April 23,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

If you would allow me, Sir, today I would like to ask you, as

the Speaker of this House, to send condolences to the family of the late Alder

Ford. I know by the look on many hon. member's faces that there is probably

nobody in this House, in this Legislature, other than my friend for Kilbride,

who knew the late Alder Ford. Alder Ford, Mr. Speaker, was a pioneer. When the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador took over responsibility in 1951 for

managing the retail outlets in northern Labrador, Alder Ford was the first

native person to be on the Government payroll. During the past weekend Mr. Ford

departed this life and I think, Mr. Speaker, you would have to have known Mr.

Ford to really appreciate his contribution. In 1969 and 1970 I had the

opportunity of having Mr. Ford as an employee of mine and his devotion to

Government, his devotion to his work, and his devotion to his family and to his

church, was exceptional beyond any expectation. He has been recognized by 'Them

Day's'magazine in Labrador as a pioneer. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you

send condolences to his two sons and three daughters and their families, in

appreciation of the work and life that Mr. Ford has given to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular to the community of Makkovik.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform

Members of the House of Assembly that earlier today the Government of

million ACOA/Enterprise Network Cooperation Agreement. This Canada/Newfoundland

agreement was signed this morning by the Hon. John Crosbie and the Minister of

Development during a news conference.

The ACOA/Enterprise Network is among the most important

economic development agreements ever signed by the Federal and Provincial

Governments. It is an innovative, computerized information network to assist the

development of small and medium sized enterprises in this Province. It

represents a fundamentally new form of technical and human infrastructure for

the long-term economic development of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, this network will encourage entrepreneurship by

making business information equally accessible to individuals and organizations

in urban, rural and remote regions of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The development of the information network system will

include the creation of strategically sited electronic telecentres to provide

communities with access to computing and communications facilities, business

planning services, teleconferencing and distance education facilities, as well

as consulting services.

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is already a national

leader in telecommunications and is now the first province in Canada to create

this type of network.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express

appreciation to the Economic Recovery Commission for having the foresight -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: - to provide rich financing for the Enterprise

Network during the past fiscal year. Without the support of the Economic

Recovery Commission, this project would not have gone through the technical and

market testing that it has in the last year, and we would have agreed today to

supporting only a concept rather than a real system that is already functioning.

Mr. Speaker, we can all look forward to the important impact

which the ACOA/Enterprise Network will have in supporting business and economic

development throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me offer a very

sincere word of congratulations to Mr. Crosbie. Only in the portfolio

approximately twenty-four hours, and has already given $5 million to the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is performance, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Let me also say that any initiatives taken by

the Federal Government and by the Provincial Government to improve in any way

the faltering, floundering efforts of the Economic Recovery Commission and

Enterprise Newfoundland is certainly welcome news to members on this side of the

House, Mr. Speaker. As the member says, it is a cost-shared initiative, 70 per

cent of which is provided by the Federal Government, to the tune of

approximately $5 million.

I think it is possibly a good move. I think it is a very good

move by the Federal Government, especially when one considers that the Economic

Recovery Commission, to date, have been trying to take the credit for most of

the projects that have otherwise been approved by ACOA and other funding

agencies, Mr. Speaker, and will undoubtedly go a long way in lending some

credibility to the failed efforts of the Economic Recovery Commission and

Enterprise Newfoundland who have now been in existence incidentally

approximately two years, who will have spent by the end of the coming fiscal

year approximately $6 million, and who to date can show approximately 65 jobs

that have been created by the Economic Recovery Commission and Enterprise

Newfoundland for about a $6 million bill which means that the Economic Recovery

Commission has been costing the tax payers of Newfoundland and Labrador

approximately $92,000 per part-time job, Mr. Speaker. It is ironic that the

Premier, who has been criticizing ACOA over the last two year period in

particular for not being responsive to the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador,

is today the recipient of a huge windfall of money, $5 million that will go a

long way, I guess -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: - in propping up the Economic Recovery

Commission and lending some credibility to the failed efforts of that body.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to bring

to the attention of my colleagues that April 22-28 is National Consumer Week.

This is a very important event, Mr. Speaker, as it emphasizes

the importance of consumer awareness.

The Theme of the week is "Team Up For A Stronger Marketplace

- Consumers, Business and Government." In keeping with the theme, a campaign has

been mounted to encourage a partnership of all three parties to ensure an

effective marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the Federal

Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is working in conjunction with the

Provincial Department to ensure the success of this campaign. Municipal

governments are also participating by recognizing the importance of consumer

education; and I wish to extend appreciation to my honourable colleagues, who

are actively participating in the week's celebrations and to those departments

which have provided assistance in our preparations for this National Consumer

Week.

The Marketplace is changing, Mr. Speaker. These changes

encompass new technology such as the use of debit cards, which will challenge

consumers present spending habits; new methods of shopping as telemarketing

becomes more widely accepted; and the demand for industry to be cognizant of

environmental and health issues.

Consumers must be prepared to deal with these changes. In

order to ensure the marketplace works for them, consumers have to be aware of

the many concerns surrounding these issues.

National Consumer Week is an avenue for increased awareness

of consumer issues, Mr. Speaker, and I invite my colleagues and the general

public to join in our activities and to be aware of their rights and

responsibilities in the marketplace. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I

want to thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement and from the way

he presented it I would say he only just saw the statement himself before he

came to the House.

There certainly is a need for consumer awareness in this

Province and throughout the nation. I would imagine that this is one of the

responsibilities that our Premier would like to transfer to the Federal

Government also. Because when we look at our Government's actions in consumer

awareness, all we see is that this Government closed consumer office's in Grand

Falls and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We see last fall that the Ministers of Justice

and Energy were talking about regulating gas prices and they have done nothing

since that time except talk. That is all this Government wishes to do for

consumer awareness, talk about it, and waste money on several ads that I heard

this morning on one radio station in this time of restraint. As far as this

Government is concerned this is hypocrisy personified.

Oral Questions

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

MR. HODDER: A question for the Minister of Social

Services. Did the Minister speak or write to the President of Treasury Board

asking that the level of compensation be increased from Level I to Level II for

the Social Assistance Appeals Board? And if there was written correspondence,

would the Minister table that correspondence?

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

MR. EFFORD: Probably the hon. Member for Port au Port was

not in the House last week. First of all, I said yes I did speak to the

President of Treasury Board. Secondly, the hon. Premier tabled a letter from my

Deputy Minister to the President of Treasury Board making that very statement

last week.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that was before.

MR. EFFORD: Before...?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to

get the Minister on the record. Mr. Speaker, another supplementary. On how many

occasions did the Minister speak to the President of Treasury Board? And why was

it he only pressured the President of Treasury Board on this one board? Why only

on this one board despite the recommendations of his Department that the other

four appeals boards were made Level I rather than Level II? What made this board

so special?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I thought we had all this

solved. Now you can ask a question in a hundred different ways. The purpose and

the reason why I appealed - I not only made representation but I also appealed

as Minister of the Department - was because I consider the Social Assistance

Appeals Board to be a board that is a very busy board; it takes a lot of time,

and the expertise is needed on that particular board. In fact, I have not even

had a conversation - I do not know if the Day Care and Homemakers' Board is put

together yet. It has been enacted for some particular time, as well as the

Rehabilitative Appeals Board. But I have not seen or talked to the appeals

boards at any time in the past year.

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

Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the Treasury

Board guidelines for rates and remuneration for boards - and this was dated

March 12, 1990 - the criteria for a Level II board states and I quote: that this

Level would require an element of professional expertise? And further, is it not

true that guidelines dated January 30, 1991 state and I quote: that at this

Level legislation specifies the nature of the board, commission or agency be

such that members require professional credentials and expertise? My question

is, what professional credentials and/or expertise does Mr. Stoyles bring to his

position as Chairman of the Social Assistance Appeals Board so as to justify

this change of classification?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the difference in me as Minister

of Social Services is that I have tried to bring some credibility to the

Department of Social Services not only on a public relations matter and on

program delivery, but I have a great deal of respect for individuals across the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who either apply or come to the Department

of Social Services either for financial help or for counselling or whatever. Now

those people, even though they are in financial trouble, deserve the same

respect as any other individual in this Province. The people appointed to the

Social Services Appeals Board were appointed not only because they knew John

Efford - there was only one individual on this particular board who knew me -

but a resum was presented by these individuals, they graduated from Memorial

University and they were experienced. But that was not enough, Mr. Speaker. That

was not enough. For the first time ever, once they were appointed to the board

they underwent training by the Director of Social Assistance. So not only were

they qualified and competent, we took it one step further and it was the first

time in the history of the Department of Social Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Member for Port au Port on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister clearly broke the

guidelines of both March 12 and January 30. My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker,

is can the Minister explain why his Assistant Deputy Minister, Beaton Tulk, was

so anxious to have these retro-active payments made before the end of the year

that he wrote the Department of Finance to have the checks manually prepared?

Another question, Mr. Speaker, is why did he write this

letter instead of the appropriate ADM of Finance? Did he do it at the Minister's

urging? And how involved has he been in all these machinations to get the board

reclassified and its per diem raised by 700 per cent? Mr. Speaker, this was not

the jurisdiction of the ADM who, I understand, was ADM for Child Welfare.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Why was he involved?

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

MR. EFFORD: I know the hon. Member is politically naive

and does not know much about the system, but I am totally surprised that after

the number of years he has been in politics, and sitting on the Government side

after he crossed over, he still does not know the operations of any department.

You are a critic and you did not research your answer. First of all, Mr. Tulk,

the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for Child Welfare has responsibility

for the Appeals Board. He is the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for the

Appeals Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ah ha. Now we have the answer. Now we

have the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Secondly, Mr. Tulk did not write the letter

to the Department of Finance, it was written by Assistant Deputy Minister C. R.

Payne, who happened to be the only Assistant Deputy Minister there at that

period, when everybody else had gone home for Christmas. So the hon. Member is

not reading the information tabled in the House of Assembly. If you want to ask

us some questions, please do some research and know the answers before you ask

them.

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

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

President of Treasury Board. Last week the Premier tabled some information

regarding this whole situation in dealing with the Social Assistance Appeals

Board. Included in that information was a note from the President of Treasury

Board, as he will recall, to the Premier in which he stated `Under the new

guidelines, past practice of payment for travel and preparation time was

formalized with no significant change in past practice.' Can I ask the President

of Treasury Board, is it not true that at least in the case of the Social

Assistance Appeals Board payment for travel and preparation time does represent

a significant change in past practice?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as to whether that is true or not

we will know shortly and I will inform the House. Just because the hon. Member

says it is true does not necessarily make it true. A statement was made a moment

ago about a 700 per cent increase, which is totally, absolutely, patently false.

For a Member to stand up in the House and say that deliberate falsehood is

beyond me. So because the hon. Member says it is so does not mean it is so. We

are now going back over the last number of years, beyond two years, to have a

look at all the -

MR. SIMMS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure Your Honour heard

that unparliamentary remark by the President of Treasury Board, but I think he

accused the Member on this Side, the Opposition House Leader, myself, of a

deliberate falsehood being uttered, and that is clearly unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, if it is unparliamentary I will

obviously withdraw it. I want to, however, make the point that that statement is

obviously not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which statement?

MR. BAKER: Well, the statement that was made a moment

ago. It is obviously not true. Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will go back and look

at the last number of years, at least five years, and we will bring this

information to the House as soon as it is all collected, which should be in a

very, very short time.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I do now know why the President

of Treasury Board would have such a difficult time answering the question I

asked. It was a question. Is it not so that in the case of the Social Assistance

Appeals Board payment for travel and preparation time does represent a

significant change? That is a pretty simple question and he should know that by

now.

I want to ask him another supplementary and he can comment if

he wishes, when he rises - I want to ask him another supplementary, perhaps a

couple of others. Can he also tell us what other boards were reclassified? I

remember the Premier turning around and referring to the Mining and Taxation, or

Royalty and Taxation or something, but what other boards were reclassified? And

of those that were reclassified, or where payment for travel and preparation

time was provided for, were they also given payment retroactively and would he

table all that information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I do not know where the Opposition House

Leader has been for the last few minutes, but I will simply repeat what I have

told him. We are now going back over the last number of years, at least five

years, with the boards to see if in fact what the hon. Member is saying is true.

I do not know if it is true. We are going back and finding out exactly what was

paid and to whom it was paid over the last five years, and we will table the

information in the House. That is all I can say to the hon. gentleman. I cannot

confirm it, because I do not have the information available to me. As soon as it

is available it will be tabled. As with many other things we have tabled in this

House, as soon as they are available they have been tabled. We will table the

information as soon as it is available. Is that okay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not okay I say to the

Government House Leader. I mean he is saying to us now that he does not know

what other boards were reclassified? Because that is the question I asked. And

is he also telling us that those that were reclassified, he does not know if

they were given payment retroactively? Why does he have to research five years

to answer those questions? Those were the questions he was asked.

Let me ask him another one then. Is it not true that Treasury

Board established in October that the appropriate level for the Social

Assistance Appeals Board was Level 1?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: And that you, the President of Treasury Board,

then made an oral and verbal presentation to his Deputy Minister in December

with respect to changing this decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: And we also know, of course, that the Minister

asked you to reverse the previous decision which Treasury Board had made. But my

question is this to the Government House Leader: What was the basis for your

verbal argument to your Deputy Minister to have this decision reversed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, if he wants a question answered,

I wish he would ask a question instead of ten questions. Maybe that is part of

the problem in Question Period, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: No. Let us see if I can recall now. I dealt

with the issue of the Social Assistance Appeals Board, whether that was the past

practice of that particular Board. I have dealt with that. Then he has asked me

a number of other questions. Originally the request came from the Department of

Social Services, the Deputy Minister, indicating she felt that that particular

Appeals Board should be at Level II rather than Level I.

AN HON. MEMBER: All of them.

MR. BAKER: All four Boards, yes. Absolutely.

Treasury Board at that point in time - and I cannot recall

the exact date now - rejected that and put them all at Level I and, I might add,

over my objections. I thought, and I agree with the hon. Member for Humber East

who indicates the kinds of decisions rendered, as a quasi-judicial board

rendering decisions, that type of decision, I thought it should be at Level II.

But Treasury Board is made up of seven Ministers, they overruled me and we put

them at Level 1. Then the Minister appealed. I subsequently verbally presented

the appeal to Treasury Board, I believe early in December, and Treasury Board at

this point agreed yes, that Board should be classified at Level II because of

the nature of decisions, and because it is, as I agree with the Member for

Humber East, a quasi-judicial board.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to follow what the

Government House Leader is saying. If using all of that argument, and I am not

sure if he gave a basis for his argument to his Deputy Minister to make the

verbal request, but why do you think the same request was not made, for example,

for the Child Welfare Board, I think it is, which has all professional people on

it - doctors, nurses? They are all professional people I believe on that

particular Board, so why would that request not have been made? It seems to me

that that is a Board with more expertise? Secondly, can he tell the House also

whether the Assistant Deputy Minister of Social Services, Mr. Tulk, already

referred to, made any personal representations to the Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: In the last question I assume you mean by the

Minister to me, because that is the only thing I can have knowledge of. No, he

made no appeals to me. It was simply mentioned to me by the Minister of Social

Services, and I took it to the Board as I should. That is how that happened.

There was no appeal to me at all. No.

Secondly, I would like to point out that what we did by

putting that Board at Level I was actually reduce. Up to that point the Chairmen

of Level I boards could make $300 a day. We reduced it to $200. And subsequently

then, by moving it to Level II put it up to $350. I just want to make sure these

numbers are correct. This is exactly what was done. We actually increased it -

the possibility of making $300 a day was there, and we now have the possibility

of making $350 a day.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) special about (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Oh, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am assuming that the President of Treasury Board is going

to answer the question.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot answer that. I do not know why a particular board

did not appeal; I have no idea. There are a number of things that are taken into

account when we consider these things. If, for instance, a lawyer is appointed

to a board because that person is a lawyer and we need the legal expertise,

there is a totally different rate paid. If a medical doctor - which is what you

refer to - is appointed to a board because his medical expertise is needed on

that board, there is a completely different rate from the rates for levels one,

two and three. If a medical specialist is appointed to a board, I believe the

rate is $80 an hour. All this is in the information table.

So, if members have been appointed to boards because of their

expertise in a particular field, then, they are paid at a different rate,

anyway.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

In response to a question from the Member for Harbour Main,

asked on Friday, the Premier said that the initial allegation that the Minister

of Social Services had intervened to obtain a level 2 classification for the

Social Assistance Appeals Board has - and I quote the Premier - `been determined

to be totally without foundation, completely false, and fabricated by members

opposite.'

Now, I want to ask the Premier, can I take it from that

statement that the Premier has completed his investigation into the incident?

And, has he found, and satisfied himself, that the Minister of Social Services

measures up to the standards and expectations that the Premier is demanding as

conduct from members of his Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The first thing I will do, Mr. Speaker, is

get the full text of what I said and the full context in which it was said,

because I do not recollect it that particular way, or that it was in that

particular context; then, I will know whether or not the inference suggested by

the Leader of the Opposition has any validity whatsoever. Secondly, Mr. Speaker,

as the House is aware, there is a full assessment of what went on with respect

to those particular individuals and the claims they have made. That is in the

process of being done. What I did say is that I was satisfied that the appeal

process went through Treasury Board in the ordinary course and that that board

was one of two or three or four boards, however many there were, in respect of

which Treasury Board agreed it ought to be increased. So the inference suggested

by the Opposition that it was a political favour being done by the Minister of

Social Services for their friends, I am satisfied has not been made out. I am

quite satisfied with that.

MR. RIDEOUT: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, you see, Mr. Speaker, the Premier,

being as glib as he is, just made reference to it again, the political inference

made by the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said on Friday that the charges were

fabricated by members of the Opposition. Did the Premier determine that from his

investigations? Has he, for example, interviewed Mr. Noseworthy, the former

Chairman of the Social Assistance Appeals Board, who initially exposed this

matter in an interview with the local media. It was not the Opposition, it was a

member of the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. Will the Premier tell the

House if he considers Mr. Noseworthy's story - and it was Mr. Noseworthy's story

that was reported - does he consider that to be fabricated?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I get a chance, I

will look at the Hansard for Friday and determine exactly if what I said was

'fabricated' so that I can report accurately to the House, because my

recollection is that what the hon. the Opposition Leader just said is not an

accurate representation of the comment. What I recall saying in relation to Mr.

Noseworthy is that if Mr. Noseworthy wants to say anything to me, my office door

is open and I invite him to come and do so. I have no intention of tracking Mr.

Noseworthy down to see what he has to say, but if he has some complaint to make,

my office door is open and he is free to come, and I would be quite pleased to

hear him.

I am satisfied, from my discussions with the President of

Treasury Board and everybody else in relation to this matter that I have talked

to, that the ordinary process of appeal was in the ordinary course of things.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what the Premier is saying to

the House now is that there was no investigation, it was just

a fraud perpetrated by the Premier to cover up for his Minister. That is what it

was. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier was interested in conducting an

investigation and getting all the facts that were alleged by somebody else, not

by Members of this group over here, will the Premier tell the House why he would

not attempt to interview Mr. Noseworthy and determine whether or not his

allegations were fabrications or not? Why would the Premier not do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I did not say Mr. Noseworthy's allegations

were a fabrication. I do not recall saying that anywhere. But again I will look

to see if the Opposition Leader's representations are accurate. What I did say,

Mr. Speaker, is that I would undertake, as I did, to do an examination of how

this appeal board's status was altered and I did, and I tabled a full

correspondence in the House. And the President of Treasury Board who had a

personal involvement has filled in anywhere where there was no correspondence

and he explained there were some circumstances where there was no

correspondence. All that has been tabled and explained in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I see no necessity for chasing Mr. Noseworthy

around to see what he wants to say. If Mr. Noseworthy has anything that he wants

to say to me, as I said in the House on Friday, I said earlier today, I repeat

again, my door is open to Mr. Noseworthy.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago when the

Minister of Education gave us a breakdown in the layoffs in the educational

system he mentioned that approximately 133 would be affected at the secondary-

elementary area. Will the Minister tell us if he included school boards' support

staff in these numbers?

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

DR. WARREN: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister now admit then,

because of his freeze on funding the school boards, which has actually meant a

severe reduction in the amount of money they will have this year, that a number

of support personnel will be laid off at the school board level?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify the 133. The

133 included 122 teaching positions that would have been eliminated as a result

of declining enrollments. So the 133 are not as a result of fiscal restraint -

one hundred and twenty-two of these I think were as a result of declining

enrollments. Mr. Speaker, I indicated in the House that there were some

positions being eliminated by school boards but until the end of the year it is

difficult to find out how many. In St. John's, I saw in the press approximately

twenty. I checked out and found that a number of these are being transferred.

But until the end of the school year it is difficult to

project how many positions will be eliminated. And secondly I am finding it very

difficult to determine how many positions are being eliminated, period, for a

variety of reasons, including dropping enrollments, and how many positions are

being eliminated as a result of the fiscal restraint measures the Government has

taken.

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

Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is well

aware that the reduction in funding the school boards' staff, or to school

boards, means that the school board personnel have very few options in dealing

with what is under their charge. The only flexibility they have is in personnel.

And will the Minister admit that due to the fact that they will have to exercise

their only option in laying off school board personnel - especially in the

maintenance area - that this could propose or create a real problem in keeping

the schools clean and in a healthy condition? And is he worried about that?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, we did freeze the per pupil

grants to school boards this year. Enrollments are going down and therefore the

amounts of money that school boards will get from the maintenance grant will

decrease. But the school tax system has become increasingly efficient and this

year, this 1991-1992 school tax revenues, are expected to increase by 5 per cent

to 6 per cent. So in effect, even with the freeze on salaries, Mr. Speaker,

school boards will have more money for operation and maintenance of schools this

year than they had last year.

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

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

the Minister of Education -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, sorry. I recognize the hon. the

Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, one more supplementary.

MR. HEARN: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister

skated away from answering the question about the healthy conditions of the

schools. But will the Minister admit that school boards may not have as much

funding? They are not getting as much from Government. Will he admit that they

may not get as much from school tax authorities because the Premier's promise to

either abolish or change the school tax authorities has left a tremendous number

of people out there saying: we are not going to pay our taxes because the

Premier says he is getting rid of the school tax system and consequently they

are not making their contributions to school boards.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that people

are paying their taxes and school boards will have more money next year as a

result of school taxes and grants than they have this year. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, school boards and their employees do an excellent job in keeping the

schools clean, and I am sure they will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

the Minister of Education. We have heard now from the Cabot Institute and the

Avalon Community College of their cutbacks as a result of the Budget after much

consultation with the Minister's Merger Implementation Committee. I wonder

whether the Minister can confirm that this is the end of the lay offs and

cutbacks there, or do we expect more cutbacks and more lay offs in those

institutions once the merger is complete?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I will not say there will not be

more, but I think most of the lay offs as a result of the restructuring have

already taken place. There may be, and I want to stress this, Mr. Speaker, we

are rationalizing the post-secondary system because we felt that there was

certain overlapping. There was certain repetition in courses and duplication.

Mr. Speaker, there may be, as a result of eliminating duplication, there may be

additional lay offs, but I do not expect these to be large numbers. But we are

attempting to make the post-secondary system more efficient, and very shortly,

Mr. Speaker, I will be making additional announcements about new boards and new

executive officers and other elements of the restructuring programs.

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

MR. HARRIS: Yes, my next question was to be about that,

Mr. Speaker, and I wonder if the Minister can advise the House when he will be

naming the new president of the merged Institution. Can he be more specific when

talking about the near future? There are a lot of people whose careers are at

stake and would like to know the answers to these questions.

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Member

knows we have at the present time five community colleges and three institutes.

As a result of the restructuring, we will reduce that number to - and if you

include Memorial we have nine - to five or six institutions. So there will be

some down sizing in number of boards, in governors, and also chief executive

officers and other leadership persons in these colleges. I cannot give him a

date. Mr. Speaker, we were going to do it this fall, but because of the fiscal

restraint and the crisis that we faced economically in the last while, we have

had to move it up. So I would say in the not too distant future we will be

making some of these announcements, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While he is at it, I

wonder if he could tell the House when we can expect to hear that he will be

replacing the Deputy Minister. When will we have a new Deputy Minister of

Education to announce to the House?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. Member is

aware that is the Premier's prerogative in the appointment of Deputy Ministers.

I might say that Dr. Winter is staying on until the end of June, and we are

delighted with that, he is an outstanding public servant, and I am sure the

Premier will make that decision in due course, Mr. Speaker.

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

West, time for a short question.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of

Municipal Affairs promised the House that he would be giving some information as

it relates to the capital funding program for the Department of Municipal

Affairs. Councils in this Province are eagerly awaiting as to when the

announcement will be made. Will the Minister tell the House today when he will

be making the announcements and stop procrastinating on that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, what I said to the House last

week was the capital works, water and sewer and roads was in the final steps of

preparation, and as soon as it was finalized and priorized by officials in my

department and myself, and then subsequently approved by Government, it would be

announced. We are getting very close to finalization, Mr. Speaker, and it will

be announced in due course.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to raise a point of order arising out of Question

Period just for clarification. In Question Period today Your Honour recognized

me as the Member for St. John's East and I commenced to ask a question. Your

Honour then reverted to the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Now, Mr. Speaker,

I know you recognized me after that and I did get to ask the questions as I had

intended to, but as a point of order it has happened on occasion in the past. I

understand that once I have been recognized and I have been given the floor and

have commenced to speak that in fact I do have the floor. Just as a point, Mr.

Speaker, it is rather disconcerting to commence a speech and have that

interrupted. I wonder if Your Honour would be prepared to make a ruling on

whether or not it is appropriate to do that. I have in the past also been asked,

and have been willing to give way to a speaker in similar circumstances.

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

like to make a submission.

MR. RIDEOUT: I just want to make a brief submission, Mr.

Speaker. I think there are two points which need to be clearly understood here.

First of all it is quite normal when the Speaker recognizes any Member asking a

question, including the hon. gentleman, that the Speaker will determine how many

supplementaries that person gets to ask. Normally, it is two or three, and quite

often if there is nobody else standing the Speaker will let the person go on

much longer. That has been the practice and tradition in this House. In any

event, what I want to say is it is the discretionary call of the Speaker and Mr.

Speaker will do that as he sees fit.

Secondly, it is quite possible that sometimes in the dynamics

and flow of Question Period the Speaker will have noticed the hon. gentleman

standing but did not notice the person who was previously recognized as standing

to ask another supplementary. But when it is called to the Speaker's attention

or the Speaker happens to glance sideways, he sees that person standing again

and will revert to him. I have seen that happen in this House on numerous

occasions over the years I have been here.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the final point is this, it could quite

conceivably happen in the case of the hon. gentleman sometime soon, I do not

know if it has happened in the past few weeks or not, but it could happen

sometime soon and I am sure he would not want his flow of questions interrupted

and he would expect the same courtesy to be extended to him, as I am sure it

would be.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, I would suggest that

the Member for St. John's East certainly made a point and the Leader of the

Opposition clearly made some points which are followed by the Chair in this

House. Quite clearly when the Chair recognizes somebody, that person has the

right to continue. I suppose the correct procedure for the Chair would have been

to have asked the hon. Member for St. John's East whether or not he would allow

me to go back to the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, but as the Leader of the

Opposition pointed out, in this House in Question Period normally when a person

is going on with some questions we allow him the flow unless it has been

excessively long. I looked at the clock and knew that the hon. Member for St.

John's East was going to get into Question Period unless the Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes was going to be excessively long - but I would not allow him

to be excessively long. I suppose the Member for St. John's East technically has

the right to impeach the Chair if he wants to.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I am rising at this point to

express concern about what has happened to the Social Legislation Review

Committee. That Committee, chaired by the Member for Carbonear, was relatively

active dealing with proposed legislation but suddenly, six weeks ago or so, the

Committee ceased to function yet we had not concluded our deliberations on three

important Justice Bills which are now on the Order Paper and which the

Government House Leader indicates he wants to call soon. Those bills are the new

Provincial Court Act, the new Juries Act, and an amendment to the Evidence Act,

all important and relatively controversial. Now the Government is about to

propose consolidated Legislation Review and Estimates Committees, but in the

meantime the Government Services Legislation Review Committee has continued to

function. I would like to raise with Your Honour my concern that the Social

Legislation Review Committee may not be able to complete our work on those three

Justice Bills before they are dealt with by the full House of Assembly, and so I

would ask Your Honour to discuss with the Government House Leader having,

perhaps, the old Social Legislation Review Committee complete our work on those

three bills before we move on to the reforms?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am not so sure that the Chair should get involved in those

matters of Committees. I wanted to clear that point. I do not know whether the

hon. Member got up on a point of order. That is quite appropriate. I was

thinking she was standing under Presenting Reports by Standing and Special

Committees. So since the Member got up under a point of order, that was the

right and proper thing to do. The Chair can only rule that with respect to

committees the committees have to decide their own ways of operating, and the

Chair would have to say that is not a point of order at this point in time.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: On a point of information or a point of

privilege or something. I noticed that the Government House Leader was about to

stand and rise and respond. I think it would be for the benefit of all Members

of the House notwithstanding Your Honour's ruling, which is an appropriate one

and a proper one, but I think we would be interested in hearing the Government

House Leader's response because I think the Member for Humber East raises a

valid point. So under the guise of a point of order, could he respond?

MR. SPEAKER: If the House so consents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MS. VERGE: We consent.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader I gather does

not want to respond and, of course, the Chair cannot force him.

Notices of Motion

MR. SIMMS: After the beating he took in Question Period

we are not surprised.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a nice try.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

Whereas the winter

fishery on the southwest coast is the primary fishery for fishermen and fish

plant workers from the communities of LaPoile, Petites, Rose Blanche, Harbour Le

Cou, Burnt Islands, Isle aux Morts, Margaree, Fox Roost, Port aux Basques, Cape

Rae and Codroy; and

WHEREAS the winter fishery is utilized primarily by over 100

inshore mobile gear vessels from many communities in the Province which catch up

to 50 per cent of their vessel quotas during the winter fishing season; and

WHEREAS the catastrophic failure of the fixed gear fishery on

the southwest coast has placed even greater pressure on the mobile gear catch

and also on the processing sector to provide employment for the residents of the

area; and

WHEREAS the winter fishery has seen much difficulty over the

past number of years insofar as the orderly progress of the fishery has been

repeatedly interrupted by disputes over its management by the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House encourage and

support the establishment of a regulatory committee consisting of representation

from the Provincial Government, the Federal Government, the fishermen,

processors; and

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Federal and

Provincial Governments work together to establish an effective mandate for this

proposed regulatory committee, the intent of which will be joint management of

this important resource.

MR. RIDEOUT: Do you want to vote on it now?

MR. SIMMS: Do you want to vote on it now, without a

debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Any further Notices of Motion?

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Member

for Torngat Mountains asked the Premier and I some questions concerning school

bus safety in Goose Bay. I would like to table the answers now.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further Answers to Questions?

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, last

week I was asked to place upon the table of the House the number of trips made

by the Minister of Social Services in 1989, for the last year, and the

destination and date of the trips - 1990, I should say. The destination and date

of the trips, the length of the trips, the purpose of the trips and the names of

personal, political, and departmental staff accompanying the Minister.

I do not have all the information written down, but I clearly

explained it. The destination is here, and the purpose of the trip. I have only

made one trip out of the Province for the full year. At no time did I take any

personal staff on a trip within the Province or out of the Province, and no

departmental staff within the Province at all. The purpose of the trip was only

departmental business within the Province. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, in

1988, my only question is -

MR. SIMMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: I would ask the former Minister, Mr Speaker,

to provide an answer to the question, why would he rent a fixed wing aircraft to

make four trips to the Burin Peninsula?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, he is not allowed to table that information

because Your Honour has already ruled in the past that that is out of order,

providing information that was not even asked for. I mean, that is a little

trick they try to employ.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the

previous ruling had to do with private Members and their rights and ability to

table documents in the House, and my understanding is that a Minister can table

the documents associated.

MR. SPEAKER: I will check the propriety of that and

report back to the House, but obviously it is only necessary to report the

information for which one is asked. There is no need to get into extraneous

information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a

petition from 184 residents of Little Bay Islands, a delegation from which

visited with the Minister of Transportation this morning.

The prayer of the petition to the hon. House of Assembly is

as follows: We, the undersigned residents of Little Bay Islands in the electoral

district of Green Bay, humbly petition the hon. House of Assembly not to make

any changes to our ferry system which would see the combining of the ferry

system between Little Bay Islands and Shoal Arm and Long Island and Pilleys

Island, which would result in the termination of Little Bay Islands mainland

terminal at Shoal Arm. Should Shoal Arm be omitted from the service, then the

results could be disastrous to the livelihood of Little Bay Islands. The main

source of employment at Little Bay Islands is the S. T. Jones fish plant which

depends on product being trucked in. To ensure this is done in the speediest way

possible, Shoal Arm is a necessity. Shoal Arm also provides us with the quickest

and cheapest route to Springdale, our main centre for all our essential needs,

from heating fuel to medical facilities to groceries to banking, shopping etc.

We urge you to consider all these points before making a decision that could

adversely affect the lives of the residents of our island community.

As I indicated, this petition has been signed by 184 people

from Little Bay Islands, which I would say is a very sizable percentage of the

entire adult population of that particular island. But in this Assembly last

week I presented a petition outlining the concerns of the citizens of Long

Island with regards to this proposed amalgamation of ferry services. Many years

ago, the Federal Government ran the small ferry services in our district and the

agony that was gone through every spring to develop an acceptable joint ferry

service, one boat, both islands, became an annual spring ritual.

Now as of this Budget Speech we see again the Government has

come forward with an amalgamation, at least for six months of the year, of the

two ferry systems concerned, and whatever the Minister's final decision - he has

indicated he will give a final decision to both islands pretty soon - I am sure

there is a good possibility that one or both of the islands will be dissatisfied

with the outcome of the period of amalgamation and next spring we shall again

see another procession of people from Long Island and Little Bay Islands in to

the Transport Department to make their case.

The economy of Green Bay is bad enough as it is, but right

now this particular move on the part of Government is lending itself well to the

hotels and businesses and malls in St. John's, because they are getting

delegations from six to eight hours' drive away into the capital city who would

not ordinarily be here.

This move to amalgamate the two ferry services, to fool

around with and fix that which is not broken, is going to set the transportation

system of these two particular islands back for quite some years. Each island

has its own particular interest, its own community of interest, its own economic

interest. Long Island has a fishery, Little Bay Islands - as is indicated in

this particular petition - has a fish plant, a fish plant serviced quite often

by fish trucked in and out, processed and non-processed, to an island. And

during the brief time of the year when there is a crab fishery on Little Bay

Islands, even though it is a relatively small island in terms of population,

labour actually has to be imported for the intensity of the crab processing

season.

So obviously the transportation system for the people of

Little Bay Islands is extremely important in maintaining their economic

livelihood and their way of life.

The Minister now has it before him and he can if he wishes

get Government, his colleagues in Cabinet, to back off this retrogressive step

and to allow things to go back to the way they were, leave both islands as they

are. The amount of monies that will be saved are not going to be worth the

annual pain and anguish of

schedule setting every spring.

The Government has indicated that it will not accept any

revenue options; the people are not going to be allowed to pay extra for a

service they currently enjoy, even though they volunteered to do so. So

obviously the intent on the part of this Government is to downsize the ferry

system, which is just another indication of the downsizing of Provincial

Government presence in rural Newfoundland. The loser, Mr. Speaker, in this

situation will be the two individual islands concerned, the District of Green

Bay in particular, and rural Newfoundland in general.

Mr. Speaker, if the Provincial Government shrinks efficiently

so as to withdraw from the rural economy of this Province, the rural economy of

this Province just may collapse; the medicine, Mr. Speaker, may kill the

patient. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wish

to rise in my place and support the petition so ably presented by the Member for

Green Bay on behalf of 184 residents of Little Bay Islands.

Mr. Speaker, once again we have another petition pleading

with the Government to try to keep their transportation system as it was. Not to

improve it, not to spend extra money on it, not to get new boats, but to try to

keep the system in place as it was so that the people could at least continue

the service they have always had.

Mr. Speaker, this decision by Government to eliminate this

ferry service or to tinker with the ferry service that operates in this area now

is going to have a detrimental effect on the fishery and the fish plant on

Little Bay Islands. It is going to have a detrimental effect on more services

for rural Newfoundland. We have seen already this Government take away medical

services from rural Newfoundland and educational services from rural

Newfoundland, and now the transportation services of areas of rural Newfoundland

are being affected.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, I believe it was, the Government

came out with a great announcement, that they were going to reduce the cost of

inter-provincial ferry services within this Province so that the cost would be

phased down so that it would not be any more than travel by highways. We now see

why they are reducing the charges for ferry transportation services. It is

because they are intent on eliminating these services. Mr. Speaker, they will

upset the people so much by downgrading the service that the people will not be

happy with the service they have. Already we have seen it from Bell Island. I

noticed in a news report last week that the people are saying, `we do not mind

paying for the service, if you will give us the service.' You can eliminate the

charges completely, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to eliminate the services. The

people on these islands desperately need the type of transportation services

they have now, and they have already said on at least two occasions, I have

heard, that they would be willing to pay for the transportation service they

have now. They do not want the charges reduced if their service will be reduced.

Mr. Speaker, we see again delegations coming to the Minister

and the Minister putting them off: We will put them off for another couple of

weeks. We will say we will not finalize our decisions, and let them calm down a

bit. Hopefully it will die out, and then we will make the same decision in a

month's time that we have already made and have no intention whatsoever of

changing. They are going through the meetings with these delegations as a matter

of formality. The Minister is sitting there listening to these delegations when

he knows full well in his heart and soul that he is not going to change the

decision he has already made. He is going to downgrade the service and eliminate

ferry runs for this area, Mr. Speaker, and he should be honest with the people

when they come in, look them in the eye, and at least have the intestinal

fortitude to say to them right then and there, `The decision has been made and I

will stick with it as long as I can.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister might tout his policy as

reducing the charges to people using these ferry services, but if you eliminate

the service, it doesn't matter what you charge, people will not use it, they

will not be able to use it.

I suggest that the Minister review the policies he has

brought in and look at these services as essential services to the people who

live on the islands. Do not try to eliminate the service, do not try to

downgrade more services to rural Newfoundland. The Little Bay Islands area is a

viable community, Mr. Speaker, with a fish plant that provides employment for

people all around that area, and the transportation service is very critical to

those people.

So I implore the Minister, when he meets with the next

delegation coming in, to tell them the facts, and hopefully these facts will

lead to continuing the service the people have in that area right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will have a few

words on this petition. I was very happy I was able to meet with the people from

Long Island and the people from Little Bay Islands, and to have their input

before the final decision is made. I am sure hon. members are aware that the

decision to try to improve the ferry service to Little Bay Islands and to Long

Island was made as a budgetary process and, as I said to both groups when they

were in, we could very arbitrarily decide, okay, we are going to do it; but the

people making this decision, the people living in St. John's or Grand Falls and

looking at the circumstances, do not live in Little Bay Islands or on Long

Island. So for this reason I wanted to have input from the people, to see if

they had any suggestions that might improve the changes we were talking of

making in order to save some money.

The point I would like to make, first of all, is that the

gentleman from Green Bay and his group were in Government for about seventeen

years and when we came in we were left with a $5 billion deficit. Now, as I have

alluded to a couple of times in this House, maybe if they had not spent $2

million on the Green Bay Transport I, when they were initiating this service,

when they took it over from the Federal Government, we would have some money now

to be able to carry on the service they are fighting for right now.

Unfortunately, $2 million was wasted in putting this service in at first.

The gentleman from Kilbride and the gentleman from Green Bay

talk about reducing the cost. They realize it was a very positive approach that

we took when we formed the Government as far as providing ferry service to the

people was concerned. The people from Little Bay Islands even admitted to me

this morning that it was a very positive thing and they agreed that it should

be, that this ferry service is their road, an extension of the road, and it

should not cost them any more to get there than it does to drive.

So as I pointed out to them, no matter if we increased the

cost for the people of Little Bay Islands or Long Island to the user-pay, it

would still not do any good. The whole process is that there would not be enough

collected in revenue to provide the service. So we realize this is a lost leader

operation. We are providing a service to the people of Newfoundland. The policy

of this Government is to provide it at the same cost for which they would drive

over that distance.

Now we are looking at the total service we are providing to

Little Bay Islands and Long Island. We will be making the final decision as to

how best to implement the budgetary decisions announced in the Budget in this

House. And as I told both groups when they came to make their presentations, I

was very glad they came; I wanted to hear exactly any ideas they had; I asked

them to understand the financial implication and the financial situation

this Province was left in after seventeen years of misrule.

I will be making a decision on it this week and I will be

telling the people next week exactly what system is going to be in place, not,

as the Member for Kilbride indicated, that I was going to try to put them off. I

wanted to hear what they had to say. They are the ultimate users, the ones who

will have some good ideas as to how we can best implement this service.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole to consider Bill 15, the imposition of tax on gasoline,

Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Again, just so we can get the speaking rules:

the same as we understand any time you are debating a Finance Bill in Committee,

the Minister and the critic can get up to an hour if they need it, which I

doubt, and everybody else ten minutes at a time back and forth as often as they

want.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Chairman, I presume if I go over an hour

I may get leave to continue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It may happen, but

it is unlikely.

In the Budget we discussed the gasoline tax and I will just

refresh Members' memories on what was said then as a lead-in. We said the desire

for revenue stability has given us cause to re-examine the Province's gasoline

tax regime. The existing ad valorem system sets the tax in cents per litre at a

specific percentage of the average retail price of the product. The recent oil

price increases could have permitted provincial taxes to rise substantially, but

in the interest of consumers Government did not adjust this tax from November 1,

1990 to March 1, 1991. This decision kept pump prices as much as two and a half

cents per litre lower than they otherwise would have been. The volatility of oil

prices has resulted in the need for more stability and certainty in fuel

taxation for both Government and consumers. Accordingly, as I said in the

Budget, I am announcing that effective immediately Government will move to a

fixed rate regime; the tax will be fixed for at least this year at the current

rates of 13.7 cents per litre and 15.6 cents per litre for diesel. As these

rates are already in place, the measure will not result in any change in pump

prices.

Mr. Chairman, what this Bill does basically is change from an

ad valorem system to a fixed-rate system. Before, the old way, what we used to

do was take a survey no more frequently than monthly of all fuel retailers, and

the average retail price at the pumps would be calculated, including the federal

excise taxes and GST, and then a fixed percentage would be added to that, 23 per

cent, for gasoline and that would be the tax, so much per litre. But it would be

based on the retail price of the gasoline.

We did a survey on February 12, I think it was, our last

survey, and we calculated that it would be 13.7 cents a litre if we brought in

the change, and we did. It was formerly 12.4, and it had been rising from May

1990 when it was 11.3. But we pegged it at 12.4 for a number of months, as we

indicated. But then we anticipated that gas prices would be declining as a

result of the decision taken in the eastern war, and consequently we decided

that to protect our revenues, to keep them constant so that we could predict

what was going to happen revenue-wise, we would go with a fixed-rate system of

13.7 cents a litre, which at that time turned out to be 23 per cent of the

average retail price. So we decided we would fix that 13.7 cents and forget

about the 23 per cent. And for diesel which had been 27 per cent of the average

retail pump price less provincial taxes, that turned out to be, on February 12,

15.6 cents a litre. So we froze that as of March 1. Then in the Budget we

decided we would change to the fixed rate, so many cents per litre.

I might indicate that almost all provinces now have that

system, so many cents per litre, rather than a percentage of the price. The only

provinces which now have a percentage of the price are Prince Edward Island,

Nova Scotia and British Columbia. Up until recently, six provinces, including

us, had the fixed rate per litre. Then in their recent Budget New Brunswick went

the same way we did, just before our Budget. I guess that is mostly what I want

to say.

The advantages of bringing in this tax in this way, of making

it a fixed rate per litre rather than a percentage, is that we can predict our

revenues more accurately. And also, with the price of gasoline going down as a

result of the cessation of the Gulf War, we keep our revenues up a little bit.

I can lead Members through the items in the bill. I think

perhaps I will do that, and just look at the various clauses here. The first

clause says paragraph 2 (

a) of The Gasoline Tax Act of 1978 is repealed; and 2

(

a) is just the definition of average retail price. We no longer need to know

that because we are not going to calculate it in that fashion.

Then we go on to subsection 3 (1). If we adopt this bill it

will say `a person who acquires gasoline at a retail sale in the province shall

pay to the Crown at the time of sale on all grades of gasoline other than diesel

fuel grade of gasoline a tax of .137 per litre.' Before, the old 3.1 fixed it as

the percentage of the retail sales. So that is gone and now it is the fixed

amount per litre. And diesel is done the same way, it is fixed at a certain

number of cents per litre rather than a percentage of the average retail price

of diesel per litre.

Now

section 3 of the new bill which says this may be a bit

puzzling to Members, so I will just follow that through with you.

Section 3.2 of

the Act is amended by striking out the words `a tax rounded down to the nearest

one-tenth of a cent per litre that is equal to 22 per cent of the average retail

price less one and a half cents per litre' and substituting the words `a tax of

.122 per litre'. That is rather confusing until you realize that what it is

referring to is that in southern Labrador, extending from the border with the

Province of Quebec to and including the community of Red Bay, in respect of the

consumption or use of gasoline in that area shall pay to Her Majesty at the time

of the sale, now it will read a tax of .122 per litre. Before it was 23 per cent

of the average retail price less one and a half cents per litre. So there is a

break in the legislation. There always was for those few communities in southern

Labrador and that is still preserved in the new legislation. So we have not

tampered with that. And

Section 47.1 of the Act, that is just a reference to...

is that 47...? Hang on now, I will find out for you. That just says: the

Minister may by order set out the manner and method in which the average retail

price of gasoline diesel fuel grade may be determined. That refers to the survey

that we used to conduct. And that is now repealed. There is no reference to

that. It is now: the Minister has no discretion. It just must be 13.7 cents a

liter for gasoline and 15.6 for diesel.

And that is basically all I prefer to say at the moment, I

think. Just let me check it over here now. I think I will leave it like that,

Mr. Chairman, and if there are further questions or any questions I will try to

answer them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister never

ceases to amaze me. I have been here trying to prepare a case now for my speech

to present to the House, to prove to the House that what the Minister is doing

is trying to protect his revenues. And the Minister stood up and told us he is

trying to protect his revenues. I am absolutely speechless that the Minister

would so blatantly admit exactly what he is doing. It is exactly what we said he

was doing at Budget time. In view of the high price of petroleum products as a

result of the Gulf War, the Minister - who was having a field day, he was really

getting a windfall from the price of gasoline and I recognize that the Minister

of Energy did not make all the adjustments he could have. It could have been

much higher, but he was doing very well, thank you. He was doing very well on

the ad valorem basis.

So what the Minister did at Budget time was freeze the ad

valorem amount, or the equivalent of the ad valorem, at 13.7 cents per liter, he

told us, which was roughly equivalent to 23 per cent on the base rate, on the

base cost of gas that was being used for the calculation at that time. And we

accept the fact that the Minister could have increased that, based on a survey

at the pumps, slightly, probably another couple of cents.

But the Minister has just admitted to us that he has indeed -

now that we had such a high rate, and knowing that the price of gasoline was

going to drop, that is at the end of the Gulf War - that he protected his

revenue. In other words he will now continue to charge us at the high rate,

based on a straight percentage basis instead of the old ad valorem. Had we

stayed at the ad valorem the price of fuel would have dropped substantially to

this point in time. We would be paying far less at the pumps today than we are.

Now it is interesting to look back over the history of the

Minister. In his first budget in 1989 he raised that ad valorem from 22 per cent

to 23 per cent. That was the first increase since 1981. Because 22 per cent was

probably a pretty fair percentage of tax to place on gasoline. The more

expensive gasoline became, on the wholesale price, obviously the more tax the

Minister got, but the percentage was consistent and it was felt that that was

reasonable. In 1989 the Minister chose to take another per cent and raised it to

23 per cent. So we saw an increase there. Now he has frozen it. Now, it is

interesting to look at some very basic mathematics when you look at what the

Minister in fact is doing. This requires spectacles.

We are now paying 13.7 cents per liter. The price of gasoline

at the pumps now, generally you can get it for - well, it varies a little - but

62 cents per liter is probably not an unreasonable figure to use. That is the

one I have chosen and if somebody wants to argue it should be 63 cents or 64

cents, that is fine. But I am using 62 cents per liter, which can be found

around the city at least, it is obviously more expensive in other parts of the

Province, and particularly in Labrador.

That means that the base price is 48.3 cents per liter. That

is the base price, the wholesale price, of gasoline. Therefore the effective

rate we are now paying is 28.4 per cent. That is how much 13.7 cents is of 48.3

cents per liter. So what the Minister has in effect done is increase the ad

valorem rate - were we still on ad valorem, from 23 per cent to 28.4 per cent, a

4 per cent increase in the ad valorem rate. That is in effect what he has done.

And if you follow that a little bit further and you say: well, we should be

paying 48.3 cents plus 23 per cent, in other words 59.4 cents per liter instead

of 62 cents, 2.6 cents per liter less.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The President of Treasury Board is lost. If

62 cents - this is very simple, basic mathematics - is the present price at the

pump and that includes 13.7 cents of tax, therefore the base price is 48.3 cents

per liter. Now if you multiply that by 1.23, which would have been based on the

old ad valorem rate, then you would have come up with 59.4 cents per liter, is

what we should be paying. Had the Minister not introduced this motion, this

bill, if we were still paying 23 per cent on 48.3 the price today at the pump

would be 59.4 cents, or 2.6 cents per liter less. I mean, just for comparison

purposes, if one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It is very simple, basic - I am only an

engineer, Mr. Chairman but that is pretty basic mathematics. I even checked it

on my trusty little computer if the hon. Member would like to borrow it. I mean,

this is Grade 2 mathematics we are talking here. If I am wrong I will apologize

profusely. I invite the President of Treasury Board to check that, but it is

pretty simple mathematics.

Now if you were going to fill up your vehicle today, at the

price we are paying today it is not unusual to put $40 worth of gas in your car.

On the way here I filled up my car, she took $39 and something cents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I am sorry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Where was it 80 cents per liter? It might be

in Labrador, 62 cents was the present price..

MR. BAKER: Would you do that calculation and see? Maybe

we are losing there, you know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I can do it, no problem. If it was 80 cents

per liter and we are paying 13.7 in tax, that means that 66.3 is the base price,

right? So if I take 13.7, divide it by 66.3, that is 21 per cent. If the price

was 80 cents, but it is not. The price is 62 cents, of which 13.7 cents is tax,

and that means 28.4 per cent is the tax rate we are paying on gasoline today.

Now that is very, very basic calculation.

So on a $40 fill up, Mr. Chairman, which is an average,

unless you are driving a very small car, but you know, $40 is not unusual today,

or other words 65 liters. On 65 liters you are paying $1.69 more every time you

fill up your car today than you would have without this amendment, $1.69. And if

you want to go back another one, to 1989, or prior 1989, where the ad valorem

went up, you want to work it at 22 per cent instead of 23 per cent, you are

paying $1.95 per fill up extra.

Over all, today, it is interesting, until you look at it you

do not realize it. On a $40 fill up today at a service station, at 13.7 cents

per liter and 65 liters, so the mathematics is straight, you are paying $8.91

every time you fill up your car. That is the tax you are paying, $8.91. In other

words, with the $1.95 extra we are paying today 128 per cent over what we would

have paid at the pump prior to the Minister coming into office. In other words,

if we were still at the 22 per cent ad valorem rate that this Government

inherited, we would be paying 28 per cent less than we are paying at the gas

pump.

So we see a tremendous rise in the price of gasoline in the

Province. It is interesting. You add to that - you must consider of course,

consumption is going up. So when we simply take the Minister's Budget and we see

he is estimating this year $98.7 million in revenue from gasoline tax, based no

doubt on this new legislation, and we look at the revised figure for 1988-1989,

the last year of our administration, the revised figure as presented in the

Minister's Budget of 1989-1990 showed $72.8 million dollars. In other words,

$25.9 million more this year than in 1988-1989. And that is a 36 per cent

increase in the amount of revenue gained from gasoline tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: More consumption, yes. But a 28 per cent

increase in taxation. That tax rate has increased. The present rate over the 22

per cent ad valorem is a 28 per cent increase. The actual revenue was increased

by 36 per cent because of increased consumption. I do not have a problem with

that. Obviously if you are going to have increased consumption you are going to

have increased costs, and one looks after the other.

But that is what has happened. And the Minister amazingly

enough has just admitted that the reason that he has decided to go to the fixed

rate, flat rate, instead of the ad valorem rate is to protect his revenues,

because he suspects the price of gasoline may go down. Well, let's just assume,

let's theorize a little bit -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Beg your pardon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Honest, yes. Very honest. He said: I have

ripped you off. He is honest. If we were to assume that Hibernia crude was to

eventually come ashore and be processed in Newfoundland so that there was a

tremendous drop in the base price of gasoline, then the Minister has still

protected himself, he still gets his 13.7 cents per liter. So we do not get the

same decrease in the price of gasoline that we should be seeing. But it is

amazing when you look at the numbers. Eight dollars and ninety-one cents every

time we pull into the pump we are paying in gasoline on a fill up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Sixty-nine? Fifty-nine in Arnold's Cove.

That is the new Come By Chance price. GEO, that is right, the Come By Chance

(Inaudible). That is interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I would burn more going to Come By Chance,

more than $8.91 going, but I will remember to make sure that I arrive in Come By

Chance empty from now on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Arnold's Cove.

MR. WINDSOR: In Arnold's Cove. I will arrive in Arnold's

Cove empty from now on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is interesting. At three cents a liter

on 65, that is $2 on a tank full of gas, pretty close to it, that you would save

by this new Newfoundland company, GEO, which is starting to do very well, I

think, and probably should do much better in the marketplace. We should be

promoting them as a home-grown company, somewhat. We always used to promote

Ultramar because they were refining here in Holyrood. Since they have moved

their refinery out I do not think they really qualify now as a Newfoundland

company to the same measure. Certainly their Provincial content is far less than

it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Buy enough in Mount Pearl to get to Arnold's

Cove. Well, buy enough in Arnold's Cove to get to Mount Pearl and back to

Arnold's Cove again.

Maybe GEO will use the same prices throughout the Province, I

do not know. I have not compared their prices in St. John's. Obviously they will

have a transportation cost from Arnold's Cove to St. John's and they may well

have a slightly higher price. But I compliment GEO and I offer them a word of

encouragement. I hope they do well as a primarily Newfoundland company and as a

private company against all the multi-nationals.

So there is the story in a nutshell. There is not a great

deal more we can say. I am pleased to see that the Minister has protected at

least by 1.5 cents per liter Labrador consumers, consumers on the border of

Labrador-Quebec communities, because they no doubt could get gasoline much

cheaper in Quebec. And the Minister is not doing it, I say - I do not wish to

impugn any motives whatsoever - but simply to say that he not doing it for the

people of Labrador, he is doing it so that he does not lose that business and

the revenue from the people of Labrador, who would buy all their gasoline, as we

do that with cigarettes, if I am not mistaken. There is a special exemption for

cigarettes, there is a special exemption on taxation and the tourism industry

and hotel accommodation, and so forth.

While I am on that, Mr. Chairman, the Minister should think -

it gives me an opportunity, and if I have the Minister's attention, to raise a

matter that I discussed with some people in his Department last week. I called

them just to confirm that what I was thinking was accurate. There are many

services - particularly now under the GST - that can be provided equally well

either in the Province or out of the Province. And it is an age old problem.

When you get into a fairly expensive wait, then you have a

real problem. There are several provinces in Canada, and the Minister may know

better than I do at the moment, but I believe Ontario was one. The question came

to mind as it relates to, and my friend from Bellevue may be interested, the

construction of the accommodation modules for Bull Arm. The contract has gone to

a New Brunswick firm. Now that company can build those accommodation modules in

New Brunswick and ship them in here. They do not pay sales tax in New Brunswick

because they are being exported. Theoretically they are supposed to pay sales

tax when they come into Newfoundland, but we have no way to get at most things.

Hopefully the Ministers auditors will ensure it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) maybe certain areas, I think it

is only off shore. I do not think anything on shore is exempt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Is it exempt, the tax?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: A 4 per cent reduction.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I recall the exact details of that.

I did not mean to get into that debate. The point I am making

is that if the module was for a hotel in the Province, a motel or something,

they were producing pre-fabricated modules, they could ship them out of New

Brunswick without paying sales tax in New Brunswick, and we have no guarantee

that we would collect the sales tax here. We can. We can claim it when it is

brought in, as we do on automobiles. Anything that is bought outside the

Province and brought in, you were supposed to pay tax on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anything purchased for the Hibernia site

is -

MR. WINDSOR: That is the Hibernia site. I am talking

about something else, alright? That may well be an exception. I had sort of

forgotten that we had given that exemption, and I am not sure exactly what it

applies to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, that is right. But if it were a module

for a motel or something, that is not part of that project, so there is

automatically a 12 per cent disincentive or a penalty for building those modules

in Newfoundland. There are other similar examples I could give of large

servicing or repair. If you had a piece of technology that you wanted to repair,

you know, a very expensive piece of computer equipment that had to be shipped

to, let's say, Ontario for repairs or refurbishing, maybe large engines out of

vessels or something, or generators for one of our hydro stations if they had to

go back to Ontario for repair because of the special technology required or

because simply it is such a big item, such an expensive repair item that the

shipping is worth it. There is a 12 per cent difference because if it is being

repaired in Ontario and shipped outside they can get a rebate on the tax paid on

it. They do not pay the tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Those modules they are building in New

Brunswick (inaudible) by charging them the 12 per cent resales tax.

MR. WINDSOR: We could penalize.

AN HON. MEMBER: I do not know.

MR. WINDSOR: We penalize our own companies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well we should probably look at the

legislation and see if we could charge it.

MR. WINDSOR: Unfortunately we cannot because that

particular project has no inter-provincial barrier clauses provided in it as

well, as I recall. It is not a good example to use for this particular point

that I am making, but there are things that can be done in Newfoundland, but

that could also economically be shipped elsewhere to be done. Major repairs to a

ship, for example, I think that applies.

If we brought vessels into St. John's dockyard or Marystown

shipyard we would probably charge sales tax on everything that takes place there

but there are other provinces that will not charge sales tax. So there is a

direct disadvantage and it can be very significant, 12 per cent, it can be a big

chunk of money on a large contract like that.

So I am a little bit off my target, but I took the

opportunity to mention it to the Minister, and the Minister may choose to

discuss it with some of his officials, because I have discussed it with them.

They are aware of the problem, they are not entirely sure of the answer on how

to deal with it. We cannot force Ontario or somebody else to charge the tax and,

of course, we do not want to give up the taxation ourselves, but we may have to

look at some areas where their imposition of sales tax is a direct disincentive

to doing business in Newfoundland. I have concerns that the Minister in looking

at his Budget for this year, but obviously he did not do that, perhaps next

year, is looking at broadening the tax base, basically tying in with GST and

imposing retail sales tax on items that are not now taxable, particularly

certain services, legal services and engineering services, for example, and I

have said here before that were we to do that that is a direct incentive to ship

those contracts outside of Newfoundland and Labrador and I think it would be a

very, very retrograde step.

So having said all that, Mr. Chairman, I think I have made

all of the points that I can make on The Gasoline Tax Act. It is very clear that

it is a 5.4 per cent increase. Anyway you look at it, it is a 5.4 per cent

increase in the taxes charged on that commodity. It is costing us an extra

$1.65, I think it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: $1.69.

MR. WINDSOR: $1.69 every time we fill up as compared to

three years ago. Overall it is a 28 per cent increase in taxation, and the

Minister has realized a 36 per cent increase in revenue from that source over a

three year period. It is very clear, Mr. Chairman, what he has done is protect

his revenue and there is no doubt there is good rationale for that, he is doing

it at the expense of the consumer of gasoline, and particularly the

transportation industry in the Province, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words

briefly to the bill that is being discussed today by my colleague, the hon.

critic for Finance. Mr. Chairman, we can talk I guess or speak in this Assembly

until the cows come home as it relates to the mismanagement of the public purse

and the financial situation of this Administration. There is no doubt that this

Government has the Province set on a course for destruction. There is no doubt

in my mind that the course is set to bring this Province to its fiscal knees.

All you have to do is listen to the various news media, watch the TV news or

read the newspapers, as my colleague for Trinity North is doing right now, and

one can only see and hear the doom and gloom that this Government has inflicted

upon the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. One can only wish, Mr. Chairman,

that the Premier and his Cabinet and his Government would come to their senses,

that they would do what needs to be done in terms of bringing some stability to

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We know the scam that the Minister of

Finance has brought in as it relates to the new system of taxation, the gasoline

taxation system. I must say I am a little disappointed in the Minister of Energy

in the way that he has handled the situation as well, because the bottom line is

that the people of this Province are going to be paying more for gasoline and

for other fuels that they need, and the Minister of Energy must accept some

responsibility for letting the Minister of Finance being able to implement this

the way it is.

What is happening in this Province, Mr. Chairman, and as the

Member for Mount Pearl has said so often, this Government has brought the

working people of this Province to their knees. The money is not there, people

are not spending the money, and the Government in turn are not getting the

personal income tax, they are not getting the sales tax, the money is not being

spent in this Province. It was only this afternoon that the Minister of Social

Services mentioned how I had three trips on a fixed- wing plane to the Burin

Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that it was not

even more, when one considers that the people of the Burin Peninsula were

working, that it was not necessary to increase this type of gasoline tax when we

were in Government. Mr. Speaker, every second day we were on the Burin Peninsula

we were announcing the construction of a new hospital, turning the sod for a new

hospital, opening a new hospital on the Burin Peninsula in health care. This is

the type of travel that is necessary in Burin - Placentia West, to open a new

secondary processing plant in Burin, to open a new refit centre in Burin, to

announce just before the last election, the expansion of the cow head facility,

together with Mr. Crosbie and my colleague for Grand Bank, to announce the

expansion of the Cow Head facility, despite the fact that this Government

delayed it for over a year. Construction is now, finally, getting underway, and

the announcement and the signing that we did in Cow Head in April 1989 has been

finalized. That is the type of travel that was necessary to the Burin Peninsula.

The opening of the St. Lawrence mines that this Government has since closed,

that is the type of travel that was necessary to the Burin Peninsula. And, we

can go on Mr. Chairman, we can continue with travel to the Burin Peninsula.

Every second day there was someone down there representing the Government,

making announcements, opening group homes on the Burin Peninsula that this

Government is now trying to close, the opening of group homes for the mentally

handicapped, and I am sure, as sure as the Minister of Social Services had to

take back water and change his mind in Gander he will have to do it throughout

this Province. That is the type of travel we did to the Burin Peninsula, the

opening of group homes in Marystown and in Grand Bank. That is why we were

travelling to the Burin Peninsula from time to time, Mr. Chairman. The opening

of the Cow Head facility, another one. The announced construction of vessels on

speculation to keep three, four, five, or six hundred people from the Burin

Peninsula employed. The announcement, construction, and the christening of

ferries for various places in this Province. The announcement and construction,

and the christening of middle distance vessels, that is the type of construction

and travel that was necessary. But, Mr. Chairman, sad to say since this

Government came to power there is not much need for Ministers to be visiting the

Burin Peninsula because all they have done is chopped, closed and sent people to

the Mainland. I was speaking to someone today who just came home for a visit. He

was home last week for a visit from Toronto and he told me that in the last

month the number of Newfoundland license plates in the city of Toronto is

unbelievable. He said it is hard to believe the increase in the number of

Newfoundland license plates in Toronto, people from Newfoundland going to

Toronto. He said one could never believe it when you look at the last election

and the promises made by the Premier. As a matter of fact I spoke to someone

else, not from my district but from another district, who told me she voted for

the Liberals in the last election because the Premier promised to bring her sons

home from Toronto. She had five sons living on the Mainland and she was sure the

five of them were coming home, and guess where her other two sons are who were

home. Guess where they are now? They are on the Mainland. There is no way the

Member for Harbour Grace, for example, can go out to his district, as he tried

to do last week, and justify the slashing this Government is doing to his

constituents, Mr. Chairman. What the Member for Harbour Grace should be doing is

standing in this House and condemning this Government for bringing in policies

and programs, and for raising the taxes, for implementing additional costs to

the people who are using their cars and trucks. That is what the Member for

Harbour Grace should be doing, Mr. Chairman. He should be standing in this

Legislature and exposing the Premier and his Government for what they are doing

to his constituents. Today the Member for LaPoile stood to present a resolution.

Mr. Chairman, we do not need debate on that resolution because we support it. I

support it and I am sure other colleagues do, the fishermen, but what the Member

for LaPoile should be doing was bringing in a resolution commending this

Government for closing up a hospital that was only constructed six years ago.

That is where courage comes in, that is where representing your constituents

comes in, Mr. Chairman, and that is why the Member for LaPoile should get

someone to take his picture. He should have a stack of them sitting in this

legislature because whenever the Premier gets the courage to issue the writ, the

Member for LaPoile will be no more an MHA. The Member for LaPoile will be no

more an MHA, Mr. Chairman. And as it relates to the fisheries, I am sure that

with the appointment of the new Minister of Fisheries, and with the appointment

of a Newfoundlander as Minister of Fisheries, we can expect good things. I

firmly believe, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Crosbie will do will for this Province,

and I believe that the opportunity presents itself for him to work well with the

present provincial Minister of Fisheries. I believe the Provincial Minister of

Fisheries and the Federal Minister of Fisheries could work together. There is

only one thing that will cause a negative impact on the fishing industry in this

Province, and that is if the Premier decides to take a personal vendetta against

Mr. Crosbie. That will not work in the best interest of Newfoundlanders. I must

say that once I had a delegation in that met with the Premier, and do you know

what the Premier told that delegation, that we have to work to defeat John

Crosbie in the next election. That is what the Premier of this Province said

about the Federal Minister. Well I think that is a terrible attitude for the

Premier of this Province to be getting on with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not. I am asking the

Premier to change his mind, to stop getting on and saying that kind of stuff.

There is no need of it, Mr. Chairman. I am asking the Premier to change his mind

and to stop telling people, to stop telling delegations that his objective is to

defeat John Crosbie. It is time that he stopped saying that, and he did not. He

said that to the people of Petite Forte. Mr. Chairman, I concur and agree

wholeheartedly with the President of Treasury Board, there is no need for it and

the Premier should not be saying it, but we have to get on, and I do believe

that the Provincial Minister of Fisheries together with the Federal Minister of

Fisheries can work in concert for the benefit of the people of this Province and

that the Premier, who knows absolutely nothing about the fisheries, Mr.

Chairman, should let the Minister of Fisheries handle that department and he

stay away from it. I believe that together they could work in the best interests

of the people of this Province. There are other issues that we have to address

here.

AN HON. MEMBER: What other issues?

MR. TOBIN: Maybe the Premier should concern the defeating

of the Member for Carbonear and others throughout this Province, but I honestly

believe that this Government is on a course of economic and social destruction

for the people of the Province. Today's -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps it is ironic, I was a bit late arriving

today so I missed the Ministerial statement by the hon. Minister of Justice

regarding Consumer Awareness Week. This particular tax bill we are dealing with,

Mr. Chairman, is sort of flying in the face of a well informed general consuming

public. The Minister of Justice indicates that people would do well to be very

aware and very informed consumers because there are all kinds of entrapments

waiting for them out there in our society in general in order to do them in.

What the hon. Minister of Justice refused or probably forgot to mention is that

the consumer has one entrapment that he would do very well to be aware of, and

that is the current Wells Administration and the current budgetary machinations

of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

I was standing in this Chamber in the fall sitting I think it

was, when things were heating up in the Persian Gulf, and due to market-driven,

panic-stricken economic factors the price of oil and gasoline, etc., started to

jump tremendously. And I remember questioning I do believe, both my colleague

the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Finance with regard to the

possibility of freezing the percentage tax, the ad valorem tax which is a

percentage as the prices continued to soar. Government at the time indicated it

was monitoring the situation and muttered a few other words of solace for

consumers who were seeing their gas prices go through the roof, but effectively

did nothing.

Then, once the initial panic as a result of the Gulf crisis

sort of cooled down a bit, oil prices started to drop off. Then all of a sudden

we get an announcement in the Budget Speech saying, Whoops! We have changed our

minds and we have decided now to go with a fixed cent per litre charge on

gasoline unlike when the prices were rising, where we were taking in a

percentage. Now that they are dropping, we do not think a percentage is in line

any more. We could rob them on the way up but we cannot rob them on the way

down, so we had better put a stop to this right away, Mr. Chairman, is the

attitude of this Government. So, of course, very near the peak of gasoline

prices they froze their cents per litre and now as the prices of gasoline

continue to drop, it is the consumer who is going to pay extra across this

Province.

Mr. Chairman, apart from those who have been personally hurt

by this Administration because they have been fired or some public service

provided by the Provincial Government to them has been reduced or cut, I think

it is safe to say that so far dealing with the Wells' Administration has been a

taxing experience, and I mean that both literally and figuratively, Mr.

Chairman. There have been income tax increases since this Government came to

power, there has been the payroll tax, a guarantee fee put on Newfoundland

Hydro, an existing subsidy to Newfoundland Hydro eliminated, all of which gets

transferred to the consumers. It is all ending up one way or the other as extra

tax coming out of the consumer or less services being given to the consumer, in

most cases both, along with a significant lay off of Provincial Government jobs

which in rural areas are quite often a stabilizer in the economy.

The Budget Speech by the Minister of Finance also makes

reference to the fact that they are going to look further later in this fiscal

year at harmonizing their tax system with the Federal GST system. We have seen

since this Minister came to office because of budgetary measures a 25 per cent

increase in the rate of electricity in the first year or so of this

Administration. We will continue to see an even greater rise; probably we will

end up with 35 per cent increase before long if this Government decides to

expand its tax base and include electricity.

Mr. Chairman, this Government got elected on the notion that

it was going to lower taxes, increase services, and create employment. The

school tax was going to be abolished. No matter what the fine print on the

Liberal literature was, the candidates going door to door and doing their

interviews with the press, in the media, when they were in the public meeting

halls throughout their Districts, they said, `we are going to abolish the school

tax'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. HEWLETT: The greatest evil ever set upon mankind is

the school tax. Mr. Chairman, the ladies and gentlemen in each hall who were

told such a thing found out since they were deceived, that the school tax is

still here and it has been increased, the taxes on their electricity are going

through the roof, their income taxes are going up, what subsidies were provided

to public services to make their life easier have been eliminated. This indeed

has been a very taxing Government to live with, Mr. Chairman, in all aspects of

that particular word.

This Government got elected on a social program to do better

for the people of Newfoundland, and so far all we have heard is tax

harmonization, service rationalization, which all boils down to more taxes, less

services, less jobs. Now the latest thing in the paper on the weekend, Mr.

Chairman, is a county system of government. Well, with no due disrespect to my

colleague for Grand Falls or the Minister from Windsor, it would appear already

that Green Bay has tasted the county system of government, because our county

hospital is now located in the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor. Our court house is

still open in Springdale. But the magistrate has retired so the court in

Springdale is serviced on circuit out of the county courthouse in Grand Falls -

Windsor. Mr. Chairman, what we are seeing is a downgrading of the number of the

public servants and public service wages available to the economy of Green Bay

and a consolidation of Government services in a number of regional centres

around the Province.

This is going to hurt very deeply the outlying districts. The

plumb in any county system of Government, of course, is which community within

the entire county gets to be what the Americans call the country seat. I have a

funny feeling that neither of the towns in Green Bay, including the largest one,

Springdale, would end up being the country seat for the area I represent. Trends

to date indicate that probably the large amalgamated town of Grand Falls -

Windsor would end up being the county seat for my area of the Province. Mr.

Chairman, we pay more taxes, we get less services, we have less people on the

public payroll, which in a global sense to some people might make sense, but to

the economy of my island, my island is in Green Bay, my district in general,

where the fishery is in decline, we have just about cut ourselves out of house

and home when it comes to trees, we have not opened a mine since I was a

teenager, Government employment is key to the survival of my district and

Government, Mr. Chairman, is shrinking in my district, shrinking considerably,

while at the same time it is removing existing subsidies that people were used

to and increasing taxes.

As I indicated, this particular Bill was robbing them on the

way up with the price of gasoline, and once they saw the price of gasoline was

dropping, they decided to freeze it and rob them on the way down. Mr. Chairman,

you cannot win with this crowd, they get you going up and they get you going

down. As I indicated, dealing with the Wells' administration is being an

extremely taxing experience. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to take a

couple of minutes to respond to the Member for Burin - Placentia West, but after

listening to the Member for Green Bay I think it is important for someone on

this side of the House to try to respond to some of the silly accusations he was

making about taxes and about his district, about what should happen and that

Government should get involved. I do not know how the hon. Member expects

Government to provide services, social programs, health programs, education

programs, services or infrastructure to his district without collecting taxes.

MR. HEWLETT: You are collecting the amount of taxes and

cutting the amount of services. That is my point.

MR. EFFORD: I am not the greatest listener in the world

but I think I would be interested in sitting down with the hon. Member if he

could tell me how we can spend all this money on the programs and not collect

taxes. I do not have much patience with that particular individual but I would

try to have some patience for an hour or two and listen to his ideas.

MR. HEWLETT: You are increasing taxes and decreasing

services.

MR. EFFORD: Looking at their administration over the last

seventeen years I know their greatest concern was not in paying debts but in

incurring debts. There is no doubt about that. Surely the hon. Member knows full

well that you cannot keep going in debt year after year, decade after decade and

have no accountability. Is that the way you operate a Government? Is that the

way you operate a system? He made it quite clear that this Government had

intended to do something different. Yes, we have intended to do something

different. We have certainly been trying to do something different, but the

first thing we have to do is try to straighten out the mess he and the former

administration left behind. If you buy a business that is bankrupt you do not

continue on bankrupting that business and putting it further and further in

debt. First of all you try to make the business accountable for its own expenses

and its own operation, and the only way you can do that is by creating an

income. And if the income is not there, Mr. Chairman, then the debt is going to

increase further and further and the end result is no Government, no services,

no business, no system whatsoever.

I was quite interested in listening to what the Member for

Burin - Placentia West had to say. It is too bad he is not in the House of

Assembly, but I am sure he is in the back room listening. He talked about

renting and flying to and from the Burin Peninsula making some positive

announcements. I have no difficulty understanding that when you go to your

district you should make positive announcements and you should be there when

announcements are made, no matter when. But I do not understand why the then

Minister of Social Services would rent a fixed-wing aircraft to fly from St.

John's to Deer Lake, to fly back to St. John's and to fly to Winterland. Now I

presume the Winterland airport is on the Burin Peninsula. Four times in the

period of one or two months the Minister of Social Services flew from St. John's

to Deer Lake, to Corner Brook, back to St. John's, and up to Winterland airport.

If they made those four announcements in one month, they were making some

fantastic announcements. And I do not know why you would have to rent or charter

a fixed-wing aircraft. Those are the same hon. people who put a question before

the House of Assembly asking me to table the number of trips I had made as

Minister of Social Services during the year 1990. I made one trip out of the

Province in 1990. He rented a fixed-wing aircraft for four trips within the

Province and he went outside the Province on nine occasions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now!

MR. EFFORD: On one occasion he flew to Europe for a

seven-day visit, to find out the impact of an oil development on a province or

on a district.

MR. GOVER: And he did not find that out.

MR. EFFORD: I have searched the department inside-out,

up-and-down and I cannot find one word I could read as to what the study was, or

what report he made when he came back. I suspect his trip to Norway was a

highfalutin vacation for him and his officials, probably his executive

assistant, or whoever went with him. That is the kind of hypocrisy you get now

when they start talking about how much money is wasted on this side of the House

of Assembly. What would it cost to rent a fixed-wing aircraft to go from St.

John's to Deer Lake, back to St. John's and up to Winterland?

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of money.

MR. EFFORD: A lot of money, probably as much as $500 -

$600 an hour. I suspect more than that. A helicopter, I think, costs around $600

- $800 an hour. The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains knows full well what

it costs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is a helicopter. So to Deer Lake back to

St. John's and up to Winterland, you are talking about $10,000 to $15,000 for

the four trips.

The middle distance fleet - I was surprised they brought up

about the middle distance fleet and the prosperity it brought to the Burin

Peninsula. The middle distance fleet cost the taxpayers of this Province

somewhere in the vicinity of $40 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

MR. EFFORD: Somewhere in the vicinity of $40 million,

with no return to the Province whatsoever. Now if we took just the two or three

things I have mentioned in the last few minutes and gave the money back to the

taxpayers of the Province, you would not have to increase taxes or charge as

much taxes as we pay. Now multiply that by the thousands of things this former

administration have done and we would not have a $5.8 billion debt in this

Province today. Now that is the problem, Mr. Chairman, a $5.8 billion debt.

Now I extend an invitation to the hon. the Member for Green

Bay or any financial expert on the other side to come over and sit down with the

Minister of Finance and tell him how he is going to pay the interest on that

loan, pay for all the social, education and health programmes and other services

needed in the Province without collecting taxes.

So the challenge goes out, Mr. Chairman, to any Member on the

opposite side, and I will gladly be able to spend the time, in fact, I will take

as long as it is necessary and we will be able to then go with the (inaudible)

no taxes, lots of service and no taxes.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to have a few words on this

particular bill before the House deals with it as it will eventually. I am not

interested, Mr. Chairman, in reiterating anything that has been said already. I

mean everyone knows what this Bill is about. This Bill freezes the tax on

gasoline at a high point when the price of gasoline is high. It freezes the tax

on gasoline and keeps it there even though the price on gasoline has since

fallen and the Minister of Finance, as I understand it, made no bones about that

in his introduction. The purpose of this Bill is to maintain the highest

possible levels of income from gasoline tax to the Province. That is what this

Bill is all about. The Minister of Finance has said it and therefore there is

nothing we can do about it but point out to the people of this Province as we

have done, and as we are doing again this afternoon, that the Government had a

choice. The Government could have maintained the ad valorem system that was in

place which gave the Government higher revenues as gasoline prices went up but

gave the consumer a break and the Government lower revenues as the price of

gasoline went down. Now that is what ad valorem meant, Mr. Chairman. It gave the

Government additional increased revenues on the upswing when prices were going

up, and it gave the Government less revenue and therefore the consumer a break

when the price of gasoline was on a downswing. It is just as simple as that.

There is no more to it than that except that this Government, predicting and

expecting what would happen after the end of hostilities in the Persian Gulf,

this Government predicted and anticipated that gasoline prices would stabilized

or perhaps, in effect, go down, which is what has happened. The price of

gasoline since the ceasing of hostilities in the Persian Gulf has gone down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, is the -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) lower the taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you remember that? Do you remember

saying why won't the Minister (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The Minister of Health is having

hallucinations and that is not surprising with what he has done with the health

care system of this Province. So the Minister would best keep quiet while

somebody else is speaking. If he has a point, let him get up and make it as he

is entitled to do.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is not two faced, this is telling the

House what has happened. The Government made a decision knowing full well that

the price of gasoline was going to take a slide over a period of time that it

wanted to keep the revenues high. The Minister of Finance said that today. This

was a measure to keep the Governments revenues high, and he said that we did it

deliberately. That is all we are doing, reiterating what the Government policy

is, and that is what we are here for, Mr. Chairman, to point it out. If the

Minister of Health has a point to make that is different, he has every right to

make it, and I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, that if he keeps it relevant and if

he keeps it to the Bill that we are dealing with he might even get to make it

without being interrupted because most of us on this side of the House are one

heck of a lot more courteous than the Minister is.

MR. SIMMS: Hear, hear! Now put that in your pipe.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: See. Here he goes again. For the Minister's

information I was out and had one and have no reason to be touchy. You can bring

the hob nailed boot into this place, but you cannot stop some of us from going

outside if we want to.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments before my ten

minutes are up directed to the Minister of Social Services who just made another

tremendous contribution to the debate in this House. The Minister of Social

Services is his own worst enemy.

MR. EFFORD: Ha!

MR. RIDEOUT: He can 'Ha' all he likes, but the Minister

of Social Services is his own worst enemy. The Minister of Social Services has

not realized yet, Mr. Speaker, that he is not in Opposition anymore. The

Minister would do well for his own credibility and for the credibility of the

Government to realize that he is no longer a Member of the Opposition. It is

time for the Minister of Social Services to get up out of the gutter where he is

comfortable, and become more of a cosmopolitan politician. The Minister, Mr.

Chairman, -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, there is an example. I can

almost sit down and say the Minister has proven my case for me. The Minister of

Social Services, as soon as there is any allegation made about the Government or

the Minister he gets up and he goes back in recent history and he tries to dig

out something that might embarrass somebody on this side of the House.

MR. SIMMS: Try to deflect.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, that is immaterial, we are not

the Government any more.

MR. SIMMS: We paid for that.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, if there is a price to be

paid, we paid it. What does he think he is going to gain?

MR. SIMMS: Now he is trying to deflect criticism away

from himself that is all.

MR. RIDEOUT: Absolutely! And, Mr. Chairman, everybody is

talking about him.

MR. SIMMS: Everybody.

MR. RIDEOUT: Everybody is talking about the nonsense and

the foolishness that the Minister gets on with whenever there is a question he

does not like. Whenever there is an allegation made by somebody inside or

outside the House that he does not like, he gets on with this stuff that

happened years ago. Let me tell the Minister: I could have, when I was Minister

of Fisheries, when the person who is now the Minister of Fisheries was asking me

questions in the House that I might not have liked for personal or political

reasons, I could have gone over to the Department and said: give me the expense

claims for the former Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Twillingate, when he

was Minister between 1975 and 1979, give them to me, go out in the Registry and

go down in the bowels of Confederation Building and find them. Let me see what

kind of spender he was when he was a Tory Minister of Fisheries, and I could

bring it over to the House and I could slap it across the House and give him a

poke in the face with it and stuff like that. Now what would that have proven?

It would have proven -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I will come to that in a minutes.

MR. EFFORD: Twenty thousand dollars worth of cigarettes.

MR. RIDEOUT: See! It would have proven that I was a more

incompetent twit than the person who was asking the questions. That is what it

would have proven, that I was a more - that is what it would have proven like

that Minister is proving today and every other time that he gets up with this

stuff about somebody renting aircraft or somebody ordering booze or somebody

ordering something else. He is proving himself to be an incompetent twit, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. SIMMS: An hon. twit.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what he is proving himself to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS