May 1,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 40

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that

I rise at this time to bring to the attention of the House the fact that on

Friday of this week the Province of New Brunswick will honour the memory of the

former Premier of that Province, the late Senator Richard Hatfield, who died on

Friday past, just two and a half weeks after his 60th birthday. In fact, the

private family funeral, as I understand it, will be held in his home town of

Hartland in New Brunswick today.

Mr. Speaker, Senator Hatfield has had a long distinguished

career in the public life of the Province of New Brunswick and, indeed, the

nation of Canada. He was Premier of New Brunswick for seventeen years, as many

of us know, from 1970 to 1987. I think he will be remembered for many things,

his contribution to his Province, his contribution to the Country, but certainly

he will be remembered for being a colourful figure in Canadian history and

Canadian politics. I believe also that he will be long remembered as an

anglophone who broke through the linguistic solitudes in New Brunswick. He

helped build a more caring, tolerant province sensitive to the rights and

aspirations of it's citizens.

I think it is also fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that Richard

Hatfield believed passionately in Canada. He was proud of Canada's growing

significance among the nations of the world and believed that Canada could

demonstrate to the world that people of different cultures and languages could

work together to build a strong unified country and an influential country among

the nations of the world.

Another thing that should be noted, Mr. Speaker, is that

Richard Hatfield was not a partisan when it came to patriotism. He supported

former Prime Minister Trudeau in his successful efforts to repatriate the

Constitution of Canada, and he supported the current Prime Minister in his

efforts to gain Quebec's formal consent to the Constitution. Mr. Hatfield,

during his seventeen years as Premier, made decisions which were essential to

the development of Atlantic Canada during the time when Newfoundland at first

had been going through the formative years as a Province of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, certainly on behalf of our caucus, I would like

to ask this House to extend its sympathies to the Hatfield family, and I would

say to the House on behalf of our caucus I will be attending the memorial

service that will be held in Fredericton, New Brunswick for Senator Hatfield on

Friday.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, of course I would endorse the

House extending its condolences to the Hatfield family. I should, however,

advise the House that I have already written to the Hatfield family on behalf of

the people of the Province to extend our condolences, and I have written to the

Premier of New Brunswick to officially extend condolences to the Government and

the people of New Brunswick. I suppose it may also add something if the House

sends a specific resolution, so I have no objection to supporting that proposal.

Former Premier Hatfield was, indeed, a controversial and

colourful political figure in this Country who made some significant

contributions in his home Province of New Brunswick, and made a significant

contribution, I believe, to constitutional issues in the nation, and like most

politicians he will be remembered by those who feel grateful for the

contributions he made in a warm and kindly way, by those who opposed some of the

controversial things he did in perhaps a not so kindly way. But above all else

whatever he achieved or did not achieve or whether he was controversial he gave

seventeen years of his life to the public of his Province and the Country, and

having done that I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is entirely appropriate that

this House should acknowledge that.

I decided that it was not appropriate for the Government to

send somebody officially to represent the Government and the people of the

Province as it is not a situation where a Premier died in office. It is a

situation that would apply if any former Premier in any part of the country had

died, I think condolences are appropriate, but I do not think a formal

representation is necessarily required. It is not a state funeral. It is a

memorial service. The family funeral is today. We support the expression of

condolences of the whole House, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is

appropriate that the message from this House be unanimous. And I would like to

offer my consent to the resolution they proposed, the message of condolence. I

too recognize that hon. Premier Hatfield has played a significant role in the

modern constitutional history of Canada, certainly in making New Brunswick the

first bilingual Province and as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said

of building bridges between the anglophones and francophones in New Brunswick

and also on the national stage contributing to the constitutional discussions

and changes throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, and indeed the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms. So I would like to join with him, but I will not comment on

the controversial aspects of the policy, obviously it is a partisan matter, and

I would think it not appropriate at this time to delve into those. Obviously he

deserves the congratulations of this House for the efforts and contributions

that he has made to the life of his province and the country. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There seems to be some confusion. I called Statements by

Ministers and I waited for some time. Now if the House wants to revert to

Statements by Ministers -

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware whether the

Minister over there was trying to make a statement or not; I saw his hand up. If

he wants to make a statement, I am willing to yield to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Do hon. Members consent to revert to

Ministerial Statements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Statements by Ministers

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We did not hear your

announcing `Statements by Ministers' on this side, at least I did not.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation, I am pleased to announce the approval of the

conditional allocation of funding under the 1991 Private and Municipal

non-profit Housing Programmes.

Under these programmes, assistance is provided to municipal

and private non-profit community agencies to develop and manage housing projects

for people in their area who are in need of suitable and affordable housing.

Allocations have also been made under the rural and native housing programme;

under this programme the housing corporation will construct the projects and

retain ownership, while community groups through management agreements with

NLHC, will administer the complexes and look after day-to-day operations.

These allocations, Mr. Speaker, have been earmarked on the

basis of submissions that were received from community organizations following

initiative 1991, a proposal call conducted by the Housing Corporation last fall.

As part of the proposal call, proponents were required to conduct research into

the need for housing, to provide preliminary plans and other documentation

indicating their ability to see the project through to completion and to

demonstrate a long-term commitment to managing the project.

As a result of initiative 1991, NLHC received a total of

fifty-seven submissions from non-profit groups representing different areas of

Newfoundland and Labrador. It is obvious that these organizations are dedicated

to providing comfortable and affordable housing for the people in their

communities.

Following a careful review of the proposals submitted, based

on a variety of established criteria, I am pleased to announce, Mr. Speaker,

that a total of 138 units of non-profit housing for low-income families, senior

citizens and native people have been approved for conditional allocation.

Capital funding for these projects will amount to

approximately $11 million, and will be cost shared by Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation along with its federal partner, CMHC. In addition to the

capital costs associated with these projects, the federal and provincial housing

agencies will cost share an annual subsidy to cover maintenance and other

operating costs. This operating subsidy will ensure that rental rates remain

affordable for the residents.

Mr. Speaker, the conditional allocations are broken down by

region of the Province as follows:

Avalon Peninsula (outside the St. John's/Mount Pearl Area).

On the Avalon Peninsula, conditional approval has been given

for planned expansions to seniors' complexes on Bell Island and in Placentia and

Carbonear. The Bell Island Seniors' Complex will be expanded by six apartments,

eight units will be added to the apartment building in Carbonear, and the

seniors' complex in Placentia will be expanded by ten units.

In addition to these planned expansions a new eight-unit

seniors' project has been allocated for St. Joseph's and a twelve unit senior's

complex is planned for Whitbourne.

St. John's/Mount Pearl.

The City of St. John's has received a conditional allocation

for a twenty-eight unit development to house low income families.

In Mount Pearl, a twelve unit housing project has been

conditionally allocated for single parent families.

South Coast/Burin Peninsula.

Conditional funding for two senior citizens' complexes has

been designated for the South Coast; an eight unit project in Harbour Breton and

a six-unit complex in Bay L'Argent.

In Central Newfoundland, a senior citizens' complex

consisting of twelve apartments has been conditionally allocated for Point

Leamington.

In Western Newfoundland seniors' complexes have been

allocated for the communities of Stephenville Crossing and Robinsons. An

eight-unit complex is planned for Stephenville Crossing, and twelve units have

been allocated for Robinsons.

In Labrador, an eight-unit family housing project has been

conditionally allocated for Cartwright.

In addition to the conditional allocations that I have just

outlined for you, Mr. Speaker, I should note that a total of eighty-eight units

have been placed in a back-up position to be allocated to other community groups

should any of the approved projects not proceed to project completion or, as an

alternative, to facilitate advanced planning for 1992.

On the Avalon Peninsula, community groups in Upper Island

Cove, St. Brides, Old Perlican and Mount Pearl have all been placed in a back-up

position for seniors' projects.

On the West Coast, groups in Parson's Pond and Stephenville

have also been placed in a back-up position for seniors' complexes.

In the coming weeks, Mr. Speaker, officials of Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation will be working with all the sponsoring groups

to prepare final development plans so that projects can proceed at the earliest

possible date.

Mr. Speaker, these conditional allocations represent the

commitment of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation to providing a range

of housing services to the people of our Province. In addition, it illustrates

the corporation's growing efforts to involve the residents of the Province,

through community-based organizations, in the actual development and delivery of

social housing options.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note that over

the coming weeks, when budget details are finalized, N.L.H.C., in conjunction

with its federal partner, C.M.H.C., will be in a position to announce public

housing plans for the current year. This will involve housing projects that the

Corporation will develop and administer directly. As well, the 1991 Budget for

the Federal/Provincial Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, known as

RRAP, will be announced within the coming weeks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is

nice to see the Minister once again in the House announcing a majority of

Federal funding for projects throughout the Province. I would also like to say

that it is unfortunate that this Government has once again demonstrated that

fairness and balance has no meaning. When you look at the announcement today,

with the exception of St. Joseph's, I believe all of the work will be carried

out in Liberal districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was on the backup list.

MR. TOBIN: No, no, no. And with that it is regrettable

that this Premier, this Government and this Minister of Housing would indeed

revert to attacking senior citizens of this Province based upon how the district

voted in the last Provincial election. And I think it is unfortunate but that is

what has happened. We saw it in the roads projects, now we have seen it in

senior citizens' complexes based throughout this Province. No doubt all of these

projects and all of these areas are deserving. And I know the South Coast - Bay

L'Argent and these places - I am delighted to see that sort of thing happening.

And one can also feel very grateful for the people of Placentia and Bell Island

who have basically been forgotten in the social sector of this Government. And

it is good to see that the Federal Government has contributed funds enough

whereby there can be some beds assigned to Placentia and Bell Island and these

places that have basically been destroyed by this Government.

But what has happened here is again another example of the

pork barrelling by this Provincial Government based on how people voted in the

last election. They said they would not do it but I believe the shirts and the

posters and the baseball caps and the pins that are going around this Province

today show how much the people believe and how much faith the people have in

what this Premier and this Government have said in the past little while.

The fact of the matter is that the Government promised

fairness and balance in the last elections. They promised that people would not

be punished on how they voted. And today we saw the senior citizens of this

Province being punished because they were living in Conservative districts. As a

matter of fact in my own district there was a request in for housing. That is

not there. How come certain sectors of Newfoundland were lined up for backups

and identified and other parts of Newfoundland were not? How come there are no

backups for the South Coast through the Avalon area? How come it is only Parsons

Pond and a few places in the Minister's development districts that are listed

for backups?

Is it to appease him because he did not get them for his own

area? Is that why it is done and the rest of them have not been done? It is now

time for this Government to live up to their commitment of fairness and balance.

It is now time that they stopped the attack on every man, woman and child in

this Province based upon how they voted. It is a sham! Day after day, day in and

day out, people of this Province are being punished because they have people

sitting on this side of the House.

Well, the sooner the Premier goes and has a writ issued to

call an election, and that fairness and balance can once again be brought back

in this Province, the sooner that happens the better. Because what is taking

place, what we have seen here in this, what we have seen demonstrated today -

and as I said - there is no one going to argue that the places that got these

are not deserving.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

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

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Social Services. As the Minister is no doubt aware the minimum wage

now applies to persons or individuals who care for children, or people who

employ individuals to care for their children. Mr. Speaker, this has created a

problem for the social service recipients who wish to avail of higher education,

who wish to participate in or find employment and/or those who wish to gain

employment experience. Now, Mr. Speaker, my question is, in light of the fact

that people who presently receive a subsidy of $65 a week to pay for child care

from the Department of Social Services, now that these people have to pay

approximately $190 per week, for instance in a forty hour week, does the

Minister intend to increase the supplement to cover the full cost of child care?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the recent

increase and change in regulations and people being paid the minimum wage for

day care services and babysitting services and having an impact not only on the

people on social assistance who want to avail of an education, but also the low

income people. We are presently looking at the regulations in the Department of

Social Services, and we will be dealing with that over the very short weeks to

come.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is wrong with

the acoustics, but I could hardly hear the Minister. I just want to ask the

Minister is he concerned that the cost of child care removes any incentive for

single parents to get experience or education which enables them to return to

the work force, and actually this is going to affect mostly women and the

working poor. I agree with the Minister that it affects more than just people on

social services. But if the Minister does not increase the supplement, would he

look at a proposal to take other measures which would remove the effect of the

high cost of child care from these individuals?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that we were not

looking at the problem that has been incurred here by the individuals who

require babysitting services. It is only for the people who actually bring

somebody into their own homes, if they put them out in a day care centre it is

not a great problem. The problem with people on social assistance or low income

people furthering their education, but especially the people on social

assistance, is not only the cost of babysitting or day care services, there are

many other problems incurred. We certainly have been putting some information

and committees together to get a look at the whole problem. And yes, we are

looking at the problem. Yes, we are seeing the cost and the impact it is having

on people. And I will be making a statement in the very near future in what we

are able to do with that problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Minister

when he looks at the problem would he consider purchasing on behalf of people,

child care positions in existing child care programs, that is where these are

available, that is normally in the urban areas of this Province? And would he

ensure that new child care programs are provided and funded which would give

single parents access to child care facilities right across this Province?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member knows full well

that when any applications come in before the Department of Social Services,

from any individual or organizations throughout the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, if they meet the requirements and safety regulations and pass the

Licencing Board, these centres can be opened up anywhere in the Province. We do

not have a freeze or we have not suggested to anybody that they could not open

centres anywhere within the Province. We are only too happy for individuals to

open up day care centres anywhere. I only wish that more and more would open up.

But as far as bringing in new Day Care Strategy Programs, we cannot do that as a

Province, we must wait and hope and pray that the Federal Government in Ottawa

will bring in a new Day Care Strategy Program similar to what they brought in

before the last election and then cancelled it after they won the election.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that this

is a problem that has not been created by the Federal Government? Is he aware

that this is a problem that is being created by the increase in the minimum

wages for child care workers?

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware, as well, that every

single parent regardless of whether he or she receives social assistance will

now have to pay somewhere around $760 per month for child care services if they

wish to work outside the home? Mr. Speaker, there are not that many high paying

jobs in Newfoundland, and there will be more on social assistance, and is he

aware that this is the second time this year that this Government has brought in

a policy that hurts single parents, and I refer to the maintenance payment

deductions which the Minister brought in recently? And, Mr. Speaker, is he aware

that if something is not done about this policy that children in this Province

who have parents who have to work will be home alone?

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

MR. EFFORD: Let me remind the hon. Member that the

daycare problem in Newfoundland and across Canada is not the responsibility

alone of any provincial government, it is the responsibility of the federal

government. No provincial government, even the rich Province of Ontario, British

Columbia and Quebec can provide enough money to provide the daycare service

needed in their provinces, so a province like Newfoundland and Labrador

certainly do not fit in that category. So we do need the services and the

financial money from the federal government.

I am clearly aware of the impact that it is having on the

people depending the Department of Social Services. The hon. Member also knows

that every individual who comes to the Department of Social Services must go

through a financial assessment. We are not responsible and we cannot be

responsible on the Canada Assistance Plan for the people in the work force

because they are earning a certain amount of money. So only people who meet the

criteria of the Department of Social Services, the financial assessment, can be

responsible for it. It is a problem. The 50 cents an hour has caused a problem

to individuals who pay out the hourly rate, but not to the individuals who put

their kids in daycare centres. So I have already told the hon. Member that we

know there is a problem there. We are looking into it to see the effect in a

number of families across the Province, and we will be making a statement in the

near future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier on the same subject. When

the Government decided to eliminate the two tier minimum wage and raise the rate

for domestics to the same rate as others setting it at $4.75 an hour, did the

Premier and the Government consider the fact that many employers of domestics,

most of whom are young mothers and young fathers themselves earn only the

minimum wage or slightly more than the minimum wage? Did the Government do a

study of the overall impact on the work force and on the economy of raising the

minimum wage for domestics?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that was one of the primary

concerns that the Government had. As a matter of fact, the implementation of the

equalization of the minimum wage without differentiation was held up while we

sent the proposal back for consideration based on that particular issue because

we did not want to prevent people from having a job by reason of making the

minimum wage too high. So we knew there was a down side to it and that it could

have some adverse impact to some degree, but when the thing was considered on

balanced on the overall, we felt that the right and proper thing to do was to

provide for a minimum wage so that there would be no differentiation.

We are also concerned about the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, and had some concern about the propriety of differentiating on the

basis of the kind of job, particularly jobs that were largely performed by

women, and we did not want to particularly create a situation that would result

in a challenge. I believe there is a challenge under way at the moment in some

Provinces. There is one under way at the moment, and all that was a

consideration at the time, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East on a

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has admitted now what

many women suspected, that the Government made this decision in anticipation of

a court decision striking down the provinces laws. I suggest the same thing is

going to happen on Bill 16.

Now, will the Premier tell us what adverse effects of the

raising of the minimum wage for domestics the Government has determined, and

will he tell the working mothers and fathers what the Government proposes they

do when they cannot afford to pay the new minimum wage for domestics? What

alternatives does the Premier see for those working mothers and fathers -

quitting their jobs or finding some more cost efficient way of looking after

their children?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are none so blind as

those who have political prejudice, that is for sure, that cannot see the

fairness or the priority of anything, no matter what it was. I suppose if the

hon. Minister grew angel wings he would be criticized for doing it by the hon.

Member opposite, and I kind of feel sorry for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. Member's comments demonstrate

clearly that her interest is political mischievousness and not the interest of

the people affected. To suggest that increasing the minimum wage for domestics

by fifty-cents to equate it with the minimum wage, and I believe that was the

differential, I have forgotten.

MR. BAKER: It was more than that.

PREMIER WELLS: It was more than that.

MR. BAKER: Two (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: Okay. But to increase the minimum wage

prevents domestics from working is unrealistic. None of the assessment we did

indicated that it would prevent domestics from working by reason of the cost of

day care or anything of that nature. What we were concerned about is that it

would increase the cost of employing domestics and cause people who do employ

domestics to lay them off, or to not employ domestics, so there would be loss of

employment. That was the concern we had, that there would be loss of employment.

Then we had the balance in interest. We recognized that this may well happen to

some degree. Now, which is the greater concern? Which is likely to cause more

harm overall to the people of the Province, risking the possibility that some

may not be able to find work because the cost was higher, or ensuring that a

fair minimum wage was paid to everybody who works in this Province? And on

balance, Mr. Speaker, we opted to ensure that there would be a fair minimum wage

for everybody in this Province and there would be no discrimination particularly

against women, unlike the choice made by the former Government. The people of

this Province, Mr. Speaker, voted for a real change and we gave them one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East on a

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier that he has addressed only one part of

the equation. Will he table in the House the Government's assessment of the

negative consequences for working mothers and working fathers of the

Government's raising of the minimum wage for domestics? In my initial question I

asked him what assessment the Government had done of the impact of this move on

the workforce of the Province and the economy of the Province, and I would like

to have the Premier share that with the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the discussion that I saw was

in the form of a Cabinet paper and I have no intention of tabling Cabinet

papers. Whether or not there was any other detailed assessment I will take a

look, and if there was some structured assessment I do not think there is any

objection to tabling that.

Mr. Speaker, let me suggest something to the hon. Member. If

she wants to reverse the decision, put her resolution on the Order Paper and we

will debate it in this House, that it was wrong to do that because it may cause

some people employed in domestic service to lose their jobs. If she wants to

change that and revert to what they had in place when they formed the Government

I am prepared to see her place her resolution on the Order Paper and I think we

should debate it. If, Mr. Speaker, after such debate, the House concludes we

made a mistake we will certainly go back and review it.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. Member on a final

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, speaking of mischievousness we

just saw an example from the Premier. My questions do not suggest there is

anything wrong with equalizing the minimum wage and raising the level for

domestics, rather that there is something very wrong in the failure of the

Government to take complimentary measures to provide alternatives for child care

for working mothers and fathers, for working parents who themselves are earning

only the minimum wage or slightly more than the minimum wage. Will the Premier

address that part of the equation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Party that the hon.

Member supported and voted for in the last election put in place a proposal, I

believe, for a $4 billion day care programme. A national day care programme for

afford to do it. By what standard of judgement does the hon. Member suggest that

this Government can afford to do it? By what does she judge that? I mean, it is

irrational. It is no wonder the people of the Province turfed them out in the

last election, if that is the basis of their governing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister of Social Services. I wonder if the Minister will tell the House why

his Department eliminated the office manager's position at the St. Mary's office

and if he has done an assessment of the effect of the elimination of that

position?

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

MR. EFFORD: In the recent budgetary decisions that we

made, Mr. Speaker, we had to make some decisions as far as laying off the

employees within the Department of Social Services. And we had to do it in a

manner in which it had the least effect or least impact upon any area in which

they were employed. We looked at the office in question, and a number of other

offices around, and I think it was six managers in total that we originally laid

off. And the office that the hon. Member asked about, we decided that it could

be properly and efficiently managed by the manager from the Placentia area. It

is being monitored on a weekly basis. If the need arises that we are finding

that there are any problems caused in any area by the elimination of the

manager, and it cannot be managed from that office in Placentia, we will

certainly take another look at it, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mary's -The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister did not

mention whether or not he had done an assessment. Perhaps in referring to that

would he explain, if the reason was strictly to save money: how much is he

saving in light of the severance package paid to the person who left the job and

in recognition of the fact that extra help has to be brought in from both

Placentia and Bay Roberts in order to offset the workload that is at the office

presently?

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

MR. EFFORD: Surely you would not suggest that I am

bringing my friends in from Bay Roberts again? I tell you one thing: before the

four years is up there will be nobody in Port de Grave district not working,

that is one good thing about it, according to the hon. Members. I only wish it

was true.

But let me tell the hon. Member. There is no -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, that is possible.

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

MR. EFFORD: There is absolutely no accuracy to what the

hon. Member just said. There is nobody being brought in from either Placentia or

the great district of Port de Grave from Bay Roberts to work in the office in

St. Mary's, where the office manager was eliminated.

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

Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister knows

absolutely nothing about which he speaks, let me tell him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: Should I ask him: who is responsible presently

for giving the day-to-day directions to the office staff in St. Mary's?

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

MR. EFFORD: There is a supervisor position in the St.

Mary's office and there is also the manager in the Placentia office. Also, in

Harbour Grace - which is not in the great district of Port de Grave - there is a

regional office out there, where it is set up by a regional manager and the

assistant regional manager and the consultants. And that office is being

properly administered by the staff in there, by the regional people, and the

manager in Placentia.

MR. SIMMS: Where is he from? Bay Roberts.

MR. EFFORD: Bay Roberts.

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

St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: I would suggest to the Minister that he be

very careful about giving answers to questions when he does not know what the

answers are, because the Minister has really not given actual information here

today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: So I ask the Minister: if he finds out that

the information he has given is not correct, and if he finds out - as the

Minister of Health did - that the reports coming from the area are accurate and

that extra help needs to be provided, will the Minister look at reinstating the

position which was removed from the St. Mary's office?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we could stand up here all day

and I can accuse the Member of not giving accurate information and he can accuse

me, but let me assure the hon. Member Opposite, that I know as much about the

Department of Social Services, operating on a day to day basis, than all of the

former Ministers of Social Services on the other side put together, I can assure

you of that. If you doubt my knowledge about the Department of Social Services,

come to the Estimate Committee at seven o'clock this evening, ask some questions

and see if you would get some answers. Secondly, I am not going to change -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: - I am not going to change the decision made

by the Department of Social Services just on the whim of the Member Opposite who

is trying to make some political points. We are quite satisfied with what is

happening in that office; it is being monitored by the Regional Office in

Harbour Grace, by the Placentia Offices and by the Department of Social Services

here at Confederation Building. If the need ever arises, or some serious

situations take place in the future, sure, it is not impossible that we would

not change our minds but today, absolutely not.

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

followed by the Member for St. John's East, Extern.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Extern (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No. I recognized the hon. Member for St.

John's East I said, followed by the Member for St. John's East Extern.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for East Extern was up first.

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. It has been several weeks now

since the Minister has discovered that she is responsible for occupational

health and safety on the waters of Bull Arm as well as on the land, and I

wonder, could she tell us now whether the investigation into the death of the

man on Good Friday, conducted by her Department has been completed and, has she

discovered yet whether or not there has been a violation of the Occupational

Health and Safety Act?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

wondered for some time why the hon. Member for St. John's East is dealing with

what was a human tragedy in such crass political terms, and I can only reach the

conclusion, as did the Minister of Development yesterday, that since he was not

successful and his party in destroying Hibernia, that they are now trying to

sabotage (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such an

affront to the dignity of working people in this Province as I have heard from

the hon. Minister, who is supposed to be responsible for that. The hon. Minister

has not answered the question: which is essentially whether or not her

Department has carried out its responsibilities under

Section 52 and 53 of the

Occupational Health and Safety Act and I want the Minister to tell this House,

whether in fact an investigation has been conducted and whether or not, in fact,

she has discovered, as a result of this investigation, that

Section 52 of the

Occupational Health and Safety Act which requires an employer to notify the

Director of a death or an injury on the job, was complied with and did this

employer do that or, is there a special exception for Nodeco and Hibernia

projects?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I gave the answer on several

occasions in this House, even though the Department in the beginning was not

sure whether or not it was within our jurisdiction, we did proceed with an

investigation at the site, so there was nothing wrong there. We established

since, that we did the correct thing and I was pleased to see that; I do not

think that that creates a problem whatsoever.

We are still not sure if indeed an accident took place, but

again, I hesitate to speak about this because of the pain that it could cause to

some people in the Province, but we are not yet fully aware of whether or not it

was an accident. There was an error, and I am sure that in the report which

comes out afterwards, that mention would be made of it and the reason why Nodeco

did not report the gentleman missing at an earlier date and certainly that

should have been done.

I want to say however though, Mr. Speaker, that Nodeco has

and is continuing to develop one of the best occupational health and safety

programmes in the Province. In fact, what we hope and I would certainly be glad

to, but I cannot do it now in Question Period, we are basing our approach to

that on a Norwegian model which has worked extremely well in which workers take

responsibility for themselves and their co-workers and we think that it is going

to change the whole face of occupational health and safety in the Province, so I

must pat Nodeco on the back for what they are doing and my own Department is

working with them in co-operation to bring about this very positive result.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It appears, and maybe

the Minister can confirm, when an employer such as Nodeco fails to notify the

director of an accident in accordance with

Section 52, she calls it an error,

and perhaps when others do it is an offence under the act. Why is there an

exception in this particular case? And can the Minister tell the House whether

there is in place now a proper occupational health and safety program for that

project on water as well as on land, or is she saying she is going to wait until

the more dangerous aspects of the project are underway, as she suggested, or to

quote as saying in the paper today, for the Estimates Committee, is there two

standards of occupational health and safety, one for now and one for later, or

does she have plans in place that are adequate for this project?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say that pouring

concrete, dredging and building roads is not unfamiliar to the Newfoundland

construction industry. We have been doing this for some time in our Province and

those individuals are familiar with those very basic construction techniques and

the work safety practices that accompany them. At the same time, and I do not

know how many times I will have to say again that there is none so deaf as those

who do not want to hear, that for the more sophisticated advanced and massive

parts of the project very good plans are being put in place to ensure that

workplace safety for workers, which will involved both the employer and the

employee, with our Department serving as a monitoring body in that particular

circumstance, we hope it will change the face of occupational health and safety

in this Province, as I just said.

I am not going to put in jeopardy any type of investigation

by commenting on whether or not or why a company did not report the accident to

us. If indeed the investigation finds out there was something terribly remiss in

that, and I am certainly concerned about it, it will be dealt with in the

appropriate fashion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Minister is being

repetitive, so I will ask the Minister please to clue up her answer very

quickly.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very hard not to

be repetitive when I keep getting asked the same question week after week.

However, I am complete now, and with your leave I will sit down.

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

Extern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was not easy to

get the Minister to be seated. My question, Mr. Speaker, was to the Minister of

Environment and Lands, but in the Minister's absence, I would like for the

Premier to answer the question. Will the Premier inform the House whether his

Government has received an application for permission to establish a waste

disposal site in Trepassey?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, I believe two

or three weeks ago, I received a letter from some firm, I do not even remember

the name, and they talked about that, they suggested that, and that they were

interested in this and asked what the Government's position was. My recollection

is that I wrote back and said that the Government was anxious to see economic

development take place, but all economic development had to meet our

environmental standards so that such proposals should be considered by both the

Department of Development and the Department of the Environment, and if I recall

correctly, my reply to them was that they deal directly with the Minister of

Environment and the Minister of Development.

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

Extern, on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, my time is running out. And I

would like to say to the Premier that I think -

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not mean it that way.

MR. PARSONS: I do not mean it that way, no. Hopefully

not. I am wasting my time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if there

is any relationship between this proposal and the recent sale of Sanicare to a

company -it is called BFI, Browning Ferus Industries, an American based company,

and I wonder if there is any relationship between this proposal and this

particular company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The only thing I know about Sanicare is it

seems to me I have seen trucks driving around the city with Sanicare on them. It

is a Newfoundland Company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: It is sold to BFI. I have no knowledge of

the sale of Sanicare to BFI so therefore I cannot possibly have any knowledge

about whether or not there is any connection. I have just been told by the

Minister of Development that he has not received an application but that some

company has been in touch with the Minister of the Environment in relation to a

proposal for Trepassey. I will have to wait until I speak to the Minister of the

Environment to see what stage of progress that is in, whether it is in an

application form or not, I cannot say at this moment, or whether it is in any

manner connected with Sanicare and BFI, whatever BFI is. BFI may indeed be the

company that wrote me, I just simply do not remember at the moment.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before moving on to other business I want to make a couple of

comments on Question Period. A couple of things have been happening in the past

couple of days and I want to make sure that it does not become habitual or

routine. In some instances answers have been getting a little drawn out, and in

some instances questions have been a little drawn out. Of course, the answer is

drawn out in some instances because a question was drawn out. I want to bring to

hon. Members attention particularly in the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. Members know that when the person in the Chair is

speaking there ought to be silence.

I just want to point out for the future operation of Question

Period that hon. Members please be cognisant of the rules, particularly related

to supplementaries. Many times a Member will get up and comment on what the

Minister said, and as hon. Members know, that creates debate. Supplementaries

are not supposed to contain a

preamble and get right into the substance, and

that makes it easier for the Chair to be able to decide when a Minister is being

too long, because when a Member puts in a

preamble then, of course, the Minister

takes the opportunity to try to comment on that

preamble. This all makes it more

difficult for the Chair, but the rules are clear, hon. Members know what they

are, and, of course, they have an obligation to abide by these rules.

I also wanted to point out to hon. Members, sometimes from

both sides of the House, that during Question Period some Member on this side

will point out question, question, some hon. Member on this side something about

the answer. I want hon. Members to know, again, that the Chair's decision in

these matters are final and not debatable. The Chair does its best to try and

decide whether or not the rules are being enforced equally on both sides and

these utterances from both sides of the House do not do anything to create the

atmosphere of orderliness in the House. So again, I ask hon. Members to abide by

these remarks.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Grand Falls

asked the Minister of Education to table this travel

schedule for April 1, 1990

to March 31, 1991.

I do want to make a brief comment, Mr. Speaker. I have made a

total of twenty-four visits outside the City. Most of these were to visit

schools and colleges and to speak to large numbers of groups. Two were outside

the Province, Mr. Speaker, to address a conference on the mainland and to attend

a council of Ministers meeting. No personal staff accompanied me on any of these

visits.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: No, and on eight of the twenty-four visits

either an official from the Department of Education and/ or my executive

assistant went on eight of the twenty-four. And I might say that I am continuing

that kind of visitation to the schools, the colleges and talking with people

weekly. In fact, this morning I had a very exciting meeting in Mount Pearl with

students and on Friday I am in Forteau, so next years report is going to be just

as long, perhaps longer than this year, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to the next item of

business, on behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the galleries a

joint representation from the councils of Centreville, Trinity, Indian Bay and

Wareham in the historic district of Bonavista North. And the members are:

Councillor Alex Jones from Indian Bay; Robert Parsons from Centreville; His

Worship Alex Brown from Trinity; His Worship Stan Hunt from Wareham; His Worship

Bob Pickett from Centreville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, we call upon the hon.

Member for Harbour Main to proceed with his resolution.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I would

like to read the motion into the record of the House and I am sure all Members

will want to listen very closely, and especially the councils which are present

today.

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly oppose the

Provincial Government policy of reducing funding for municipalities and shifting

costly responsibilities to municipalities, thereby squeezing municipalities at

both ends and forcing them to increase municipal taxes and reduce public

services.

Now as I said a moment ago, I am very pleased indeed that we

have councils in the galleries today. I am sure they, better than anyone else,

realize the difficulty that they are having today making ends meet, and

municipalities are finding it very, very difficult today indeed to make ends

meet. And that is not, incidentally, what the Premier and his Party promised

municipalities back approximately two years ago.

We have the Liberal policy manual here and I just want to

refresh the memory of the Premier and hon. gentleman opposite as to what they

said with respect to a new day dawning for municipalities in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Liberal commitment to develop all regions in Newfoundland

and Labrador can not be effective without a parallel commitment to enhance

municipal government in the Province. There are more than 300 municipal

administrations providing essential services and facilities and programmes to

communities, and the smaller - that is interesting, that the Government should

mention smaller ones because it is the smaller municipalities in the Province

that are really getting a beating and really getting the sledgehammer from this

Government. They said: and the smaller ones in particular need more scope to

operate and more support from the Province and the nation.

Now, how much clearer could it be? A new policy by the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for municipalities around the Province.

And they are still waiting, incidentally, for the Government to come across with

the much needed funding to make 300 or 308 municipalities in this Province a

little bit more viable than what they are right now, and this is the promise

that they got from the Liberal Party. The policy manual went on to say: that the

Province can not abandon the small communities which do not have the ability to

construct and maintain their own facilities. We must all share the burden. A

Liberal Government will undertake an immediate assessment of our ability to

establish a Provincial water and sewer corporation that would take over and

continue - would actually take over and continue - to operate all existing water

and sewer facilities over a period of years and build and expand new ones to

areas not now serviced.

The water and sewer corporation could, like Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, borrow money to build the systems - and this was what the

Government was going to do for the smaller areas in Newfoundland and Labrador -

and would repay those monies from the overall cash flow.

Mr. Speaker, this is a little bit of a scam, a little bit of

deceit actually that was perpetrated by the Government, which was helped

incidentally by probably a lot of councils across the Province to come to power,

because they fully expected that things would be different under a new

Government. Now, Mr. Speaker, municipalities were given that impression. But

there has been virtually no change for the better for municipalities in the

Province. Instead of funding increases the Government over the last two years

have gotten involved in funding decreases. I remember again, Mr. Speaker, when I

was Minister of Municipal Affairs for about a three and a half year period, I

remember going to a convention out in Corner Brook and speaking, I believe it

was on, I do not know but the Member for Carbonear was probably the president of

the Federation at the time, or it could have been Mr. Walsh maybe down in

Marystown. In any event I remember speaking to that convention and the Premier

spoke to the same convention, he spoke first and I spoke second, I remember.

MR. SIMMS: You got the standing ovation, I remember that.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, I got the standing ovation, and the

Premier, well he got a polite response, let us put it that way. But I remember

when I was Minister of that Department speaking to a group of about 700 or 800

people in an auditorium out in Corner Brook, and the Premier spoke directly

after me at that time, and again promised municipalities that if his party

should come to power that there would be a much greater level of funding

provided for town councils all across Newfoundland. And he concentrated, I

believe, on the smaller municipalities. That was the big thing, the smaller

municipalities. But municipalities today are absolutely amazed at the speed with

which Government has shifted gears, and are now, as we said in the resolution,

shifting responsibility from the Government onto the shoulders of the smaller

towns all across Newfoundland and Labrador to bear the burden that the

Government should be bearing for them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government - and I am amazed as well

how Members opposite could tolerate that kind of a shift in policy, given the

promises of the Premier, given the promises of the party that things were going

to be much better for municipalities, and that they were going to receive a

greater level of funding. And I think specifically about the Member for Fortune

- Hermitage who was also on the Federation of Municipalities, and I remember

meeting with him on a number of occasions, and you could not shut up that

Member, every time I would go to a meeting -

MR. SIMMS: Who was that?

MR. DOYLE: The Member for Fortune -Hermitage who was on

the Federation of Municipalities, and I remember meeting with him -

MR. SIMMS: Yes, he has not opened his mouth (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: - on a number of occasions and you could not

shut up that Member from one end of the meeting to the other, waxing eloquently

about how the Federation needed to represent their municipalities better and how

a greater level of funding was needed for municipalities. And now today that

Member is sitting here in this Legislature, a former President of the Federation

of Municipalities, and does not open his mouth to try and defend municipalities.

Then, of course, the Member for Carbonear is not much different in that regard,

another former president.

MR. SIMMS: He will be up now.

MR. DOYLE: And every time when I was Minister of

Municipal Affairs, practically every morning I turned on the radio and there was

that Member from Carbonear, the President of the Federation, I mean waxing

eloquently, lambasting Government, me in particular as Minister, that there was

not a greater level of funding provided to municipalities and especially and in

particular his own down in Carbonear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Now, Mr. Speaker, here it is today we have the

former President of the Federation, he just sits there and he does not say a

word to back up municipalities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Somebody told me that the Member for Eagle

River was also a former councillor. I do not know. But the Member for

Pleasantville, I do not know if he was a councillor, but he ran on a number of

occasions for council.

MR. SIMMS: No, no!

MR. DOYLE: You do not hear him say a word about it. The

Member for Placentia -

MR. HOGAN: Past president.

MR. DOYLE: -the past President of the Federation, a

former Mayor of the town of Placentia.

I do not hear a word from the Member for Dunville. I do not

hear a word from the Member backing up councils. The Member for Naskaupi was a

former Mayor of that community and he never says a word to try to help out

municipalities in the Province. And the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, himself not a mayor, but I think he was on the Federation at one point.

The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was the Executive

Vice-President to the Member for Placentia when he was on the Federation, and a

city councillor for so long.

MR. TOBIN: Did you know that I nominated the Member for

Naskaupi to be the Chairman?

MR. DOYLE: You nominated the Member for Naskaupi to be

Chairman of the Federation. In any event, Mr. Speaker, with that collection of

former municipal leaders occupying the benches on the Government side one would

think that the interests of municipalities right across Newfoundland and

Labrador would be well protected. When you have ten, twelve, or fifteen people

sitting on the Government benches who were involved in municipal government,

either at the federation level, mayors of communities, or members of council,

one would think that the interest of the town councils across the Province would

be well protected. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to make those radical

changes, that Government is making, to the way in which municipalities are

funded, then I believe you need a mandate to do that, given the fact that your

policy, which is clearly enunciated in this document, your policy says you are

going to make more funding available to municipalities and not reduce the

funding, which is essentially what you are doing. That is what the new municipal

grant structure does. It essentially reduces funding to municipalities in a

variety of different ways. The social assistance component, now, Mr. Speaker,

how basic can you get, the social assistance component in the municipal grant

structure has been totally eliminated by this Government and that is a little

bit unbelievable when you get right down to it. Councils who have social

assistance recipients within their own community who cannot afford to pay

municipal taxes hithertofore were getting those taxes paid by Government and now

the Government has cut that out completely, and as a result the smaller

communities, in particular, suffer a great deal because of that one. Now, it may

not mean a great deal to large communities like Corner Brook, St. John's, Grand

Falls - Windsor, Gander, or Labrador City but it means a great deal to the

smaller municipalities in the Province who are operating on a shoestring, on a

day to day basis, and do not know if they can make it from one day to the next.

How many calls did I get when I was myself in Government from municipalities

saying they were having problems paying our electrical bill? And, then you would

make a special grant available to try and get a small council over the hump so

that they could collect a few more taxes and meet next month's electrical bill.

How often did I run into that? Quite often. Municipalities around the Province

are not getting that same consideration today from this Government. They are

getting a cold, callus, response from this Government, where you would actually

go to the point where you would cut out a social assistance component in the

Municipal Grants Act. That is very, very shameful. Municipalities around the

Province are going to have to pay a whole lot more in debt servicing.

Before it was a blanket type of thing, in which a community,

if they had a water and sewer debt, paid 20 per cent to the fixed revenues, and

even that was high. I have to say when I was in Government myself, how often did

I go to Cabinet and say to the Cabinet, 'look, we have communities around this

Province who cannot meet that 20 per cent without really cutting back and

without really suffering.' And now we find that under the new Municipal Grants

Act there are councils in the Province, not all mind you, but some councils will

have to pay -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 1984.

MR. DOYLE: Some councils will have to pay as high as 40

per cent debt service. In 1984? I think it was 20 per cent at that time as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: How much?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Okay, it was 15 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Yes, right. It was 15 per cent back in 1984.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right, and you made a big stink

about it.

MR. DOYLE: Then it went to 20 per cent in 1984. So I can

remember the hue and cry on that. As a matter of fact, I believe I was Minister

of the department at that time when it went to 20 per cent, and I felt that was

high.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Hazel was it? In any event, Mr. Speaker, there

are municipalities in the Province today that are going to have to pay up to 40

per cent. Now some town councils can afford to do that, some of the very large

ones, but even the large ones will have to cut back in some areas. I mean, if

you are going to pay 40 per cent of your fixed revenues in debt servicing, then

even the larger ones will have to cut back in some areas in order to meet that

obligation, or they will have to reduce service or increase taxes. Those are the

only two areas that are available to them. So what the Government is essentially

doing is grabbing a greater share of taxes in the Province, and they did it

through the payroll tax and the gasoline tax, and the diesel fuel tax and what

have you, they grab a greater share of the tax revenue but give back less.

Now one would not mind all that much if the Government and

the Minister of Finance was to come in with a Budget and say, 'we are going to

grab a greater share of the taxes, but in turn we are going to give it out on

this hand to municipalities and try to make it a little bit easier for them to

exist.' But they grab it on the one hand and they grab it on the other hand as

well -

MR. SIMMS: Robin Hood.

MR. DOYLE: Grabbing it from the smaller communities who

can least afford to pay it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know but we are going to see a - I

certainly hope we do not. We are waiting for the municipal capital program to

come down. I believe that program is due to come down at the end of April, I

believe we were told, or the first of May. Today is the first of May and we

still do not have the municipal capital program. I am just wondering if

municipalities across the Province are going to get a scare this year and are

going to -

AN HON. MEMBER: $100 million.

MR. DOYLE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: $100 million.

MR. DOYLE: $100 million, well I hope so, I certainly hope

so, but municipalities are not confident. I am not speaking for the federation,

but I have spoken to certain members in the federation and they are not

confident that there is going to be a very large municipal program this year. I

am just wondering if the municipal capital program may not very well be

eliminated for this year. I certainly hope not. I hope there is $100 million

there, but the Government has cut back in that area as well and we see the

Government coming in with a Regional Service Board Bill which is going to,

again, under that Act place a greater burden and responsibilities on

municipalities because of policing. What the Government seems to be trying to do

with the Regional Service Board Bill as well passes along greater

responsibilities to town councils in the Province, and we heard that -

MR. SIMMS: The federation wants them to revisit that, and

they (inaudible) refused.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, the federation has every right to ask

Government to revisit that one.

It is shocking what the Government is doing in trying to pass

responsibility on to councils. Policing is probably another area that the

Government is going to try to pass total control onto. You see special events

now, a radical change again, coming about, special events that municipalities

are going to have to if they have policing at regattas, and if they have

policing at stadiums, or rock concerts, or anything of that nature, then

municipalities are being asked again to bear the cost of that. Now, where is it

all going to stop?

MR. SIMMS: Walter does not like that. Even Walter is

opposed to it.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, I have to say that the Member for

Pleasantville is a good, honest, straightforward, upright, clear-thinking,

Member. Whenever he has something to say, and I have seen it in Committee the

same way, if he has something to say about the Government he will say it. Now, I

do not always agree with some of the things he says, but he is not afraid to

speak up and say something about his own Government if it needs to be said.

MR. SIMMS: A real socialist.

MR. DOYLE: A real socialist, I believe. But, again, Mr.

Speaker, the Government is engaged now in trying to pass policing along to

municipalities, and that can be seen with their latest policy, that the city is

going to have to pay for policing when special events happen within the city,

like the Regatta, and what have you. They are forcing communities, at the same

time, to increase their mil rate. Now, we all know there are communities within

the Province who have a very low mil rate, one would say a ridiculously low mil

rate, and I can see that happening, but there are other communities within the

Province who have a high mil rate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: Do not tell me, twenty minutes?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition must be

searching for motions to put on the floor when they put one on like this, which

is totally inaccurate:

Be it resolved that the House of Assembly oppose the

Provincial Government's policy of reducing funding for municipalities, and

shifting costly responsibilities to municipalities, and so on. Nothing, Mr.

Speaker, could be further from the truth. We have worked over a period of

fourteen months to bring about the best grant's program in the country, bar

none. If the hon. Member feels that shifting dollars, shifting dollars from the

urban areas of the Province to the rural areas is wrong, I fail to see his line

of thinking, because we said in the election - I think he quoted the Premier

earlier, if I heard him correctly, as saying that funding would be promised by

the Premier to smaller municipalities, and we would focus on the needs of rural

Newfoundland. I think that is a fair statement. I think that throughout the

election campaign a lot of our Members, certainly the Members running in the

rural areas, and most certainly the Premier, made comments like that, saying

there were tremendous needs, particularly in the area of servicing of all kinds,

water and sewer, roads, and I suppose you could carry it on to hospitals,

education, and almost every area of Government, rural Newfoundland needed a lot

of attention. There is no question about it, we campaigned and the Premier made

comments similar to that quoted by the hon. Member, funding promised to smaller

municipalities.

So, Mr. Speaker, one of the things we found out, and I guess

the most important thing we found out in our study, which was carried out with a

consulting firm and our own staff over fourteen months as I mentioned, the most

important thing we found out, and it was really no great secret at all, but we

found out in some detail by a thorough analysis of all municipalities in the

Province, starting with consultation with some selective communities of varying

sizes in Newfoundland and Labrador, a consultation that took place between the

consultants, our staff, and these municipalities, particularly the staff of

these municipalities, we found out there was a great disparity in fiscal

capacity, to use that word. I suppose it is the only word you can properly use

because I think it best describes the ability of a community to handle its needs

financially.

We found that there is a great disparity between the urban

areas and the rural areas of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, in case Members of

the House are not aware - some Members are not aware - we only have in

Newfoundland twelve communities with populations greater than 5,000 people. And

that is all. We have another thirty-six that have populations between 2,000 and

5,000. So thirty-six and twelve. We have forty eight communities and that is all

in the entire Province with populations greater than 2,000. Alright?

Now what does that tell us? That tells us that we have

forty-eight communities with populations greater than 2,000, and forty-eight

only, because population pretty well dictates fiscal capacity, because they grew

to be 2,000 or more because of an industrial business base of some sort. In some

cases it might be a fish plant, in other cases a paper mill, or in the case of

St. John's a major service area servicing pretty well - well, a good portion of

the island for sure.

So we have these urban communities, growth centres if you

like, where they have good fiscal capacity because they have an industrial,

business and residential tax base - forty-eight communities. Counting the local

service districts which are some two hundred in number and 309 incorporated

municipalities, let's call it 500 communities in the Province. We have only

forty-eight communities - that is all - that have what I describe as a

relatively good fiscal capacity in industry, business, residential.

The other 450 communities have a deficiency. And that was

clearly shown in the study. And we analyzed every single community with no

exception. So at the end of the day the consultants and our own people and

myself, because I was part of the process, we had to decide what we would do

with the pot of money that is available through the municipal grants structure

that was previously available in the old programme. We knew we were not going to

continue with the old programme. We knew we were going to recommend changes. The

decision was made that we would make a shift in allocating those dollars pretty

well across the board, urban and rural, a shift so that communities without an

adequate tax base - pretty well with a residential tax base only - would receive

an equalization, an amount of money to help equalize them. That was the first

component. Equalize them up at least to a relatively equal playing field. That

was not the whole portion of the programme, of course, that was just one factor.

And if we could get them relatively equalized so that there would be a shift in

dollars away from those forty-eight communities I mentioned with good tax bases,

then we could proceed from there with an incentive component.

And the next component really says that if communities are

doing more for themselves, if they are being fiscally responsible, if they have

reasonable rates of taxation - not exorbitant rates but reasonable rates, that

is all - we will reward them with dollars from the incentive component. Now,

what I find amazing is that the Opposition would criticize a programme where

everybody, I am sure on both sides of the House would agree, the greatest needs

for water and sewer and roads are in the rural sectors of the Province. Where

the capacity to deliver and assist - as far as financial assistance to the

Province, assisting the Province in delivering the needs - is just not there.

And to criticize a programme where we have caused that shift to take place - and

we clearly have -

AN HON. MEMBER: They criticize everything.

MR. GULLAGE: Criticize everything, that is right, is just

amazing to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Now, mention was made of the water and sewer

corporation - I cannot let that one pass by - because every now and then that

comes up in the House. We said in our campaign we would do an immediate

assessment of the ability to deliver by way of establishing a corporation

similar to a utility to deliver water and sewer needs throughout the Province.

Which would involve, of course, take over of existing infrastructure and then

looking at the needs throughout the Province, which is by the way, some two and

a half billion dollars; two and a half billion not counting what is in the

ground right now, not counting replacement. We would have an assessment of that.

We have delivered on our promise, Mr. Speaker. That is what

we promised we would do, we would do an assessment, we have done the assessment

and now, we are not saying that we will not find a way to do it because maybe we

will; so far though, we have not. We have researched, we have used two

international organizations who worked with municipalities throughout North

America, one is in Canada and one is in the United States.

We have worked with both of those and we have asked them,

based on their research, is there any way that such a Corporation could be

established and so far, and we have checked with other provinces and checked

with some of the States, particularly those parts of the United States which

have had great difficulty in this area; so far, we have not been able to find a

way for such a Corporation to be operational, that does not mean we will not

find a way, perhaps we will, but it is not as if we have not addressed it

because we certainly have.

Mr. Speaker, to go back to the grants programme for a moment.

We have really two parts in the grants programme; well, actually the grants

programme is one thing and the debt subsidy is another portion of the programme.

In the beginning of course they were separate, but I think they have been

twinned and put together by the municipalities, so I might as well say we have

two components, one being the grants of which I spoke, incentives, dollars that

are spent by the Province to assist municipalities and we have the debt

assistance that we have asked municipalities to assist in delivering capital

works by way of helping with the repayment of debt.

Mr. Speaker, when we shifted the dollars to the rural

municipalities, that meant that almost without exception, most rural

municipalities in the Province benefited by that shift in dollars; they are now

receiving more money from the grants than they received previously. However,

when those same communities were asked to assist with repayment of existing debt

for water and sewer and roads in the Municipal Financing Corporation, when that

factor was added in, that caused a lot of the rural communities that were in a

positive position to go to a negative position, and that has caused some of the

problems; because if you are in a small community in Newfoundland, I hesitate to

name names, but I could name almost any rural municipality, and the grants

portion of the programme, you are impacted in a positive way there, but then you

are asked to repay something on the existing debt in the Corporation, and that

causes you to go into a negative position, well naturally of course there would

be concern about that.

But, Mr. Speaker, the actual impact on municipalities as far

as the debt in the financing Corporation is only $2 million for the entire

Province, $2 million dollars for the entire Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, faced off against a grants programme, which is in the neighbourhood of

$40 million, so, clearly, the advantage is still there, clearly there to the

advantage of the rural municipalities and the urban municipalities I might add,

because the grants programme is fair across the board, but, Mr. Speaker, what we

asked basically is that 60 per cent, or I should say 40 per cent if I talk from

the municipality's stand point, 40 per cent of the water and sewer debt per

household, 40 per cent of the existing debt in the Corporation per household,

would be the most that we would expect a municipality to pay up to a maximum of

$300 a household.

Many communities of course had a great capacity and great

room if you like to pay a little more towards the water and sewer debt that was

in the Corporation and the roads debt and were not impacted. Others of course

had a lot of infrastructure already put into the ground and were already close

to that $300 level and therefore had some difficulty in the sense that we had to

cap it at $300 anyway but their plea to me is, what happens in the future, what

happens in the future with water and sewer debt with communities that have

reached their capacity to pay?

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have capped it at $300 a household as

far as existing debt is concerned; $300 per household we are expecting

communities to pay up to $300, in many cases it is well below that, on the

existing debt that is on the books. Well, I think I have said many times

whenever I have been asked about the upcoming water and sewer allocations, the

capital works for this year, that we have worked long and hard to come up with a

component in the criteria that will fairly address and recognize the fiscal

capacity of municipalities.

I mean if they are now paying a large amount of debt per

household at the $300 level or close to it, then we have to consider that factor

in allocation of capital works because we certainly cannot ignore communities

that have a large need, whether it be environment or health or a combination of

both, if they have great needs we have to address those needs in the light of

the fiscal capacity that they have. We just cannot say because you have reached

this amount of debt, you know, currently on the books that we are not going to

give you water and sewer and roads allocation. So that component has been very

difficult to arrive at. I think we have a component that is established now and

I would hope that the capital works when they are announced will be received as

being very positive. It will address the needs of communities across the

Province identifying, as it did in the past, the need as established in the

growth of the community, the need for the services, the environment factors and

health factors.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fairness and balance.

MR. GULLAGE: Fairness and balance. That is right. But

also being very fair by looking at that community and saying: what is the fiscal

capacity of this town or city, given the amount of debt that they are paying

right now per household. Mr. Speaker, we see that as being very fair. I do not

know if it was ever done in the past the way we are doing it now, but doing

things right, you know, is the way we feel we should operate as a Government.

And this is very right and very fair, the fact that we are helping rural

communities with our Grants Program, considering rural communities with our Debt

Retirement Program, both existing debt and future debt, Mr. Speaker, is

obviously very fair.

We have, if anybody is interested on the Opposition, fifty

communities in this Province which have no services at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. GULLAGE: We have in those communities some 8,500

houses, so we have a ways to go. As I mentioned earlier we have $2.5 billion of

water and sewer and roads needs within our municipalities, now that is not

counting, of course, the need for roads, if you like, as far as my colleague's

Department is concerned in Works, Services and Transportation. But within

communities themselves we have this $2.5 billion need. I can go on talking about

the need for replacement. If you want to take replacement needs you are going to

be pushing another $2 billion. And replacement is not something we can ignore,

because we have communities throughout the Province that have had infrastructure

in the ground for a long time and the need for replacement is going to be there

in some cases in the short term, but certainly replacement is going to be a very

real factor as far as the future is concerned.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think we are doing a tremendous job in

addressing the needs of municipalities. For anybody to say that we have not

addressed the problems of municipalities in the last two years is ludicrous

because we have looked at almost every program in existence. We have made

positive changes throughout the Department, Mr. Speaker, and these changes have

been well received throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think the future

will tell, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that our Grants Program will show great

benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and time will tell. But

this motion, Mr. Speaker, is clearly out of order. It makes absolutely no sense,

and certainly does not speak to reality. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: I want to make a few comments, and listening

to what the Minister just said, the sad part about it is he believes everything

he said and that is what is frightening. Because I happen to have, somehow it

got into my possession, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the grant structures for this

Province, and how each municipality is going to be affected, and the amount of

money they were receiving under the old system, and how much they are going to

receive under the new system. I got it somehow, Mr. Speaker, I fell into that.

Someone delivered it. Probably the Minister sent it to me, Mr. Speaker. But in

any case, what the Minister said today and what the Premier and the Minister and

fifty-two candidates for the Liberal Party said in the last election -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no resemblance.

MR. TOBIN: There is no resemblance, Mr. Speaker. There is

no resemblance, because I got two copies, I have one for my friend for St.

John's East if he does not have one yet, of the Liberal campaign policy manual.

I got a copy of what the Minister said, and, Mr. Speaker, what was put in

brochures by Liberal candidates and what was said on the stage in Parkers Cove

at a public meeting was that this Government was going to put in place a water

and sewer corporation. What did the (inaudible) say, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What was that? It was never said. Is the

Minister saying that was not said by Members who were seeking the Liberal

candidacy in the last election? Is that what the Minister is saying? Well then I

can show the Minister evidence that it was said and that it was circulated.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what was said in the last election

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they say? Tell us.

MR. TOBIN: A Liberal Government will undertake

immediately to establish a provincial water and sewer corporation that would

take over and continue to operate all existing water and sewer facilities and

over a period of years build and expand new ones to areas not now served in much

the same manner that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro expanded electricity

service to all parts of the Province under the rural electrification program.

The water and sewer corporation could, like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,

borrow money to build a system to service the presently unserviced area of the

Province and repay those monies from its overall cash flow.

Now, Mr. Speaker, where is the evidence that the Premier has

followed through? Where is the evidence? Mr. Speaker, I know where the evidence

is, on the T-shirts and the hats of the public servants of this Province. That

is where the evidence is. If you turn on the T.V. in the evening all you can see

is hats and T-shirts and banners that 'Clyde lied.' That is the evidence. That

is the evidence of the water and sewer corporation that was promised throughout

this Province.

There are a lot of other issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Carbonear

should speak. When you look across the House and you see the Member for

Carbonear, the Member for Placentia and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the

Member for Naskaupi, all of who played major roles in no small way, Mr. Speaker,

played some significant roles in the municipal movement throughout the Province.

I had the opportunity to be associated with them from time to time when I served

on council as well. But why, with the experience, knowledge and commitment they

have and have had, no doubt about that, why do they continue to let rural

Newfoundland in particular fall by the wayside. When I go to my district, which

I did this past weekend, last summer I went to Port au Bras, and the Minister of

Municipal Affairs is aware of what I am talking about and every deputy Minister

who has ever been in the department for the past ten years is aware of what I am

talking about, the people in Port au Bras do not have a water supply. Last year

there was money put in place for a study and the study showed beyond any doubt

that it is a health hazard and everything else, it could be bad. Well I am

hoping this year - and I hope the Minister will listen to what I am saying

because I am hoping this year that the Minister will provide funding for Port au

Bras.

Mortier, Mr. Speaker, is another example of people not being

able to get - and it is a difficult situation, and the Minister and I had

discussed Mortier on several occasions, Mortier - Fox Cove Town Council, and it

is not easy. It is not easy for the Minister to solve the problems either, but

something has to be done to put in place a mechanism to deal with it.

You have the whole amalgamation issue that this Government

has bungled day in and day out. Now, you hear the city council in St. John's

calling upon the Member for St. John's South, for example, to state his

position. They are wondering why, all of a sudden, the Member for St. John's

South who has more lip, Mr. Speaker, than a rubber boot, and on this issue the

Member for St. John's South has been silent. Why has the Member for St. John's

South in particular become silent? I noticed the city council praised the Member

for Pleasantville for having the courage to take a stand. But, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Finance from St. John's Centre, and the Minister of Education from

St. John's North, as a matter of fact the Minister of Education is after running

in so many districts nobody knows which district he represents, they are in

Cabinet and I can somewhat understand why they are not taking a position, but

why the Member for St. John's South cannot join the Member for Pleasantville -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the matter with the Member for

St. John's East?

MR. HARRIS: I spoke and I stated my position.

MR. TOBIN: He stated his position, Mr. Speaker, and

stated it clearly. The Member for Pleasantville stated his position. I do not

care what the Member's position is, it is not important, but I can tell you one

thing if there is a council in my district that wants my position on a matter I

will not clam up like the Member for St. John's South. The way the Member for

St. John's South has been trying to get into Cabinet and take the job from the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that is the reason why he has not

opened his mouth, because he is trying so hard to take the Minister's job. She

should be aware of what is happening, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Exploits

should be aware of what is happening, too, because under normal circumstances he

would be the next person in. Now, I do not know if this is true or not and

probably I should not say it, but I have been told, and I will not say who told

me, but if I look straight across the Member will know who I am talking about, I

have been told that the Member for St. John's South gets one of his buddies at

the Evening Telegram to print that he is going to be next in Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, whether that is true or not

I do not know but I suggest that the Member for St. John's South ask a couple of

his colleagues whether or not it is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who told you, his colleague?

MR. TOBIN: I am not saying who told me, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MURPHY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West

has been totally misinforming this House. He has made some statements here this

afternoon that I cannot stay in my place and listen to any longer. Number one,

he has let this House believe that I am not supportive of City Hall's position

on the urban core concept, which I am, and I have already said that publicly. He

has not told the truth there and he is making accusations that are totally

incorrect. If he wants to get on with his silly ramblings then, Mr. Speaker, let

him get on but I feel that I have to rise and clarify my position.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the Member did

not state his position, I said I read it in the paper where City Council said

the only one stated their position was the Member for Pleasantville. That is

what I said, Mr. Speaker. Why is the Member for St. John's South trying to get

up here and justify what City Council said. Let him go down to the City Council

chambers and tell council and not tell me. What your position is, I do not care.

I do not care, Mr. Speaker, what your position is, and whether you have your

name put in the paper or not I do not care, either. I do not care who he phones

to have his name put in the paper that he is going in Cabinet. I could not care

less, Mr. Speaker. If he did not phone anyone, Mr. Speaker, sobeit.

Write a letter to the editor explaining you did not phone

somebody like you do every other second day. Now, we have a Government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: We have a Government that has lost all concept

of what rural Newfoundland is all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, there is the great defender of rural

Newfoundland who just spoke, the Minister of Finance. When you closed eight

hospitals in your Budget. What we have here is a Government that could not care

less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Why do you not go to South East Bight or St.

Joseph's or Paradise or some place like that and understand what rural

Newfoundland is all about? Mr. Speaker, he was never outside the overpass, the

University would not let him out there.

The water and sewer corporation: now where is the water and

sewer corporation? When my friend from Carbonear gets up to speak I would like

for him to tell us what his position is on the water and sewer corporation. I

happen to have some brochures here from the last elections, particularly my

colleague from Placentia and I hope he does not leave, as it relates to the

water and sewer corporation. Those are the questions that I would like to have

answered. Was this Government misleading the people of the Province about the

water and sewer corporation? Did the Members for St. John's South, Placentia and

Harbour Grace and other places go out and talk about this in good faith?

I would suspect he did. I do not know if the Member for

Harbour Grace did, because he knew the difference. But I can tell you the

Liberal candidate in Burin - Placentia West talked about it and promised it to

every municipality in this Province. Now when you talk about changing the local

grants system, for example, and you look at this sheet here, and you go to

various places, and all the (inaudible) indicate the amount of money they are

going to lose. And you have one place that is going to lose $118,176.

By the way, how much is Carbonear going to lose on this? Let

me see what Carbonear is going to lose under this proposal. Yes, $100,000

roughly, $100,000, same as Marystown. Now how can any Member over there

representing a constituency or a district that is going to lose thousands and

thousands of dollars support this Government in a new municipality structure?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member will have lots of

opportunity to explain that. Because I can tell the Member for St. John's South

that I showed that to members of the union in Marystown what he said one day,

him and the Minister of Development. What they said about me advising them on

the shrimp trawler. And I forget what Hansard stated. And they were highly

offended that the Minister of Development would even suggest that they could not

make their own decisions. I can tell the Minister of Development and the Member

for St. John's South that you will have, very soon, the opportunity to address

the Marystown Shipyard issue. Within days you will have that opportunity and

stand in front of the union members then and say what you said in the House of

Assembly. I bet the Member for St. John's South will lack the courage. Because

they were highly offended that someone would suggest that they could not make up

their own minds and make their own decisions.

The fact of the matter is, is that the Member for St. John's

South is always lipping off and never knows what he is saying, and he gets

himself in trouble. Like they said down in City Hall, he is the only fellow who

wants the gold and the bronze and the silver. That is what was said at City

Hall. Give credit to no one else. The Member knows what I am talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The fact of the matter remains -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) his cousin said it, Gerry

Colbert, that is who said it.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he is my cousin. He is a

good councillor too. And it will not be long before he will be in here.

MS. VERGE: He might be the next Member for St. John's

South!

MR. TOBIN: No he will not. But I can tell you who will

not be the next Member for St. John's South, that is the present one. I can tell

you that too.

But anyway, I am getting distracted, Mr. Speaker, and I

apologize for that. I should not let the Member for St. John's South - the

Member for St. John's should -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You should show a lot of respect to Ms. Hyde.

Because come the next elections, Mr. Speaker....

But what is going to happen to the councils in rural

Newfoundland? What do I tell the councils from Port au Bras, Mortier, Fox Cove

and Parkers Cove? Some of the smaller communities that were assured of getting

money. I guess I can tell them that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has no

plan, no sense of direction, no commitment, like the Minister of Finance, to

rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right, does not understand where rural

Newfoundland is. But what do you tell them when they have not got water to

drink? And I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs cannot solve every

problem overnight, I realize that. But what the Minister can do is be fair in

the allocation of funding. Not do it on - we have never seen in the history of

this Province - even the Smallwood era would make this Government look bad in

the terms of political patronage.

MS. VERGE: Make them look good.

MR. TOBIN: Make them look good, I mean, in terms of

political patronage. Now why has the municipal grants system not been brought

before the House? Why have we not seen how much money is going to be allocated

this year for the Province? The Minister promised early tendering. We have not

seen it. I suspect that you will not see it while the House is open. Nor will

you see the amalgamation issue for the northeast Avalon brought in while this

House is open.

MS. VERGE: Any more than the new grant system was

announced.

MR. TOBIN: That is right. You will see none of that

brought in while this House is open.

MS. VERGE: They announced the grants system just before

Christmas.

MR. TOBIN: That is right, and so they did. And I can tell

you something else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Placentia - is

that this House is not going to close until the grant system is brought in. For

those Members who think the House is going to close it will not, until we see

the capital works from Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: They can say what they like but the grant

system will be brought into this House before the Premier gets his holidays. And

the Minister of Development has not told us yet when he is going over to Asia to

open up the Newfoundland office.

MS. VERGE: He is going to Ireland on his way to Hong

Kong.

MR. TOBIN: Well, if he probably is going to Ireland then

the Province could benefit from his visit. I hope it does. And I hope the visit

to Hong Kong will be successful. But what I want to know when the Minister of

Development is going to be going on that jaunt. Will he be going on that jaunt

before we get the capital works approved? That is what I want to know. Because

there are communities in this Province today - and I am sure every Member in

this House, at least most Members in this House, particularly those of us

representing rural Newfoundland - have communities that do not have water and

sewer.

The Minister said today there was (Inaudible). Now I want to

ask the Minister then and he is not here but I hope - will the Minister commit -

he got up in the House today and he said: there is something like fifty

communities that do not have water and sewer -to put the communities that do not

have water and sewer on the priority list? Will Port de Bras and Mortier that

have no water and sewer receive funding this year? Will they be put on the

system? That is the question I would like to ask the Minister. Whether or not

they will be put -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, but I circulate what is

appropriate to circulate.

Because the people of Port au Bras and the people of Mortier,

Fox Cove deserve water and sewer and this Government should give them water and

sewer. They are hard-working, tax paying Newfoundlanders and it is now time; I

can tell the Member for Placentia that when this Government was defeated there

was an approved Budget with money in it and committed for the people of Port au

Bras.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, indeed there was and this Government went

up like they did with the money for the shrimp trawler, like they did with the

$5 million that they left to their portion of the money that was negotiated for

the construction of vessels at Marystown, they stole it on Marystown Shipyard.

The Government robbed the money and they did the same thing with the money that

was approved for Port au Bras, that is what is going on in this Province and the

Minister of Development was the person more responsible for taking the money

than anyone on the subsidy programme for vessels, and what could have happened,

there would be more people working in Marystown Shipyard today, creating more

money, paying more taxes, buying more things, giving Government more money to

spend on water and sewer this coming year.

But that is not happening; I am sure we have all heard by now

that there is such a thing as spending your way out of the recession, we have

heard that in the past couple of days, creating taxation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe in that?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the only ones who did not agree

with it were the ultra-Conservatives of this nation, the Premier of the Province

and the Premier of Saskatchewan and the -

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

By leave?

MR. TOBIN: I want -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear.

MR. REID: I would certainly give leave to my hon.

colleague if he wanted to finish up in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in reading this resolution a lot of old thoughts

I guess and comments which were made to me, as my hon. colleague mentioned a few

minutes ago, I was President of the Federation for a year and I served as Mayor

of Carbonear for seven years and while I was going down through this resolution

the other night, it sounded sort of ironic because I believed back in 1984, a

similar resolution was proposed by a Member from the Opposition, a similar

resolution of the day, a Liberal Opposition Member in fact, and the response to

it at the time and if I am not correct - basically, it was almost as if the

roles have reversed totally, almost to the point where dollars and cents are

even dead on.

I just want to make a couple of quotes to you. Just to start

with, Mr. Speaker, Government Service Estimates, April 3, 1984 and the hon.

Hazel Newhook, and a fine lady she was too, a good friend of mine, made a

comment, and she made the comment after a question from the Opposition in

Estimates and this is just part of what she said: some of the monies required,

really should come, she was talking of municipalities and she was talking about

cuts to the grant system, the grant programme and to funding capital works and

she said, some of the money required really should come from the taxes they

collect from their taxpayers. What a queer thing or a funny thing for a Member

of the Government at that particular time to say.

The policy, just to get in very briefly to the resolution,

IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly oppose the Provincial Government policy

of reducing funding for municipalities and shifting costly responsibilities to

municipalities - Now, I have listened here to two previous speakers talking

about what we are doing as a Government and the cuts that we are making. Well, I

am going to tell you all about the cuts that we are making as a Government to

municipalities.

First of all, let me begin by saying that in 1986 and I could

go back to 1984, it began in 1984 and it went to 1987, that the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador at that time, with a Progressive Conservative

Government announced early in 1984 that a freeze would be put on capital works

expenditure in the Province to amount to $25 million and that is where it would

stay for three years. Well, it did not stay there for three years and went to

four, in fact, it did not come off until late 1988. In 1989, just let me read

down, in 1986 the previous Government put $25 million in capital works, in 1987

they put $25 million in; in 1988 they upped it a little bit, they put in $2

million extra which made it $27 million. Look what happens in 1989. In 1989 when

we were elected on April 20, it took some time, if you remember, we went through

that hassle in the House of not being able to get our contracts out in time

because the House had not opened and all this, and for some reason or another

the hon. Minister managed to convince this Government in 1989, the same year as

the opposite colleagues were defeated, rose that $27 million to $40 million.

Last year that $40 million became $53 million. Now I am not talking about the

money we put in Labrador either, on either one of those cases, I believe last

year it was $53 million in the Province, and it was something like $11 million

went into Labrador. So it is unbelievable the difference. In fact, there is 100

per cent, if not more increase in capital works funding to municipalities in

this Province over the last two and a half years than it was in the ten year

period that Tories were in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Two for one or more.

MR. REID: Some Budget highlights, and, Mr. Speaker, I am

going to deviate from the question somewhat because my hon. colleagues who spoke

on the other side mentioned everything under the sun from amalgamation to cuts

in health care, to cuts in education and everything else. I just want to read

very briefly some Budget highlights for the year 1984, and that year Hazel

Newhook was the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Just a couple, one in particular,

no salary scale increases will be provided to employees of Government and

agencies for a period of two years. No pension increases will be provided for

1984-85. Does that sound familiar? A total of 550 public service positions will

not be filled in 1984-85, and the salary cost of a further 150 positions will be

saved through not filling these additional positions as they come vacant.

Effective January 1, 1985, the minimum fixed revenue

contributions by municipalities towards utility debt charges will increase from

15 per cent to 20 per cent. Remember that my friend from Cormack, from 15 per

cent to 20 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Do you remember the racket we had in this

Province over that particular one? And the per capita component of the General

Municipal Assistance Program will be reduced. And that is where they went from

fifty cents back to forty-five. Do you remember that one? Anyone remember the

meeting we had in Gander? Any of you fellows who were in municipal politics at

the time must remember the meeting we had in Gander. If any of the other Members

want to see some of these notes they are welcome to have them.

I just want to take a minute or so to read the headlines of

the day, and this was The Evening Telegram, May 14, 1984. Right across the top

it says: Municipalities Suffering. Federation Demands Grants Be Restored. This

was a meeting that we had in Gander that was called at the demand of over 200

municipalities in the Province, and there were over 200 municipalities

represented out there. Now listen to some of the problems that the mayors and

councillors in Newfoundland had with the Provincial Government of the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The Budget measures included in the 1984

Estimates, 10 per cent reduction in the per capita grant; increased payments

demanded by the Province on the capital debt retirement for water and sewer

projects; a new scheme resulting in increased cost for property assessment and

an increase in the industrial water rates -my friend for Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?

MR. REID: That was in 1984.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, ha!

MR. REID: That was in 1984. And the comment by the

President of the Federation of Municipalities at the time said these changes are

going to cost municipalities a lot of money at a time when they can least afford

it. I think most people would agree. I think at that particular point in time

they would agree. I can go on and on, Mr. Speaker, about the amount of money

that was taken out of health care, education and all those things in 1984, and

the funny thing about it is that the comments that were made at that particular

time by Members of Cabinet were basically - now I am not being critical because

we are basically saying the same thing now - basically that the Province could

not afford to continue putting as much money into certain services that they

could - and remember at that time we were into a recession and rightfully so, so

I am not being critical. All I am saying is that there have been times in

Newfoundland's history when we could look across this wonderful country we are

living in now and in just about every nook and cranny from one end of the

country to the other everyone is in the same situation, everyone is in the same

bind, there is no money.

I am going to go on now from 1984, Mr. Chairman. I am not

sure if I should call you Chairman, Vice-Chairman, or Vice-vice-Chairman, but

you are a fine looking Chairman and we will call you Chairman. Now don't take

that the wrong way my hon. Member for St. John's East Extern.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a fine old fellow.

MR. REID: Let us go on just barely three years in 1987

and listen to the Budget Highlights of 1987. Government will be providing

through guaranteed loans $25 million. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Municipal loan

approvals for paving, water and sewerage. Just listen to this one, this is in

the Budget Highlights of 1987: a three year freeze on construction of nursing

homes, new hospitals, and major renovations to hospitals, new public buildings,

Memorial University buildings and the freezing at current budget levels of

funding for water and sewerage facilities (inaudible) projects non cost-shared

road construction. That was in 1987!

So, Mr. Speaker, I really do not know. This is our third

year, we are going into our third year as a Government and we have had one

problem, I suppose, this year, and God forbid that we do not have the same

problem next year because I do not want to see us suffering anymore. I know that

we had a hard time this year in doing a Budget, and I know that there are people

out there who are saying that our cuts were too severe, but I do not think we

had a choice. With all that said, the Opposition will get up and stand and

criticize the Minister of Municipal Affairs who has put more into Municipal

Affairs in the last two years than the previous Government put in the last four

years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I do not understand it.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make those comments because -

and I am not being critical, I don't think, when I make those types of comments

to anyone. All I am saying is that this resolution basically, I suppose, comes

out of history, and over the years we have been in a situation where one

government has found it necessary to do certain things as it relates to the

economy and the overall economy of the Province, and this Government is

basically at this present time in the same situation. But with all of that said,

I really do not think that at this particular point in time that this particular

Minister has done anything up until now other than change the grant system

somewhat.

Now, we will know that possibly in a week's time when he

comes out and makes the announcement. I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that when he

comes out this year and makes the announcement for water, sewerage and roads,

instead of $56 million he is going to announce $100 million. I hope he does. If

he does, I, as the Member for Carbonear district will probably have a better

chance to pick away at a little bit of that to be able to get some more services

in my community, or in my area of the Province.

By the way the saving that the Provincial Government saved on

the repayment schedule, by making it from 15 per cent to 20 per cent repayment,

worked out to be a saving to the Province of $2.1 million. And that is sort of

ironic because my colleague who spoke ahead of me was talking about the

Minister, and I think the Minister replied a few minutes ago that it would mean

a saving to the Province, this particular grant system would mean a saving to

the Province of approximately $2 million, so they both sort of work out

together. So, all the whole question and the whole answer period, and it relates

to this particular resolution, seems like it has already been done, it has

already been debated, it was debated back in 1984. Now, to get off that for just

a few moments, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with the smaller communities

in this Province being able to avail of a little bit better service than what

they have been getting over the years in this Province. There is nothing wrong

with little communities like Salmon Cove getting increased funding under this

new grant system. There is nothing wrong with Small Point and Adams Cove getting

an extra $3000 or $4000 in grant money this year because this hon. Minister

decided to make changes to the program. The only thing, I suppose, that is wrong

with it is the fact that it may be that some of our larger communities who have,

by the way, in a lot of cases, been putting things in the ground. I remember,

Mr. Speaker, a one-time Speaker of the House saying in my district a long time

ago, saying to the town council and the mayor of the day, look, get the money,

get it in the ground because they are not going to come and dig it up, and I

believe that was the philosophy for a number of years not only in Carbonear and

in St. John's but all over the Province. If they could get their hands on it get

it into the ground, either it be pavement or water and sewerage, because there

is nobody going to come and take it up. Worry about paying for it after. Now,

Mr. Speaker, we have reached a point, I think, in Newfoundland where everyone is

going to have to start paying a little bit of their share of the cost of water

and sewerage. I believe, and I have spoke in this House, I think last year

basically on the same resolution or close to it, I believe that every man,

woman, and child in this Province, regardless of whether they are living in an

incorporated area or an unincorporated area, and I have a whole slew of

communities down in the lower part of my district that are unincorporated, they

are not even communities, there is nobody there who acts as the Chairman or the

Mayor, and I believe those people have just as much right to water and sewerage

as we do who are living in Carbonear or you do that are living in St. John's.

And, in order for us to provide a service like that, in order for this

Government to be able to provide a service, therefore the pot has to be spread

thinner throughout the Province and cities like St. John's, and cities like

Corner Brook and Mount Pearl, and maybe even Carbonear, must be expected to pay

a little more than what they have been used to paying over the years. I am

amazed sometimes at some of the systems I know of that have been put in, not

only in my district but in others, cadillac systems, water and sewerage systems,

that are serving eight, ten, or fifteen houses, and for the sake of the cost of

an artesian well which would probably be a tenth of the cost, and it could have

probably provided the same service.

Maybe one of these days Municipal Affairs will look at the

possibility of rather than putting in Cadillac systems in communities for small

numbers of households, maybe an artesian well or some other system would be a

better one to use.

Somebody on the other side mentioned about the water and

sewage corporation, and the promise that this Government made during the

election about a Water and Sewage Program. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be honest,

and I will say here quite openly that I never thought very much about a water

and sewage corporation, and I never used it, in fact, you will not find any of

my literature that was used in the last election that claimed that I was in

support of a water and sewage corporation. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, like a

lot of other Governments in the past and a lot of other Governments in Canada

sometimes it is necessary to take a second look at some things like those

promises that people make, and quite often Government will find themselves in

the situation where they cannot fulfil or they do not believe that is the right

thing to do at a given time.

I am going to finish off, Mr. Speaker, by making some of my

colleagues on the other side, as well as some of my colleagues on this side a

little upset with me, because I have been listening and I have been challenged

on a number of occasions inside the House and outside of the House to make my

feelings known on the amalgamation issue between or the city core, that is what

it is referred to, the city core concept.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep it going until twenty after.

MR. REID: Twenty after?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. REID: Great.

I have sat and I have studied and I have listened and I have

heard what the City of St. John's is proposing. I have also heard the argument

from Mount Pearl. I have just recently listened to the Mayor of Wedgewood Park,

he is a friend of mine, from out my way. I think he is from my hon. friend's

District of Harbour Grace originally.

MR. CRANE: That is right, Sir.

MR. REID: And it my personal opinion, and I am going to

be quite frank with you, and I am hoping that it will come into the House, it

will come to the House eventually, I think it will, at least the question will.

And if it comes to the House, I have already discussed this with my hon.

colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I can honestly say

that I do not think that after this Government or previous Governments allowing

a community like Mount Pearl to build, to blossom, to mature to the extent that

only two years ago I believe or three years ago it was made into a city, I do

not think that it is right for this Government or any other Government to turn

around and assimilate such a place with the City of St. John's. So I have

basically made my comment.

MR. WINDSOR: The Town of Mount Pearl (inaudible).

MR. REID: I do not think that it is fair to the people of

Mount Pearl, I do not think it would be honest for me, and what the Government

does I suppose is basically up to themselves, but me as an individual, the

Premier knows where I stand on this and the Minister. I do not think it would be

right tomorrow to take a town like Carbonear, for example, and try to force

amalgamation from some other area, be it Harbour Grace, or Victoria or somewhere

else because this particular town has made a name for itself, it has a history,

it has a backbone, it has a sort of a different type atmosphere.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Member's time has

elapsed.

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

MR. DOYLE: Give him a couple of minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. REID: I know I am going to have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: When I think about the active role that Mount

Pearl has played over the years not only in municipal affairs, but in sports and

recreation, in all kinds of things, in education, Mount Pearl has always been

recognized as maybe a little bit better than most of the other Bay communities

because I would like to refer to Mount Pearl as a Bay community. A little bit

better, but you cannot penalize a town for being successful, for getting the

things that they have in Mount Pearl, and I say congratulations to them. That is

how I feel.