is all money that comes from Hydro. I can give you the breakdown of it. Last year, the figure was revised downwards somewhat from $11.178 million to $10,992,000. That was as a result of a slightly lower guarantee fee. As you know, we collect 1 per cent of the guarantees that we have outstanding. Hydro went to market late last year for I believe it was $150 million. It is actually tied to the amount of borrowing, and those fluctuate from year to year. So that is really a minor item.

In the current year, there is an additional $8 million in there, and what we are doing is, we are bringing forward the payment of the fee by Hydro of three-quarters of the estimated $10 million annual fee. So what we are doing is, we are accelerating the amount of the guarantee fee from Hydro. The reason it is higher is that what we are essentially doing is, next year, instead of taking it on a quarterly basis, we are asking them to pay the full guarantee fee for the fiscal year 1997 in the first quarter. So that is the reason the guarantee fee is up by about $8 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. So, increasing the guarantees - I was under the impression we were going to be getting, in addition to the other monies we are getting from Hydro on dividends, this extra increase now is only for this fiscal year and it is an advanced borrowing on next year - three-quarters of it is, because one-quarter, from January to March, l997, would come out of Hydro's - the next year. But here, we are getting that quarter, which was the only one figured in - from April 1 next year to December, we are getting paid in advance for that. So we are getting in advance, monies from Hydro. In other words, we are borrowing on our revenues for next year, and would this not increase our structural deficit further?

MR. DICKS: Well, yes and no. We are not borrowing the money. Hydro has this as a debt to us. What we are doing is - Hydro's fiscal year, I think, may end December 31. What we are saying to Hydro is: You have to pay us this amount of money in the next calendar year, 1997, so what we want you to do is pay it in the first quarter rather than pay it over the whole year. What it means is that we receive more money in this fiscal year. If we continue the practice, we won't receive $19 million from Hydro next year, it will probably be back to the figure of $11 million, in other words, if we carry it through.

So, what we are doing is, we are accelerating the payment for the next calendar year into this fiscal year, and really, what we are doing is bringing up the amount by about three-quarters of what would normally come to the Province in the calendar year as opposed to the fiscal year, which overlaps.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, basically, what it boils down to is, it is going to be that much less we are going to get in the subsequent quarters, (inaudible) getting it up front. In other words, there are going to be some quarters we are not receiving that.

So, basically, we are getting it all applied, even though their fiscal year, I did check, runs December 31.

MR. DICKS: That is right.

MR. SULLIVAN: And ours ends on March 31. So, technically, we are getting into our fiscal year, but in the first three months of their fiscal year, they are really paying us all they were going to give us in the next nine months of their fiscal year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Yes, that is correct. I should point out as well, this does not mean that we will go back down to $3 million in the following fiscal year, because if we accelerate and keep it accelerated we will stabilize at the amount of $12 million, but it does give us a higher amount in this year, essentially around $8 million.

The other thing I should mention is that it is more than hydro. There are probably about fifteen or sixteen companies in here, and what we do is - this is where the guarantee fee comes in, so it is Atlantic Group Limited, Stuckless, Carol Stores and Fisheries, and so forth. There are a number of other guarantees, but by far the major portion of it is the hydro payment to us which makes up $18,750,000 of it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: So when it goes back for that proportion, or the other three quarters, technically we have increased the amount. Really the difference for those nine months then is technically increasing our structural deficit by that amount. If we are back to $12 million next year we have increased our structural deficit another $7 million that we have not allocated. We have looked at a structural deficit now of $45 million we do a full borrowing. We borrowed $42 million on Term 27. We would get $8 million anyway; we borrowed another $42 million, really, so we have taken $87 million there on a structural deficit. This is going to give us another $7 million on a structural deficit, so technically now when we do our Budget next year, before we get to home plate to start even we have a $96 million technically structural deficit we have to build into next year's Budget when you look at this. Because we have different fiscal years, we are shifting it into this fiscal year, which is really borrowing a bit on the future, because this revenue next year should reflect less money, probably $7 million less. Is that correct?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Well, I don't like to deal with argument. Certainly it is an interpretation one can put on it, but if you want to talk about the amount on the structural deficit you also have to take off that $30 million contingency fee which we have built in which is not part of our structural deficit. That is to deal with what may or may not happen during the fiscal year.

The second thing is that in order to know what our structural deficit will be for next year we have to see what the cost of government will be. We do plan to very seriously address the whole question of the program areas of government, and at the end of the year when we see what the cost of our programs are we will see in greater detail what the structural deficit is.

I fully hope and expect that it will be less than this, but even if the hon. gentleman wishes to make the point that should all our expenses stay at the same level, and presumably our income would stay at the same level, our structural deficit would not be at $90-odd million even if you add this back in. You would still have to take off $30 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Take off $30 million, yes.

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will be back in one minute.

CHAIR: I was going to say the hon. the Opposition Leader. The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

CHAIR: I was going to give you a promotion.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

CHAIR: I was going to give you a promotion.

MR. E. BYRNE: I think Mr. Chairman may be up for a promotion, or certainly would enjoy a promotion at some time.

I just have a few remarks to make, not necessarily being specifically on Budget matters related in the Estimates accounts but dealing generally with the economy. Maybe the Finance Minister can answer some questions.

What I don't see, particularly in this year's Budget, is a great deal of support for small business, or attracting small business to the Province, or providing help or incentives for small business that would do a number of things: One, that would assist in new businesses operating or opening up. Traditionally any new business that opens up, the first twenty-four months are the hardest period, but I was reading today in The Globe and Mail that small business has grown by 57 per cent across the country and has again this year led the way in the creation of jobs. (Inaudible) in The Globe and Mail.

MR. DICKS: What has?

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. DICKS: What has led the way? I am sorry, I didn't hear you.

MR. E. BYRNE: Small business.

MR. DICKS: Small business.

MR. E. BYRNE: Businesses which are employing twenty-five people and under. Basically, if you use that definition it is a small business.

That is a group in the private sector which has demonstrated again this year that the real creation of jobs is taking place at that level. There is more partnering going on between businesses in terms of applying for national big contracts, major contracts, but what concerns me in the Budget is the lack of support - support not being there to encourage small business to not only come to the Province, but the incentives that should be there right now for businesses that exist, and there are all sorts of examples.

Certainly, in the food industry there are many examples of people who are into secondary processing right now who need, not assistance, but need, I guess, some incentive from government, not only dollar-wise, they could do without that, but on the other end of it as well, to bring down some of the barriers where these larger food chains are into it. Some of the questions I have for the minister: Where does he see government policy? Is there a government policy that looks at small business? What are the details of the policy? Where does he see government going in maintaining small business, attracting new business and which in effort, generates jobs and generates much needed revenue to individuals out in the community. I don't know if he can -

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of interesting points: People always point to small business and a lot of people don't realize that the definition of small business, for many purposes of statistical analysis, is not 2,500 employees, rather it is between 500 and 1,500 employees. If you take that as criteria, there are very, very few enterprises in this Province which constitute small business.

MR. E. BYRNE: I was using small business -

MR. DICKS: Yes, now, I heard your point and I just wanted -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) which would be considered small a business.

MR. DICKS: That's right. So the first thing I would point out is that in terms of national statistics you have to be very careful when you are talking about small business, because they may not be talking about the same sorts of business you and I are.

The second point is that, you mentioned about partnering. It is interesting that if you look at some of the strongest economics in the world - places like Singapore and Hong Kong - the types of businesses that generate the type of activity in those economies are not very large businesses. They are small businesses but great conglomerations of them. The most classic example is in Italy which is doing very well, notwithstanding the fact that the political situation is very turbulent in Italy. The economy is very, very strong which is not always reflected in its GDP figures because there is massive tax avoidance. The strength of their economy, particularly in Northern Italy, where they have a very strong tool and dye industry, clothing manufacturing, eye glasses, a lot of very high end consumer items, in particular, most of that is done by very small firms. What they do is contract out very small portions of that enterprise. So you have very large conglomerates making a lot of high-level consumer goods which consists of very few employees and they might have as many as 250 small companies sub-contracting with one major enterprise. A classic example is eye glasses. I forget the name of the manufacturer - twelve individual pieces in eye glasses; the lens, one part of the frame, another part of the frame, one screw holds them together. A different company manufactures each one of those.

So some of the other very successful economic systems in the world do not rely on everything being done in one place by one company but rather contracting it out. This whole aspect of business partnership is critical to those economies. So that by if one company sees an opportunity it does not see it as an opportunity for individual growth but rather it is a way that these groups of companies, which have amassed around building particular small components that go into a particular consumer good, can be sub-contracted out. So what you do is, number one, you reduce the need for heavy capitalization by one particular company and also you spread around the activity in a much more efficient manner. So I agree with you, partnering is very important and I think largely it has been unrecognized as a way to do business here in North America.

As regard to our lack of support for private enterprise or for small business, I would disagree with that. I think the government's approach has been different. My personal view would be, and I have expressed this here and elsewhere publicly, it is one that - I don't say I speak for government policy entirely but certainly an area we are moving in - I think it has been shown that direct government assistance to business does not yield good results for the most part. When you lend money to a business, you are not necessarily helping the business nor are you making the best use of taxpayers' money. Unfortunately, a lot of the money that government spends is not always wisely directed nor is it wisely spent. My view is that we should do less of that rather than more.

Where I think we can perform a role is through the tax system in making encouragement or helping people in that way. So the EDGE plan is one that seems to be working very well. Secondly, harmonization, I think, will be a very big factor in the success and growth of our industries over the next several years for all the reasons that you claim, business inputs. It greatly enhances your exports and it also rationalizes your tax system. It certainly gives our business a competitive advantage over those. The GST system has been analyzed and found to be probably the simplest and most tax effect way of distributing these sorts of monies and collection of them.

So I think those are the two directions government is proceeding in, and is very clear on government policy, both of which I think will be very successful in igniting the economy in these areas over the mid-term, I say four to five years.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

The Minister of Finance has indicated that - it seems that government and not only this government but governments across the country are questioning the value of direct sort of financial incentives or assistance to small, medium, or large size businesses. I would tend to agree that I think the jury is in on that and we have to be more prudent in terms of what we look at. Government has within its control far more avenues than providing small business in this Province with say a $50,000 or $100,000 grant that may assist in expanding a shop or bringing in more capital equipment.

Let me give you one example. Downstairs in government's cafeteria, one of the largest outlets in terms of food distribution for major food companies in the Province, you can go down there right now and buy Fairlee juice out of Ontario, promoted as a fresh juice company. Just to give a history on it, all the water for Fairlee juice comes from Lake Ontario. It takes 100 chemicals to purify the water that is mixed with concentrate in that juice. Yet you go downstairs right now in our cafeterias, the small one and the larger one, and all you can see on the shelves is Fairlee juice; yet locally we have a company that is providing work locally, that is bringing in concentrate locally, that is providing fresh water mixed with concentrate, a far superior product, that is price competitive, that guarantees supply, and that could, if the barriers were not in place, provide to our outlet here; but you cannot find Sunnyland juice down in our cafeterias. Last year you could. I kicked up about it in the House of Assembly last year and two days later I went down and they had, right over in the corner, about two rows with about eight bottles in each row.

Government has the ability when calling the tender to stipulate three things, one, if there is a Newfoundland product that is available in terms of, say, juice, that is not open-ended, as long as the playing field is level, one that is price competitive, that can guarantee supply and the quality is high, it should be down there. Yet we are importing products like that and selling them ourselves in our own outlets, a far, far less product in terms of quality.

So the question I ask the minister then is: When we talk about incentives or help for small businesses, there is a wide range of things that government can do without it costing government one penny. That is but one example. You talk about the use of the tax system. I think this Province never really has used the tax credit as an incentive to the extent we could, or should, and that is another area that we really should start investigating when it comes to small business in terms of our definition of small business, not those between $500,000 or $100,000, but maybe small business of $25,000 or less, or fifty employees or less. Government has a lot more strength and a lot more pull at its fingertips right now if it chooses to exercise it.

I know that there are people who met with the Minister of Health, for example, on some of these issues, who have lobbied him in talking about how the larger food companies have control over bringing products in from outside the Province and selling products from outside the Province, replacing products that exist here today. I think government should take a serious look at that because each time we take a product like that from, say Ontario or from anywhere else, when we have a product that exists here, and again I have to reiterate, that is price competitive, can guarantee supply and provides quality, then government really, whether it is intentional or non-intentional, directly or indirectly, is putting people out of work. I think it is something that government must look at in terms of its own operations to ensure that small business has every opportunity to do business with government through whatever means or outlets it has.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Chair.

The hon. member makes some interesting points, most of which I find myself in agreement with. The first is that economic activity and growth comes from two areas, one is by supplying your own needs provincially. Let us use provincially as an example.

MR. E. BYRNE: Which we don't in that industry.

MR. DICKS: Pardon!

MR. E. BYRNE: We are not at a point yet where we supply our own needs within the food and agrifoods industry.

MR. DICKS: Well, you have to recognize and define those areas where you can supply your own needs. I doubt that we will be growing oranges and grapefruit here.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no.

MR. DICKS: I know that is not your intent, but you have to be very careful about what you define as legitimate areas of economic supply. So you have to look to the things that you can reasonably and economically supply to yourself, and while you can supply many things it may not be economical to do so.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let us use as a measuring stick the three criteria I talked about, as long as the products are price competitive, that we can guarantee supply, and that quality is assured.

MR. DICKS: The hon. member had ten minutes and I am only thirty seconds into what I am going to say. I agree with you on that point. The second thing is how you generate activity through export, so you define something we do that you cannot do elsewhere. That often comes from resource areas where you have minerals or other products that you can mine or take from your renewable resources and export. That has been the secret in many ways of economies. The other difficulty you have, unfortunately, is that if you are too successful you become a victim of your own success.

An example is, which has done so staggeringly well, it has amassed over $200 billion worth of foreign reserves and its economy is in depression right now, because they have driven up their own wage cost and everything else, so that now a lot of work is shifting away from Japan into places like Vietnam. Even South Korea and Singapore are becoming too expensive.

To get back to the point of doing our sourcing, in another five or six years when we have completed our task it will be there.

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, you are not saying you are afraid that government is going to do that, are you?

MR. DICKS: No. I think it was the previous, previous, previous, Premier, Peckford, who said that he was afraid the economy would overheat itself. We don't share that concern at this point in time. We can turn off the heat in many ways.

As regards to the juice issue, I don't get as much time to take lunch as the hon. member does so I don't get a chance to keep track of what happens in the cafeteria.

MR. E. BYRNE: You dine at the Cabot Club and I dine downstairs in the cafeteria. That is the difference between you and me.

MR. DICKS: I would say that I envy his ability to find the time to do so. I can say that I am often at government meetings in Cabinet and I do know that Cabinet has taken some pride in supplying itself with locally produced juices from, I think it is Sunnyland. So we certainly have taken the initiative within the confines of the Cabinet.

As regards to the government cafeteria, one of my members from Conception Bay East & Bell Island, I believe, advised me that it may be run by the CNIB. So there are areas in government where people may provide activities that we can't ourselves dictate to; these things are contracted out.

MR. E. BYRNE: The government has demonstrated that they can dictate anything within the tender process.

MR. DICKS: But let me get to the real point of what I want to say.

MR. E. BYRNE: I think you have demonstrated that in the seven years that you have been there. So I mean, (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: The government has initiated a program of `Made Right Here' in order to encourage people in Newfoundland and Labrador to buy products that are made here, and I am sure when you go to the supermarket you always buy those things that come with the nice, little flag on it that say: The butter is made here and the margarine is made here and our bread is made here and our milk is made here. I do that, I very consciously look for things. I think they are good products and we should be conscious that what we buy is producing jobs here in this Province, and I am sure your comments are well made.

The only other thing I say is that in terms of government procurement, the decision was made several years ago to try to lower provincial government barriers and it was found at that time, if my recollection is correct, that removing the provincial preference, which was then about 15 per cent, would only affect about 3 per cent of the total goods procured in Newfoundland. Our challenge has been to open up the other markets because people have different public tendering rules, Nova Scotia being a notable example.

Our Public Tender Act is at $5,000, theirs is at $50,000 as a threshold amount. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, tells me that quite a number of our businesses are getting successful in supplying goods and services in other provinces. So I think we can be a little too colloquial. If we can restrict ourselves and say, we have to, you know, bring the tents around and bring the wagon trains in and fight off the Indians, we may be losing opportunities; because, as I say, you not only gain by satisfying your own needs, the greatest economies grow by satisfying the needs of others through export as well. We have to be careful that we try to do those things which are most economical to do so here.

Finally, you mentioned tax credits. I do believe there is merit in that notion. You have things like accelerated depreciation and things like this but I think they have to be used judiciously, and it is certainly an avenue that I think can be explored and one that is open to suggestions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Chair, I wasn't going to make a few remarks but I have to based on some of the remarks made by the Minster of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Very stimulating remarks of the minister.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would agree that the `Manufactured Right Here' campaign, is a campaign that is working to some extent, that is necessary and has provided value in terms of raising the awareness of people within the Province about products that are manufactured and produced right here. The yardstick where he says we shouldn't be too concerned, or we should be concerned in not building tents around ourselves, I am aware that we live in a global village where trade is happening no matter where you live in the world with people from all over the world. What I am saying, is that, where products are produced in this Province, where, number one, they are price competitive - it is a very important point - where they can guarantee supply, another very important point, and that the quality is at least equal or greater than, then why should government be ashamed of ensuring that those products are sold or purchased through other outlets?

It is one thing to say and be proud of a `Manufactured Right Here' campaign on the one hand, when on the other hand, when people who manufacture goods and products come to government, government says, although it is manufactured right here, we are not going to let you sell it right here. I mean, that is real. Last year, for example, in the Health Sciences complex, the Newfoundland Tea Company was thrown out of the Health Sciences complex, displacing about six people in terms of work, and the Health Corporation purchased the Tim Horton's franchise. You know, there are things that we must be aware of.

In terms of the amount of time that I have to eat lunch, I say to the Minster of Finance and Treasury Board, I don't think it is a question of time, that I have more than he; I just think it is a question of where he dines compared to where I dine.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Chair.

I dine in my office generally speaking and send someone downstairs to pick-up something for me.

On the other point, the price being competitive, I agree with the hon. member, but I say as well that my personal judgement is that I am prepared to pay a premium for things manufactured in this Province, because it does me more good, personally, and creates more economic activity. So if the quality is equal, then I think that is fair comparison. I think we do things very well here in the Province, and very often we pick out the cheapest thing on the shelf, instead of maybe saying: Where is this done? It means more to put it into the economy.

I take the hon. member's points - I think we are in large agreement on the issues that confront the Province. The only thing, as I said, is that it is good to be concerned about what we do here, but I think we also have to look for opportunities elsewhere. The other area of focus which we should not neglect is that we have a lot of potential in this Province in a whole lot of areas to produce and export, not only goods, durable goods, reusable goods, but also services and intellect, which is one of our greater exports.

There are tremendous opportunities right now on the Internet. I was in Labrador City during the hearings and I picked up a magazine down there - I forget which one it was, but I noticed the lady was on the front of the Newfoundland Herald recently, and this lady in Labrador City, downloaded all the information on the X-Files and wrote a book, and it has something like 200,000 copies sold. That's incredible! A Canadian bestseller is what? 30,000 copies, and she is selling them worldwide. I mean, the greatest tool we have at our disposal that equalizes intellectual opportunity throughout the world and throughout the Province in any isolated area, we have the highest - I think we have the greatest fibre-optic network per capita in the country, if not the world. I mean, it is a tremendous opportunity for people - and I am only beginning to use it myself, but we have a telecommunication system that is really second to none. If people start getting on the Internet, and seeing the opportunities, what is being bought and sold and the things one can learn and download in the areas and avenues of communication, it is the single biggest tool, and I think, in addition to that, it would be probably the greatest engine of economic growth beyond anything else we will see in the next decade.

The opportunities are just tremendous. That one particular example, I think, tells us an awful lot about what opportunities exist. So I will leave it at that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair.

We also have the greatest fishing resource in the world, too, and if we don't use it properly, it won't mean diddlysquat.

I will get back to the more technical side, I say to the minister - page 7, 1.3.02. I will just follow it along in order, any particular questions I have, and that will probably facilitate it.

Under Capital, there was a budget in 1995-'96 of $1 million and an expenditure Loan Advanced Investments of over $11 million. Why would there be a discrepancy there of an extra $10 million?

MR. DICKS: Three words: Middle distance vessels. I don't think you want me to enlarge on that, but they weren't the most prudent investment the Province made. It was made back in the mid-1980s by the former government. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but as the hon. member knows, a lot of things seemed like -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Well, I have my views on it as well. In any event, we are stuck with long-term leases. They have been useless. They have been tied up at a wharf on the South Side of St. John's harbour for the most part. The Province has been trying -

AN HON. MEMBER: Were.

MR. DICKS: Were tied up. We are gradually divesting of them. We had sold three of them the last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, you are probably right. I forget the names. I think three of them were divested last year, one is with the University, two are in private hands. I think we might have gotten about $1 million for one. The University is doing something with respect to a lease, or I think they are keeping expenses. In any event, in order to get them off our hands, we had to pay them out. There was $11,079,700 that we had to pay out under the leases. The proceeds from the sale of the three vessels was $3,850,000. That is why you see in the revised the gross figure, the figure in brackets underneath is Revenue realized, so that is for net of about $7,250,000, roughly. So, what can I tell you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair.

Under Pensions and Gratuities, Statutory, 2.1.01, page 9 in the Estimates. Now, this has happened several times here. Maybe the minister - and it is probably an adjustment thing but I won't have to ask it in other items if I get a satisfactory answer. For instance, sometimes last year in the Estimates there was a figure used - and I will use a specific one so we can reference it - under .02, Employee Benefits, last year - it is showing here in the Budget for 1995-'96, $52.12 million but actually, if you looked back at last years Estimates it is $51,708,000. Now that happens in a lot of cases, what was in the Estimates last year and what reappears this year. Now, I am assuming there could be adjustments in or out into other areas but in instances they were, I have not been able to track where they were, and I am not sure, so why would discrepancy be in what we saw in the Estimates last year and what they are telling us the Estimates were last year? It is not the same in many instances.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition's comment, what has happened is that Treasury Board, in going through the Estimates, has tried to reconcile the amount that was allocated last year by departments to the new structures. For example, last year we had fourteen departments and I believe we now have sixteen. What has happened is that some of these amounts have transferred between sub-heads to more accurately reflect what the actual cost was. So, for example, the Department of Development and Rural Renewal did not exist last year. So what Treasury Board tried to do, where employees have been transferred, for example, or now are transferred, they have moved those amounts over. Now, I did ask the department to provide me with a specific answer to these questions. The only thing I would say is that it might be difficult in parts related but I will attempt to do so. Essentially, what it is though, is where in the 1996 Estimates it says that the 1995 estimate was a certain amount and it differs from the amount in the 1995 Estimate book, that is a reflection of where the department has readjusted the estimate to take into account the realignment of responsibilities; that is the answer. In each specific case I could probably give you the detail as to what was moved in or out.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, I have tracked those down in many instances where there were now sixteen departments technically as opposed to fourteen ministries, but I don't see how this would affect this item, because contribution to pension funds are not broken down by department anyway, they are a total. So it would not apply in this case, even though I have tracked it in other cases, and I will make reference to some of these as I get to them. But pensions is not broken down by department, it is strictly under the Consolidated Fund Services, and I couldn't see why it would be in this instance. I could understand in other instances. Does the minister have an explanation why that might be the case here?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the hon. member said that the estimate for last year was $51,700,000 and-some-odd I believe, was that the correct figure -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: - $708, I don't know why that would be. I can detail for the hon. member what the actual expenses were and what they are in the current years Estimates. Why that should vary, I agree with him, because the amount should be the same. This is a central entry for the Consolidated Fund Services but if you will allow me the liberty I will check on that and get you the explanation for it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, there is no need. I am not really looking for specifics because I know the nature of the pension fund and what is involved. It is just that in this item I couldn't see it and the minister said he would get it, I appreciate that.

Under the next one, Ex-Gratia and Other Payments, the large increase there, I would assume, is because of a lay-off in the number of positions now. There is going to have to be a fair number of settlements, retirements and pay-outs in this area and that probably is stemming maybe solely from the increased numbers of people whose services are being terminated. Would that be basically correct in 2.1.02, Employee Benefits? I don't know if there is any other extraordinary thing besides the termination of employees in your estimate of what the cost is going to be by the time the terminations and all that occur.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: We have allowed $15 million as a rough estimate of the severance cost, that is the main difference there. We have actually budgeted $15,033,000. Last year we had budgeted $90,300, so essentially, $15 million being the difference in severance cost.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We will move along quickly now to Executive Council. It gets more interesting when we get into the Executive Council. Consolidated Fund Services can be kind of boring, I say to the minister.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Are we ready to pass the heads on Consolidated Fund Services before we get to Executive Council?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, you can move with the motion on this.

On motion, subhead 1.2.01 carried.

On motion, subhead 1.3.01 carried.

On motion, subhead 2.1.02 carried.

On motion, total carried.

On motion, Consolidated Fund Services, total heads carried.

CHAIR: Executive Council.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. DICKS: I wonder if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SULLIVAN: You want to introduce it?

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: To tell us about protocol, is it?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Just for the purpose of explanation, I will try to do this. It took me three, four or five passes at it to figure out what we had done.

In the Interim Supply Bill, you may recall, we approved a funding allocation of $27,405,000 as a total for the whole Executive Council. I will try to follow this through. It was, let's say, $27.5 million roughly, $27,405,600. That amount, and you will recall I said at the time, included funding of $20 million for the Economic Renewal Agreement; we had budgeted that. The reason we did that at the time was we did not know how those funds would be allocated among the departments, so we stuck it all in Executive Council because we wanted to be able to get some of those projects moving if any had been approved before the main Budget went through; however, what we have done is we now have a clear idea, having gone through the Budget process, so we have allocated those monies to the individual departments. So what we are taking out is $22,685,000. Of that total, I should say, $450,000 remains in Executive Council; $2,396,000 in Fisheries and Aquaculture; $3 million even in Forest Resources and Agrifoods; $7,445,000 into Industry, Trade and Technology; $6,814,000 in Tourism, Culture and Recreation; and $2,580,000 in Education, for a total of $22,685,000.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) education.

MR. DICKS: Education was $2,580,000.

If we go back, when we voted that $27,405,600, that included three months of the normal funding for Executive Council. The total amount we need for Executive Council is $21,291,900; however, in the Interim Supply Bill we approved $27,405,600. In other words, in Interim Supply, we approved $6,113,700 more than we need. So, in doing the Estimates, the advice of the Clerk, which I always accept, is that we should vote a negative $6,113,700 in order to put the Estimates at the right level. So, just to round off the figures, in Interim Supply we voted $27 million in order to put this funding in there for the renewal program. That money is now allocated in other departments. So in order to adjust the figures, we had to vote a negative $6 million, in other words, take money away from the Interim Supply amount in order to get it down to the $21,291,900 we actually need.

So, when it comes to voting the estimates - and I know you want to speak to the estimates - the actual amount to be voted will be not a positive amount but a negative amount to readjust down from $27 million to the $21 million we need.

I have an explanation of this, which I found a little unclear in parts, but I will certainly photocopy it and make it available to the hon. Leader or the Opposition, if he has any questions on it. Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Determinations are now made basically on that roughly $20 million. We are talking about Economic Renewal, the $100 million, of $20 million this year. For instance, the $3 million would be the forestry centre under Forestry and Agrifoods, and the other amounts will be on aquaculture developments, etc., ITT, in line with the three lines in which the agreement was intended to be expended. There are allocations made for that full amount within those specific departments now.

I went through and totalled them up there, and they come to approximately that amount. So I assume it is all being allocated. There is still none left really in Executive Council, as such. Is there still some to be expended? When we get to that item, I will ask that because I made a little note as I went through it. So when I get to that I will address that.

Overall, if we look here at the Lieutenant Governor's Establishment, we see an increase, of course, from $486,400 there under the Establishment, to $757,300. Protocol now has been moved from Intergovernmental Affairs to under the Lieutenant Governor's Establishment. What was the minister's rationale now to move that out of Intergovernmental Affairs? Because that accounts for the increase in expenditure under the Lieutenant Governor's Establishment.

MR. DICKS: The rationale for that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: I believe the rationale for that - and this is a general executive decision of government, not one specifically of this ministry - is that most of the protocol involves the Lieutenant Governor and his Establishment. We thought that it is more appropriate that it not be in the Executive Council, but that it be within that area of expenditure of the government. We thought it would more clearly show there within that heading. I guess that is the essential answer.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: So, any other protocol costs now, other than protocol dealing with the Lieutenant Governor; is there any provision now? I don't see any other provision for protocol now.

MR. DICKS: Not that I am aware of, unless there are small amounts lying around somewhere. The essence of this was to consolidate it all under the general, I suppose, formal elements of government, the Lieutenant Governor being somewhat separate from the general running of government, it being the Crown, representing that and protocol dealing with other heads of state, Ambassadors and so forth. It made some sense to us to realign that function with the general head of state function that the Lieutenant Governor represents in the Province.

Other than that, if there is any other protocol amount, I don't know that there would be other than there might be certain amounts budgeted in departments for anticipated entertainment of dignitaries or officials' receptions that might be hosted. But that aside, virtually all the monies would now be allocated in this vote.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would assume there are other protocol costs, other than the Lieutenant Government. For instance, if other premiers of provinces or other significant dignitaries come to this Province, there are protocol costs that are not directly attached to the Lieutenant Governor's Establishment, and they are now not being reflected and it has been all moved under that heading.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Just in response to that, I thought I had made myself clear on the point. Under 1.1.03, subsection 06, there is an amount in there for $152,700 for Purchased Services. That would include the formal entertaining the government does. Don't forget now, this overlaps into next year which is the 500th. Anniversary Celebrations. So this is the amount that is allocated to be spent by the Director of Protocol on behalf of government and so on, just to run the visits of foreign dignitaries and so forth.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair.

The point I am making is still under the Lieutenant Governor's Establishment and not under Intergovernmental Affairs where it used to be. The reason for the increase then, I gather - I had a question on that and I think the minister answered it - the reason for the increase from $131,500 last year up to $152,700 is because in 1997 there may be increased cost of protocol as it might relate to our 500th Anniversary. Would that be the reason for an increase of $20 some thousand, or probably a 15 per cent increase? Would that be the sole reason?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you.

Yes, as far as I know, but I would point out that last $212,700 was budgeted and only $131,500 was approved. It would be my surmise, without having the exact details of every particular reception, that the amount is up by that amount from that actually spent this year, because next year we are going to have a lot more people from foreign states visiting the Province and it is going to be necessary for the Province to incur reasonable cost in insuring that the visitors are accommodated, looked after, and all the rest of it. Yes, in answer, that I expect is the difference, although I cannot tell him per event how much it is; but I am sure that maybe floating around if you wish it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair.

I would assume too, that that is probably under .03 there under Protocol. Transportation and Communication might be given as a similar reason I would assume, rather than the minister rising again. That might be similar, where you budgeted $24,700, spent $13,600 and back up to $32,200. It might be because of increased involvement pertaining to a more active year. That seems to be the same conclusion we can draw there, I guess.

Under the Premier's Office, an interesting one, under salaries there - in the salary details book it is broken down into two. It is listed there as Premier, $54,943. Would that include or exclude what was instituted as a $20,000 entertainment allowance that came in with the previous premier, Wells? Is that included in that $54,943 for the Premier's salary, or is that his salary exclusive of that?

MR. DICKS: No, that's the Premier's salary in addition to that as a member of the House. The hon. Leader of the Opposition and Cabinet ministers receive approximately $39,000 and the Premier receives about $15,000 more than the more plebeian members of the House and therefore his salary unit per se is $54,000.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: So the Premier's salary rounded off is roughly $55,000, roughly $15,000 more than a minister. Normally, he would be entitled to $40,000 as a minister, so it is basically only an extra $15,000 as Premier. I guess $15,000 is probably worth the aggravation, I say to the minister.

MR. DICKS: Well, I do not know if it is. There is an awful lot of aggravation.

MR. SULLIVAN: We certainly hope to make him earn that extra $15,000, I say to the minister.

MR. DICKS: You are certainly doing your best.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Finance came to the conclusion that it was not worth the aggravation back in December anyway.

MR. SULLIVAN: Before I forget, that extra $20,000, where would that be?

MR. DICKS: That is the Allowances and Assistance, 2.1.01 (09)

MR. SULLIVAN: If we look at Executive Support 2.1.02, there was an increase in the Budget amount last year of about $137,000, more spent than budgeted last year. Would there be any unusual circumstance that necessitated that expenditure? That is under Salaries, 2.1.02. Rather than having to get up on a specific point, I will just ask a couple of more questions on the next section and then you could deal with those.

Also, under Administration we had $12,000 under Supplies, (04), and Purchased Services, $18,800 and it went up to $28,500. There was a doubling on Supplies and there was about a 60 per cent increase in Purchased Services. Maybe the minister could indicate why those three were significantly increased over the budgeted amount?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you.

I believe the first question was on Salaries. Originally, $637,900 was provided and $774,200 was spent. I am just looking at the cost here. There is an actual reduction in the current year in salaries by $97,400. I am looking at the details here to determine why that revised budget was up by that amount and frankly, I don't see the explanation for it here. I don't know if that was additional people or if that may have included anything else that was paid. I know that the Premier reduced his staff last year but I would have thought that was reflected in the vote. I will have to advise the hon. member on that because I don't see an explanation of it here.

On the Supplies and Purchased Services, I don't know what the revised details for last year include. These figures come to us from the various departments as to what is spent.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, so the minister, I guess, will undertake to find out why Administration was increased. I understand the minister indicated in .04, Supplies, where it was doubled and Purchased Services is up 60 per cent. He will probably undertake to see if there was any extraordinary reason for that?

MR. DICKS: Yes, that is 04 and 06.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

Under Cabinet Secretariat, Ministerial Support, once again it seems like there has been a grouping here. When I compared last year's estimates, it seemed like under Ministerial Support here that includes the President of the Executive Council from last year's estimates, the Government House Leader and Resource and Social Policy. These three seem to be grouped this year under the heading of Ministerial Support, so the totals add up. There was a separate allocation for the Government House Leader, where he wasn't Minister of Justice for the full year; he was retained there with a separate allocation in the Budget. Those three, I would just say again - I would like to get a confirmation, if, under Ministerial Support, the President of Executive Council in last year's estimates, the Government House Leader, and Resource and Social Policies, if the three of those subheads there add up to Ministerial Support. They are not there in this year's so I am assuming they were all grouped in there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: I should just explain to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that I have the explanations for the current year's estimates and what they contain; I don't have a lot of background on what the amounts were for last year and I will undertake to provide that information. The information they prepared doesn't include all the details about previous years. If I understand the hon. member's question in relation to 2.2.01, his question is whether or not that is the allocation made for the former Government House Leader; is that his question?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. DICKS: I will find that out for you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair.

If you look at 95/96, Salaries and Employee Benefits are there but they are not budgeted this year. There is no allocation needed because the Government House Leader does not have a separate allocation this year, and that is probably why.

MR. DICKS: I think that is it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Also, under -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would say the Government House Leader is grossly overpaid, I say to the minister. I think we should remove that allocation.

Looking at last year's estimates, it seems as if under Executive Support, that we look at here, 2.2.02, when you look back at last year's Cabinet Office, there was a heading Cabinet Office and Cabinet Secretariat; last year. They are all grouped together under Executive Support now, and when you look at the figures that were there for last year, they also coincide. I wonder if the minister - he does not have to rise in his place, he can nod if he thinks that or if he wanted to, just check it out. It seems like last year's estimates of Cabinet Secretariat and Cabinet Office are now under this heading of Executive Support. The numbers seems to jibe to tell us that, and it is not listed separately anywhere else; so I am assuming that is where it is.

MR. DICKS: What I should say is that this Cabinet Secretariat, the Executive Support here basically includes all the employees, the Clerk of the Council, the Assistant Secretaries and most of the people who were there last year. What has happened here, in part, is the economic group, Economics and Statistics, Bev Carter's group, which does the analysis of government GDP and our economic analyses, has been moved to the Department of Finance and there are at least two or three positions here - two for certain - that have been transferred, I believe, to the Department of Finance, that being Bev Carter and her secretary.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair. Also, under Executive Support - I will put these three in one, so the minister, when he rises, won't have to address all of these - under .01 Salaries, there is a reasonable increase from last year's expenditure. We are looking at about $66,000 extra there in Salaries. Under .03, Transportation and Communications, there is a significant increase there also from $50,000 to $81,000. Under Property, Furnishings and Equipment and Grants and Subsidies, they are all up substantially, dollar-wise and percentage-wise there; they are not just little minor items. If the minister could elaborate on those that show a significant increase from last years expenditures.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Chair.

I will point out, first of all, that the hon. member is referring to increases over the actual amount spent as opposed to budget matters or budgeted amounts. So Salaries, in effect, show a decrease. Transportation and Communications has been budgeted at roughly the same amount although it is more than was actually spent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, I have the same concern. Just because it is budgeted does not necessarily mean we expect it to be spent and it may vary from year to year. The only thing is, there are an awful lot of people in Executive Council who do some fairly high level analyses and so on, on behalf of government. These are your four assistant secretaries to Cabinet, there are departmental program coordinators and so on. These people do a lot of the negotiations on behalf of government with federal officials. I think it is a prudent amount. You might argue for less but the problem is, I think that figure would be up and down from year to year; $80,000 is the traditional amount that has been budgeted. The fact that less was spent reflects the fact that the secretariat is reasonably responsible in the manner that it approaches it's budget items.

The other items were the Property, Furnishings and Equipment, I believe was one, and Purchased Services was another. Purchased Services again is budgeted at $77,400, down from $82,000 that was budgeted; only $35,000 was spent. Property, Furnishings and Equipment is up substantially from $18,000 budgeted, $15,000 spent to $42,000. I agree, that strikes me as a little high considering what was spent there and most of the other government departments have constricted their spending as well. Why that would be higher in this case, I don't know but I am of the view that if one needs a desk there should be enough desks around so that you should not buy them. We should be able to find you one. So that does seem a little high, I agree.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair. As I said, we only needed so much last year. I don't thing we are going to have more staff around this year from what I heard on Budget Day. There are going to be empty desks and there is going to be less transportation and communication or less people to be transported, and maybe less things to be communicated; I am not sure. There are significant changes and if we did not need it last year, whether it was budgeted or it wasn't, why would we need it this year? It is fairly substantial when you look at it, a 62 per cent increase in Transportation and Communications, a $66,000 increase in salary in this area and a substantial increase to Grants and Subsidies and Property, Furnishings and Equipment. We are going to spend another $27,000 on property and furnishings over what we spent last year when we only needed $15,000. That is a fair amount of money in a time of fiscal restraint. It is something maybe the minister could look at. I don't know if it is called Budget fat or whatever it is but I don't think we need any Budget fat, I say to the minister.

MR. DICKS: That one slipped through.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well maybe we won't need to borrow that $14.8 million we talked about; hopefully we won't.

We will move on to the next area, Office of the Executive Council. I just want to ask the minister another question first, before we look at specifics. Where in the Estimates is the Classification Appeal Board that was referred to last year? I could not find that there this year, it is not even mentioned. Is there going to be a Classification Appeal Board now? Are we are going to have so few in there now we don't need to appeal any classifications or what is the response?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Chair.

Hopefully the Classification Appeal Board will be unnecessary, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests. I think we will come to that. I believe it is in Treasury Board Estimates, under Classification and Pay. I should say that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Okay, but the Classification Appeal Board does not cost the government a lot of money in the sense that the people who sit on that Classification Appeal Board are senior officials of the government, for the most part deputy ministers; in fact, they may all be deputy ministers. It has been some time since I appeared before them; on behalf of a constituent at one point. I don't know if they would have much, if any, allocation, but I will look for it in the Estimates and find it for the hon. gentleman. It is not a big budget item in government, and it is probably buried in here some place.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair.

Last year it was $120,000. Last year it was listed in 2.2.04. When you look at Classification and Pay, while the minister mentioned it, that is a different category. In fact, that is being cut by $127,000 this year, too, on top of that, so that area has $127,000 less.

The only way we would not need that, I guess, is if we had nobody left in here, if it was the intention to lay everybody off so we wouldn't have to be appealing classifications. I am sure the minister will come back with an answer as to why it is eliminated, because we do need, I guess, some appeal board or mechanism to look impartially on classifications there, rather than be done by - I know there is an impartiality certainly that exists, and I am sure people in positions are going to view that appropriately, but still certainly to eliminate that, I have not seen any rationale, or I haven't been provided with any. I look forward to the minister getting back on that item, if he could let me know on that particular one.

Social Policy Analysis, 2.2.04, there is a big increase again in Salaries, from $65,000 to $142,500; and under Transportation and Communications from $3,600 to $12,000. Why would we have, in Social Policy Analysis, an increase from $65,000 up to $142,500, which is a very substantial increase in that area?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: There is a permanent salary position there, and two contractual positions. If my memory serves me correctly, this has to do with the Strategic Social Plan that my colleague, the Minister of Social Services, will shortly be putting forth for public consultation. The extra allocation, I believe, relates to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: For Strategic Social Plan, $400,000, okay; two contractual positions, yes.

I think that may be part of the explanation. I know that it is one salary cost for one permanent position and two contractual positions there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, that is in 2.2.06, the Strategic Social Plan is, so I don't think that would be the explanation.

MR. DICKS: Okay, I misunderstood.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is in another section. That is the appointment that we heard so much about, but I am not referring to that. I am wondering where the other $70,000 is, over a doubling.

I will certainly give the minister a minute if he has it there. If not, he could certainly get back to me on this. I am sure we will be discussing these Estimates for some time; it won't end today. Maybe the minister, by tomorrow, might be able to get that.

MR. DICKS: I will have that for you.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, thank you.

MR. DICKS: I should say that I know what it is. I suspect what it is is that we have added two contractual positions there. What exactly they are doing I am not entirely certain, but I will find out.

MR. SULLIVAN: Transportation and communication has increased too. Maybe he can undertake, in those extra salaries, if there is any extensive travel planned on those areas in the Social Policy Analysis now. This is not basically specific to the Strategic Social Plan. He might be able to indicate that also.

CHAIR: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the Strategic Social Plan, that extra allocation there would be the one that we talked about, I think, with the appointment of the former minister, would that be the sole reason for the salary increase, or are there other salaries connected with that, in 2.2.06.01, Salaries? Or, are there other amounts besides that? I understood that was a three-month basis at so much, which would not add up to near that amount of money, so there must be other salaries built in with that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes. The Executive Secretary there, Mr. Bob Jenkins, the former Clerk of the Council, is in there at $97,000. Patricia Cowan, is in there and Secretary, Mary Corcoran, so there are three individuals there.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: If they are into the salary allocation, what would be in the $100,000 Professional Services, I ask the Minister? Would that be other salaries or contracts in that $100,000, because, that is a significant increase, too? We are looking at an increase here of about $160,000. In this item alone, we are looking at $230,000 extra, from $171 to $400,000 in the Strategic Social Plan. Does the minister have a breakdown of what specifically is included here, under Professional Services in particular?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would rather not get into details of it because the announcement on the exact details of this would be made by my colleague, the Minister of Social Services shortly. It is an amount that is provided for consulting services that may arise during the current fiscal year. As to how it will be spent and in what manner, I think it would be better left for a detailed announcement by the minister. But, as I say, before these amounts are spent they have to be justified and so on, and it is an amount that we allocated based on the need to have public input into the Strategic Social Plan and my colleague has formulated the budget which should be shortly approved and she will be making the announcement in the not-too-distant future. It is essentially for consulting services and arranging consultations and so on.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So I gather then, just to make sure I am clear, I say to the minister. The minister has mentioned, Ms Cowan, Mr. Jenkins and the Secretary are in Salaries not in Professional Services. Would that be accurate?

MR. DICKS: Exactly.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

Strategic Economic Initiatives, there was budgeted last year, $1.579 million but they were appropriated out to various departments, I guess, and afterwards they were parked there, basically during the year, as I said. So this year, the government does not have any Strategic Economic Initiatives, would that be a very fair conclusion to draw, that there is -

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It wouldn't be a very fair one, it would be a very humorous one. The department's point of view or the Secretary's point of view was that it should not be centralized in Cabinet Secretariat that the Economic Initiatives of the government should be in the various departments. And as you said earlier, a part of the government's Strategic Economic Plan is being realized through the Economic Renewal Agreement, so those amounts are being spent in the departments as opposed in a central government agency.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Advisory Council on the Economy, 2.2.09 - we have gone from $343,500 down to $154,800 and also, if I remember correctly, we have combined the Round Table on the Environment also with Science and Technology Council, I think all three have now been rolled into one, and still we have reduced it to $155 from $343. I know it is very important, and this is an area I believe strongly in, and I say to the minister, we need as much advice independently outside our own government circles, too, on the economy. Because the impacts that it may have - and I think there are people in the business community and in the community at large (inaudible) advice. So, does the minister anticipate, because of those three rolled into one, a drastic reduction that is not significant - depending on what input we have been getting. Maybe the minister feels the advice has been so bad and has sent government on a downward spiral that he doesn't want any more advice. But, I am just wondering if he has any views on what impact this might have, and has it been discussed at length or has there been a very quick decision there? Because it is vital to have fair input from society at large out there, especially on issues that government, working in a more bureaucratic sense, may not have sensitivities to in the more appropriate functioning of the economy. So I would certainly like to hear the minister's thoughts on that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the point of advice to government from third parties, particularly those in the business community and those engaged in economic activity, I agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that that is very important. The question is, for us, the proper way for government to receive that and the cost of procuring it. What was felt was that we had a number of different agencies that were involved in offering advice to government and one was on the environment.

I believe Round Table had a limited time frame anyway and was due to report shortly in this fiscal year, maybe by the end of June or my colleague might say the end of March, but they were due to complete their work fairly shortly. The other two economic groups, one being the Science Council and the Council on the Economy, it was thought those could be brought together and productive work done rather than have them operate separately. If they operated together they could do so more efficiently and put that advice in a more sound - I would not say in a more sound economic context, but in a more succinct economic context for the Province. So, while we value the activity and certainly look forward to it continuing, we believe that it could be done in a more expeditious, efficient, and less costly manner.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I hope the results will certainly reflect those efficiencies and hopefully that appropriate advice is not going to be circumvented now. That, I think, is important. I am sure we will all be the judge of that in due course.

With reference to the President of Treasury Board. Last year there was a fair increase in expenditure under salaries there as opposed what was budgeted there, a fairly significant amount, from $162,600 up to $264,400. I consider that a fairly large increase even though this year we are back to $123,700. Would there be any extraordinary circumstance that would necessitate that radical change there in that particular item?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, when I took over as the President of Treasury Board, the previous minister had four people who worked for him. There was an executive assistant and three secretaries. There is quite a volume of paper that flows through the department, as you can appreciate. Treasury Board has an awful lot of business that it enacts on behalf of government, and reviews, and the same thing with Finance, so essentially what happened was when the two ministers were brought together there had been six people. There were two executive assistants, two political secretaries, and two departmental secretaries. Frankly, the position is now that I have half that number. I have one executive assistant, one political secretary and one departmental secretary. Frankly, it is very taxing on the people who are in my office to handle the work flow required, so I am attempting to struggle through with that level of support.

Having said that, last year why it would have gone up by that amount of money I cannot say with certainty, except to say that there were people there who completed their service with government, one was a minister and the other two were his secretaries, so I expect that amount would reflect severance. I apologize to the hon. member because I came prepared to deal with the amounts allocated in the current year's estimates and I don't have all the detail on every cent that was spent by departments in previous years, but if you wish I can give you a breakdown.

I suspect that the larger part of that would certainly be severance pay to at least three employees in the department. I know that, in my case, as you can see, there is one salary unit taken out there as it is. I will find out the details as to why that was at $264,400 instead of $162,600.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was not questioning the lower one this year, I say to the minister. With severance, I would assume that should be under ex-gratia and other payments - non-statutory in the consolidated fund. I cannot see that being applied to specific salary base, because the $15 million you allowed this year, I don't think that is appropriated to any salaries, to my knowledge. It is under Consolidated Fund Services, ex-gratia. Would that not be correct? That should not be the reason for that. There could be certainly another very acceptable reason and the minister said he would check on it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: That is what we are doing in the current fiscal year. It may be and I know that, for example, when I was Speaker we had a difficulty with severance because it often had to be in our department. We had to find it in our salary vote. I think this year we have put a general amount into the Central Consolidated Fund Estimates of government because we didn't know what the net impacts would be in the department. So we have chosen to budget it this way. It may be, and I don't say it with certainty, but my recollection is that severance previously had to be absorbed by the departments, which is the reason some of the salary votes have increased. So that looks to be the explanation, because I know how many people worked in the minister's office. He had one more employee than I did, which seems to be accounting for the salary vote. Why that was $100,000 more, I don't know, but I suspect that the severance in the last fiscal year was by and large allocated in the various departmental votes, not in a centralized fund such as Consolidated Revenue Services, but I will check and advise you further.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Under Executive Support, 2.3.03, appropriations provide for senior level advice on financial personnel and administrative functions of government. Certainly, there is a fair reduction from $538,000 to $328,000 very significant. I am not complaining about reductions, I say to the minister, but I am concerned in areas getting appropriate financial advice to government because we need to be looking at long-term decisions, ensuring that we make the right decisions that we have the right advice on - I know it is not specifically under this heading but overall there is a general concept we need appropriate advice on our projections and we need appropriate advice on financial matters, regardless of what it may be, whether it is in financing, whether it is dealing with a foreign currency, whether it is domestic, whatever the advice overall, not `I know it all.' There are areas applied to other sections on that and there is personnel under other sub-headings there but in this particular one, is there any particular concern that the minister might have that we might be short-changed on appropriate advice on financial matters, because the results are significant there, I say to the minister, in the decrease?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: The Treasury Board Secretariat does not do the detailed financial work such as determining bond issues, rates of investment, things like that, that is all done in finance. The reason the budget is substantially lower this year was that we have eliminated an assistant deputy minister position. When I went to Treasury Board we had a secretary to Treasury Board who remains, Mr. Peter Kennedy, and we had three assistant deputy ministers. I felt that was unnecessary and we realized the responsibilities within the department so that we now have two ADMs instead of three. I believe that we can function in that fashion. As with anything, I would appreciate at times having a greater number of people to carry the work, but we are struggling through, as I say. So what that reflects is one less ADM position and one less secretarial position in my department.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

They were well paid, I must say, a $200,000 difference. They were well paid, an ADM and a secretary. There is still $100,000 there somewhere. I am sure the minister can find another $100,000 because there was another ADM you lost along the way probably and some other staff.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The amount for the ADM was $81,621, the amount for the secretary was $28,554. So there are a few dollars more in there somewhere.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: That's right, yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Under Budgeting, 2.3.05 - now that's another area, too, I will just bring it to the minister's attention. He doesn't have to respond to this. But that is another instance under .01 Salaries - last years estimates showed $559,300 and this year when we see it reappear here from last years budget it is $537,100. And that could be moved somewhere else on a salary basis because of a shift in numbers of departments. It might be allowed somewhere else but there is a difference of $22,200. In last year's estimates that is here, which is a fair amount, last years estimates showed $559,300 and this one is showing that there was $537,100. Okay, there is no need to respond. We dealt with the principle of that area and I am sure the minister, when he answers the general question on it -

Under Budgeting, in Purchased Services there has been a fair increase, certainly percentage-wise. Even from the budgeted amount last year there is a significant amount increased, probably 55 per cent from what was budgeted last year and there is about a 200 per cent increase from what was actually spent last year under Purchased Services. Does the minister have a reason why they are going to need extra in this specific area? Is there any particular aspect of budgeting that needs to be addressed this year that was not addressed last year? And why would our expenditure last year be down to that level and this year more is going to be required?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Yes, that is the cost of printing the annual Budget, $34,500.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: So it cost $34,500 to print it, we will say, this year, and $11,000 last year? I guess - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It was a lean Budget. I can tell the minister, it was a very, very lean Budget this year, a lot of cuts, and they spent three times as much money trying to print it. Why would there be such a difference in printing it last year as compared to this year? That is a very significant amount, from $11,000 to $34,500.

MR. DICKS: I will check on that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

MR. DICKS: I should just say this; the budgeted amount is not necessarily the amount that was actually spent. That is the amount they budgeted for the Budget preparation, but I will check and see because it is a higher estimate than we had last year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is probably that glossy, expensive Economy that got published this year. They decided to go with something that is a lot more attractive and more -

MR. DICKS: We had the same glossy, attractive one last year.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you? Well, they looked a lot paler. The ones I saw had the old red covers on them, the ones I got before, and the glossy, fancy diagrams in it this year.

MR. DICKS: It is all the blue in them this year that cost so much money.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I can tell you, it is showing up red here, I say to the minister. It isn't blue there; it is an extra $24,500 in red, not in blue. The Economy this year looks a lot different.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: As the electorate has determined, it is always more expensive when you choose blue.

MR. SULLIVAN: In The Economy, I would say it is the expensive printing this year, and the glossy appearance. I think the minister should go back to a plain, old, simple print for $11,000, rather than his fancy, glossy -

On the average amount of social assistance that would feed three more families, I say to the minister, the extra cost of printing the Budget this year over last year. That is expensive to have it printed. Maybe the minister could look at investigating that and ensuring why we were so extravagant, and hopefully avoid it next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are going to appoint a Royal Commission to find out why.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, if the minister would just make that decision is all I am asking, if the minister could just make the decision that we would have a nice, simple language Budget next year.

Under 2.3.06, Collective Bargaining, I understand there is a fair amount of collective bargaining to be done. Are there twenty-two contracts up for renewal this year, in that ball park, I say to the minister? The minister has decided to reduce the amount needed to negotiate those, from $395,000 down to $334,000. While I am commenting on that, too, last year, by the way, your Estimates had a discrepancy there, too. Your last year Estimates showed $334,000 budgeted, and this year it shows $413,900. That is a fair difference again, the same thing we talked about earlier.

MR. DICKS: The amount last year was -

MR. SULLIVAN: The amount last year was $334,000, and when it was reprinted this year it is showing $413,900.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: I wonder if we brought someone in from the Department of Education, maybe, in some of the negotiations over there? That may be part of it.

The overall reduction just reflects the extent to which I hold the whip hand over my staff and get good production out of them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am just flipping through Education; I don't see any sections. I didn't go through in detail to see those, but I don't see anything in the past, and I don't think there has been any collective bargaining allocated under Education before. I think it has strictly been done -

MR. DICKS: The higher figure may reflect something that was transferred in there, but I will check on that and get back to the hon. member.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, thank you.

Also, here in Collective Bargaining, if you look at the total of over $600,000 down to $418,000, when there are a lot of contracts coming up, an estimated twenty-some contracts, there is a reduction in Professional Services from $173,000 down to $48,900, and in Salaries there is a reduction; is this realistic? I am certainly pleased to see low figures but is it a real reflection of what we might expect? Would there be some reason why we should have such a drastic reduction? It is drastic when you go from $173,000 down to $48,000; we are down to one-quarter almost. Is there some reason why you would expect to have a lower expenditure here in this area when there are more contracts up for renewal?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: We certainly insist that the people who work for us try to do it in a more efficient manner. Having said that we will be engaged in a lot of collective bargaining, I expect, and it is hypothetical on my part, that we will probably be doing a lot less arbitration this year. I think the concentration will be on doing this. What the Professional Services reflects is our share of the cost of negotiation, conciliation, interest and rights arbitration board hearings. So I would surmise that the expectation of the department is that we will spend a lot less in that area this year because of the nature of collective bargaining.

Very often what happens when you negotiate agreements where you are negotiating language, you will often resolve a lot of pending cases because cases depend on the contractual language. It may be that quite a number of the cases we have pending are ones that we intend to resolve at the bargaining table by dealing with the language under which the grievances were filed. Frankly, I say that is supposition on my part, but I suspect it is fairly well grounded.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair.

There is also another explanation probably. It could be that maybe there is not going to be as much emphasis on collective bargaining. We might do it by a legislation process and then we would not need to be doing this.

MR. DICKS: Quite the opposite.

MR. SULLIVAN: I haven't heard a rationale explanation as to why we are going to have extra bargaining going on and we are going to have a lot less money expended in that area. Maybe we will -

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible) a lot of rational explanations (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, anyway we will both leave it to our own interpretations on that. I am sure we will differ.

Classification and Pay: this one I just touched on a little earlier. That is 2.3.08. Last year, once again I say to the minister, if you look at Salaries, it is showing under budgeted '95-96, that last year's budget was $679,700, but when you look back to last year's estimates and look at it, it was $760,300 which is about $80,000 more we are showing in last year's estimates.

MR. DICKS: $760,000.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it was $760,300.

Overall, under Classification and Pay, we are down from $723,000 to $586,500, probably because there has not been so much movement and our public service has probably been shrinking and so on, so I would assume we are dealing with lower (inaudible) rates now of those scenarios. It might account for reduction in salaries and the need to use people in that capacity. It would be a logical explanation, whether it is accurate or not.

There is an increase in Transportation and Communications, almost double there. The rest of the items are not significant changes. Any particular minister, I am not sure - it is not a real heavy item anyway but still I just want to make note. There is a fair increase in Transportation and Communications when we have seen a reduction in the number of people. So there are less people in there, significantly less, and we have more money, almost double, for Transportation and Communications.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Well, what the hon. member says is misleading to someone who may be listening to this. I just merely wish to point out that the actual amount budgeted was $27,100, the actual amount spent was $13,500. So when you say the amount budgeted is excessive, it depends on whether or not you are comparing it with what was actually spent as opposed to what was actually budgeted. In effect, we have cut that budget by $5,000 or so.

Frankly, I say to the hon. member, I am not a big fan of a lot of unnecessary flicking around here and there. We have fax machines and so on but most of our communications and transportation budgets are fairly fixed because of the lease payments, telephone payments and things like this. So the fact that we budget a certain amount is to reflect what might occur during the year. At the beginning we have no idea; we try to pick a reasonable amount. We approve travel as necessary, which is why often the actual amount spent is less than that budgeted.

The only thing I am a little cognizant of is that I think you should budget a reasonable amount that you project to be necessary to do the job, and then you should very carefully monitor it. I think that is an example of responsible management in the department. On the other hand, I don't believe in unduly restricting managers, or other people in government, and the staff of government, by cutting down to actually what they spent last year, because then what you do is encourage them to spend whatever they get.

I think this is a fair way to do it. Those amounts won't be spent unless there are some necessary items of expenditure. As I say, many of our costs under this category are fixed. This includes our telephone payments, for example, our lease payments on various machinery and equipment at times.

As I say to the hon. member, he and I probably disagree. I think that is the way it should be done; you should allocate a reasonable amount, and you should make sure it is spent properly. In this case if I budgeted $13,500, it would probably be an instance where you would encourage people to spend up to the limit, and that is not what we want to do. People should make their case for expenditures based on anticipated need each year, and then we should carefully monitor it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair.

I guess, too, to make sure it is realistic and we are not going to be short, we would have to go back to previous years and see what the history was. I look back to the previous year, too, and what we actually spent in the previous fiscal year, prior to the $13,500 here, was $17,000 that was actually spent in the previous fiscal year. It is really up $5,000 more. We had a downward trend in this area now and it is back up above what we even spent two years ago. That is why I made note of it there. If it had to be up and down - I haven't gone right back; it wasn't a major expenditure item.

MR. DICKS: Just look at the next one. You will see we cut down on that one (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: I would just say to the hon. member that we make the best judgement depending on the nature of the activity, and in the next sub-category we have actually budgeted less than we budgeted and was actually spent last year.

It really is a matter of discretion, and I am sure if the hon. member checked with the department I think he would find that it is fairly efficiently run. It is not an area in which we do much, if any, travel anyway. It is all by authorization, and we are very careful that people travel prudently. We have always required them to get seat-sale tickets if they have to travel somewhere, but frankly in many cases it is necessary and it is a legitimate expense of administering the taxpayers' business.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair.

No, it is not one I am going to haggle with. It is not a life and death figure there, I say to the minister, so I will just move on.

Insurance Services: it looks like there might have been probably one increase in salary, one extra person, in that specific area. Management of Government Employees/Retirees - oh, this is a group insurance for employees and a retirees group insurance plan. Maybe we may have less employees and more retirees. I guess the numbers generally remain the same anyway. Is there any extra work needed, or we might have been understaffed in this area, where we had to add an extra person because of more activity recently? Might that be a reasonable explanation, because there is probably going to be a bit of activity in that area, I would say, over the next while?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: I am pleased to say that in this particular case I can give the hon. member a very detailed explanation on the salaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes. You really want all of this, do you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Okay.

The base budget for salaries, note number one, has been adjusted to reflect the following transfer of positions. What we have done is we have added in a person who transferred from Classification and Pay at $21,100. We have then taken out the transfer of the personnel policy analyst - oh, I am sorry, the strategic and... You were asking about insurance services.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, there are six people in this unit. I am disappointed. I thought you had asked me about the next one, because I had a very detailed explanation to share with you.

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair.

I am very sorry to disappoint the minister, and I might disappoint him again before we finish debate on Executive Council.

Salary details show six employees under Insurance Services, and it seems like there is an increase of one in that category. Maybe

the minister could find out why we need an extra one - is it because of all this induced activity by the government's Budget that is causing extra work among the retirees aspect to the Group Plan, I would assume, minister? Maybe that might be a logical explanation, I say to the minister. If he doesn't have it at his fingertips, I will just move on and I am sure I will get a chance to get back to that after he spends tonight researching a few answers.

The next item, I say to the minister, is on Strategic and Human Resource Policy, 2.3.10. There is a significant decrease in Salaries in this area. What would be the reason that there would be such a drastic decrease? I would assume, certainly layoffs, I guess, would be a logical explanation. Is this being directly positions that are declared redundant, I would assume, in that area?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: I must thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for this Opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

The two amounts, the former administration Budget $178,700 plus the former Personal Policy Budget $213,700 combined for a total of $392,400. One person was transferred in here from Classification and Pay, that added $21,100 to it, less two people transferred out. One person went to Collective Bargaining, $57,700 another opening door's position was transferred to the Public Service Commission, $25.600 for a net of $330,200; and then, we have deleted other positions, a manager of Human Resources position of $46,204, a Personnel Policy position of $44,811, a Word-processing Equipment Operator position at $22,185, a transfer of a senior personnel officer back to Classification and Pay at $59,300, and a transfer from operating to meet actual salary requirements of $22,000 for a net of $150,500 reductions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, I am -

AN HON. MEMBER: Any further (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is the one you were going to answer on the last section, I say to the minister, so I am glad you had the opportunity to -

MR. DICKS: Any further details as required I would certainly be pleased to present.

MR. SULLIVAN: That adds up to all the details, it adds up to the right number, I say to the minister, I can assure him, and I don't have any further questions on it - that explains it. But there are some lay-offs in the process, too, in this category, I gathered, in the positions.

Now, skip down to 2.3.12, Government Accounting; we went back to last year's estimates, that seems to incorporate two different areas from last year's estimates. We had Government Accounting in last year's estimates and also, Internal Audit has been rolled into this position, I think. I looked at the dollars that were allocated last year and put in. We do not have an internal audit, as such, it is under government accounting, so that is all under the one subhead this year. That is my understanding by comparing numbers, because they add up and they jibe when we take last year's and they add up to this years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your buddies did you in.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Education and Training?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, they did him in. They gave him all the bad news.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Education and Training loves bad news.

Under Information Technology Management, 2.3.13 (12) Information Technology, the $1,272,300. How much of that has been identified overall in that category?

MR. DICKS: I don't understand your question. IT you mean?

MR. SULLIVAN: Under IT there is $1,272,300, under 2.3.l3.12, Information Technology, $1,272,300 up from $125,000, a fair chunk of change difference. Where is that extra $1.1 million? Has most of it been allocated out yet or is it just sitting there to be identified?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In order to get a better handle on what government was doing in the IT work of government, we brought it all together in Treasury Board and attempted to consolidate it. We want to ensure that the equipment and the software we were purchasing reflect needs as opposed to wants, so what we have done is, we have taken that into central government and used it in this fashion because we though we would get better value for money. It is really for the development of information systems moreso than anything else. It is for industry research and advisory services on issues that relate to cost planning and budget of IT matters in government and consulting services have been budgeted for IT planning projects scheduled to be undertaken in two departments, and specialized IT training for government departments as well as other consulting services that may be required as part of the management of the NIS/IT services contract.

My recollection is that government has committed to NISL as part of the privatization, to spend approximately $17,500,000 on IT services every year. We want to ensure that we are getting good value for our money and that we don't exceed and spend any more than is absolutely necessary, so it is part of where we put the money in central government.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair.

Under French Language, 2.3.15, there are just a couple of areas of significant changes there. Last year in the Budget there was, under Salaries, $247,000. Only $114,000 was actually expended, and it is up to $159,100. Was there some initiative that the government planned that did not get implemented, and this year it is going to be? Or is there an extra emphasis on it this year?

Also, when the minister rises, Professional Services was only budgeted $3,000 and we spent $56,000, and we are budgeting $103,000. What would be the specific initiatives there to warrant those specific expenditures?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Chair.

I cannot say why the $247,000 was budgeted last year; I did not do the Budget last year. I do know that the government has brought in, as part of its service in encouraging people in the public service to become bilingual, we have set up around the Province various night courses and so on, and we have contracted with individuals to do it on a part-time basis, I believe. That was done since I have been in Cabinet. We have spent, actually, about $114,000 on that, and we expect that will increase this year.

You will notice the bottom line is that we recover a substantial amount of money from the federal government, and that particular program was done at virtually no cost to the provincial government.

The $103,000 for Professional Services are translation services. Why that has increased, I do not know. The only thing I could say is that unless we are hosting some major national meetings here this year, but I will check on that and see why translation services have increased.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chair.

So, we will probably get back around 70 per cent roughly federally, I guess.

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Probably a 70/30 basis, approximately, I think, under this program.

Under Executive Support, Intergovernmental Affairs now, that is the area where we moved out our protocol and we passed that on to the Lieutenant Governor to include a generous budget in this area. Transportation and Communications has increased, and there has been a 65 per cent, just looking at it at a quick glance there, increase in Purchased Services. Are there any specific reasons why they would necessitate - I know the previous year you had budgeted $76,000 and did not expend that. I know they are not big items, so when the minister rises again, if there is a significant reason for it, when he answers my next question he can address that, in those areas. If there is a significant reason or if it is just - they have been in line with budgeted amounts the previous year so they are not outlandish.

Social And Fiscal Policy, 2.4.02, under Salaries, there is a substantial increase there from $137,000 up to $232,000. Now there was a budget last year but not expended. Why would it necessitate budgeting that amount again if it wasn't needed last year? What did the government plan on doing that they did not do, that they may do this year to warrant that; if the minister could answer?

There is a tremendous increase in Transportation and Communications. It is almost over four-fold higher than last year. What would be the reason for those specific increases that are highly substantial?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Chair. Under Resource And Economic Policy, I will try to summarize this, there have been some substantial changes. First of all -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) the one before that.

MR. DICKS: I am sorry, okay. Social And Fiscal Policy; all I can tell the hon. member on this, and I don't have detailed notes as to what if any changes there would be on - I was following the wrong note here. As you noticed, the same amount is budgeted here. It is a salary cost of five permanent positions. I don't know why less was spent unless the positions were not filled during the year, but that has been the traditional level of funding. I would say that a lot of times these are kept vacant for various reasons. Whether or not the department will spend all the money or not, I am really unable to say.

Transportation and Communications again is down below what was actually budgeted; $58,000 was budgeted and only $10,000 was spent, we budgeted $45,000 as well. So what I would say to the hon. member on this particular item, is that the allocations are in line with the previous year's budget rather than the actual amount expended. What we do is we ask departments to find certain savings and leave it to them to determine where it might be appropriate to do so. In this case, Executive Council has made a case that they wish to continue the funding under this sub-head at the current level and we leave it to them, in their judgement, to determine how they should spend that money.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, all I would say on this, to the hon. member, is that normally what we do is we go to departments and ask them where they can achieve savings. In their view, they wanted to maintain this level of funding under this sub-head but I will see if there is a little more detail on that for the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I adjourn the debate.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report the estimates for Consolidated Fund Services, carried; and on the estimates of Legislature and Executive Council, to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn. Tomorrow, just for the sake of friends opposite, we will be back on this Order again, Order No. 2 of today's Order Paper, Committee of Supply and when that is done, we will move to Concurrence debate on Social Services Committees.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m.