December

7, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 79

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Firstly, I would like, on behalf of hon. members, to welcome

to the Speaker's galleries today, Mr. George Carter and his son, Stephen. Mr.

Carter is a former Newfoundlander now living in Ontario and he is here to be

inducted into the Newfoundland Tennis Hall of Fame, on Wednesday. He has won

numerous tennis championships all over Canada and the United States in his

particular age group. I am sure hon. members would want to extend to him a warm

welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier will not be here

for a few moments, he is down at CBC doing a radio phone-in show. I would like

to make a statement on his behalf, Sir, in his absence. I believe my hon.

friends opposite have copies.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they don't.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry. I was assured by the Clerk of

the Cabinet that it had gone to the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, that

is all I can say to my friend. Well, let me make the statement, and if he needs

time to reply, we will, of course, grant requisite leave.

The purpose of my statement, Mr. Speaker, is to set out

clearly the position of government with respect to two projects being proposed

for the Province which involve the processing and/or storage of garbage and

other waste materials originating mainly from outside the Province.

Hon. members are aware of the suggestion which has been under

discussion for some time over the past year from North American Resource

Recovery Ltd. for the utilization of garbage, mainly from the eastern seaboard

of the United States to generate electricity at a facility to be established at

Long Harbour. Although this suggested project has received extensive public

discussion, no proposal to develop such a facility has ever been submitted to

the Minister of Environment and Lands for registration under The Environmental

Assessment Act.

Recently however, a proposal has been made by a company named

Hollinger Northshore Exploration Incorporated, of Quebec, involving in part the

back filling of mine pits at Schefferville with a variety of allegedly

non-hazardous waste from various sources in the eastern Canadian provinces and

possibly the eastern seaboard of the United States. Some of these mine pits are

located on the Labrador side of the border at Schefferville or just across the

border from Schefferville. The project has been submitted to the office of the

Minister of Environment and Lands for registration under the Environmental

Assessment Act. Further detail on the specifics of this proposal as submitted

are attached. And there are copies here attached to the statement.

Mr. Speaker, these matters are governed by The Environmental

Assessment Act, which was first enacted by this House in 1980. The Act sets out

a mandatory procedure which must be followed once a proponent submits a project

for registration. The legislation requires that each and every project is

entitled to receive a fair and objective assessment as to its potential impact

on all aspects of the environment. This includes the social and economic, as

well as the biophysical environment. It also provides opportunity for full and

extensive public consultation and hearings. The process allows for full input by

any interested member of the public.

My colleague, the Minister of Environment and Lands, Mr.

Speaker, is vested by the Act with a duty to determine whether the proposal

should undergo a full environmental assessment, or only an abbreviated one. She

will do so, in the appropriate manner, and announce her decision as soon as

possible. The Act does not permit either the Minister or the Cabinet to refuse

to accept a project for registration. The Minister and/or Cabinet has no power

to accept or reject a project until the full assessment process has been

completed. The government agrees with and supports fully the manner in which the

existing Act operates.

Having stated this, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on to say that

in the meetings the statement says 'I have personally had' - but the Premier has

had with the principals of North American Resource Recovery Ltd. and others

connected with the suggested Long Harbour project he has emphasized that any

environmental assessment must take into account the potential impact of all

aspects of the project and in the end must be acceptable from a social, economic

and biophysical perspective before it could be allowed to proceed. He made it

clear to the proponent that in his judgment, and indeed, in the judgment of this

government, it would be extremely difficult for the suggested North American

Resource Recovery project, as it has been described to us, to meet the strict

requirements of the Act. He acknowledged, however, that under the laws of the

Province, the company has every right to proceed to register the project under

The Environmental Assessment Act if that is the course of action they choose to

follow. As noted previously, no such registration has been received to date. The

Premier also advised The North American Resource Recovery Ltd. principals that

they were entitled to a full and fair hearing and that the Government would not

prejudge the issue.

Mr. Speaker, the government then are required to register the

Hollinger Northshore proposal. My colleagues and I, however, have requested the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to communicate with the principals of

that company, that is the Hollinger Northshore Company, to advise them that

while we recognize and respect their right to submit this project for

consideration, it is, in our judgment, extremely unlikely they will be able to

put forward the project in a manner which will be acceptable to the people of

Labrador, and to the Province as a whole. If they wish to proceed with the

assessment of the project they can, of course, do so, but they must do so with

full knowledge of this government's judgment of the probability of the project

receiving approval in the end.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, government accepts the existing

projects of The Environmental Assessment Act which give any proponent the right

to register a project and to have it considered in accordance with the

provisions of The Environmental Assessment Act, including public hearings. It is

only when this process has been completed that the government are permitted to

decide whether or not a proposed project may proceed. But all proponents must

clearly understand that to receive approval, a project must be acceptable as to

its potential impact from a social, economic and biophysical perspective. The

judgment of this government is that the above referenced projects - and that

includes the Hollinger project and the North American Resource Recovery project

- or any projects involving the importing of garbage and other waste material

into the Province, will have great difficulty meeting acceptable standards, at

least from a social and biophysical point of view. We have advised the

proponents accordingly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if through some glitch on our part we did

not get a copy in advance to the hon. gentlemen opposite and they need some time

to prepare a response in the usual way, I for one, and I am sure my colleagues

here, would be amenable to having them, say, at the end of Question Period, make

a response, if that is what a spokesman for their side would prefer. I don't

know what happened. Instructions were given to send a copy forward. I can only

apologize to my hon friends if, in fact, it did not get to them.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, we didn't get a copy and it is kind of hard to respond in

an informed manner to something as sensitive as this without having adequate

notice. My first observation is I am wondering why the Minister of Environment

didn't make the announcement, Mr. Speaker. It seems rather strange, with the

Premier absent, that the Government House Leader would stand here and make this

statement on environmental matters in the Province with the minister sitting in

her place.

Having said that, our reaction to this most recent proposal

from Hollinger Northshore is exactly the same as it is regarding the Long

Harbour proposal, that we are totally opposed to it. It is only the same kind of

project in another location, by another name, and while we do not support and

are totally opposed to the importation of garbage from anywhere else in this

world, whether it be to the Island portion of this Province or to Labrador, that

we stand opposed to it and we think that government should flatly refuse.

What I think is also worthy of note here is that the

statement says, if they wish to proceed with assessment of the project they, of

course, do so, but with full knowledge of this government's judgement of the

probability of receiving approval in the end. I think, Mr. Speaker, this

government have not been strong enough in their message to the Long Harbour

proposal. They have sort of been wishy-washy on this, and I still can't

understand why they just don't say no, a very strong no, to the proposal; and we

would encourage them to say a very strong no to this proposal now for Labrador,

a proposal which would place the project itself on the Labrador border.

I am sure, as the Member for Torngat and the Member for

Menihek have said in the brief discussion with them now, that there is no way

the people of Labrador are going to be receptive to the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador entertaining this kind of proposal. There are some

nice words used here, allegedly, supposedly, and other stuff, Mr. Speaker. We

want to go on record as totally opposing this, as we have the Long Harbour

proposal, and look forward to the government totally rejecting such importation

and landfilling or whatever kind of thing they are going to do with this waste,

to totally say no to it.

I just wish we had more time to read the statement and to

give a more informed comment on it; but we stand totally opposed to it, and we

ask the government to oppose it as well.

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

MR. HARRIS: I ask leave to address the Ministerial

Statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Did I hear a member say 'no leave'?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister has told us the

Premier is out. Do we expect the Minister of Finance to be here today?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was

called away from the Province on the weekend. A relative of his, I gather, is

extremely ill. They expect the lady may, in fact, not live - not survive - so

the minister way well be absent for a few days. Either my colleague, the

Minister of Health, who is the acting minister, or I - and the Premier will be

in the House shortly - will be happy to respond to any questions the hon.

gentleman raises.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we understand that. We accept

that. That is all the minister could do. It is unfortunate he is not here to

answer for his mini-Budget, but nevertheless let me address the questions then

to the Government House Leader, or the former Minister of Finance, if is he is

in a position to do it.

I wish the Premier was here, in fact, because I wanted to

begin my first question by complimenting the Premier, believe it or not. I am

not one who is known to do that, but I did want to compliment the Premier for an

interview that I saw him participating in, on I think it was Friday evening or

Saturday evening when, in dealing with the mini-Budget and in commenting on the

implications of the collective bargaining process here and the relaxation of the

provisions of Bill 17, the Premier, in that statement, was brutally honest - for

once, I might say. He certainly was brutally honest and I wanted to compliment

him for it, because I think there are a lot of misconceptions that have come

forward from that mini-Budget or Financial Statement on Friday.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the minister: Can he confirm for

us that in the minister's statement of November 12th. he announced there would

be a 1 per cent cutback on the overall payroll compensation package to the end

of the year, which required a 3 per cent reduction over a four month period, so

that in effect measures had to be taken to reduce by 3 per cent for that four

month period?

The minister announced on Friday that negotiations will begin

in March, but that the objective will be further reductions, and we were told

that those reductions aimed at would amount to a further 5 per cent. Let me ask

the minister to clarify: Is that a further 5 per cent on top of the 3 per cent

that has been found over the last third of this year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Finance

is right back in the saddle. Those are the same answers I received for three

years when he was the minister. A very well-informed answer.

Let me ask him this. Will he confirm this: since Bill 17 made

provision in the third year basically - or in the second year, covered by Bill

17, one year was a freeze, second year was - or, first year was a freeze which

in effect was a rollback of salaries, because increases that had been already

negotiated were rolled back. In the last year of Bill 17's provision it provided

for negotiations with a maximum of 3 per cent total compensation package. The

impact of the mini-Budget on Friday is now that these provisions of Bill 17 no

longer apply. Now on the surface that sounded like a great thing. Bill 17 now no

longer applied in that area.

The impact is that the promise of a 3 per cent negotiated

increase is now being replaced by a 5 per cent decrease. So the impact of the

minister's statement is not that Bill 17 has been rescinded, which would have

given the rollbacks back to public servants, it amounts to the 3 per cent that

would have been negotiated being lost, and an announcement that a further 5 per

cent will be sought in collective bargaining, which is putting a gun to the

heads of the labour unions. Will the minister confirm that, then?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. From where we stand

now the Province - looking forward to next year's Budget - finds itself in what

appears to be a very serious financial situation. Part of that will involve

serious negotiations with respect to compensation. I don't think I should go

further than that. I would rather wait for the member to ask his questions of

the Premier or the Minister of Finance, who are directly involved in

negotiations with unions. I do know that we are facing serious financial

problems as we look forward to what's going to happen next year, and part of

that will involve serious negotiations with unions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the minister

that I was told on Friday that the target is in fact at least a 5 per cent

reduction in overall compensation package. Which means, either a 5 per cent

reduction in salaries, in benefits or in numbers of personnel, or some

combination thereof.

Mr. Speaker, let me move into another area. Perhaps the

minister might be able to enlighten us a bit more as it relates to the increase

in personal income tax, Mr. Speaker. The minister announced on Friday that the

rate will now go to 69 per cent. That amounts to a 15 per cent increase in the

provincial component of personal income tax since this government took office in

1989. A 15 per cent increase, Mr. Speaker, in three-and-a-half years, gone from

60 per cent to 69 per cent of the basic federal tax. Mr. Speaker, that amounts

to $36 million next year. That is what that amounts to in additional revenues to

be raised from that source. Would the minister like to confirm that number for

us?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will confirm the percentages, Mr. Speaker, but the actual

amount we will raise is difficult to forecast at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, the percentages are there, Mr.

Speaker. It is a simple matter of taking the figures in the back of the

mini-Budget document and increasing that by 15 per cent. You will find $36

million, Mr. Speaker, that is to come out of the pockets of consumers next year.

Gasoline tax, Mr. Speaker, was announced to be increased by 2

cents per litre. Now, that amounts to another 15 per cent increase in the tax on

gasoline and a similar increase on diesel fuel. The minister told us that he

would raise this year $2.5 million by this measure, and that amounts to a total

of $15.7 million on an annual basis from gasoline alone next year.

In addition, the minister announced 2.5 cents per cigarette,

which will give them $3.6 million this year or $11 million next year. Would the

minister like to confirm that that is another $27 million additional revenue

next year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we increase the cigarette and gasoline tax, it will

undoubtedly result in increased revenues of the approximate amount specified by

the member. However, it is an estimate, and we have to be very careful that

these are estimates, and it may raise more or less depending on peoples' smoking

habits and alternate arrangements for receiving tobacco. But basically these

figures are appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Mount Pearl, on a

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the document that

the minister tabled on Friday, in Statement II on page - Greek letter ii - we

look at the amount of revenues received from Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. We

see that's increased by $1.5 million this year. The minister didn't mention

anything about a hike in tax on alcohol. Now the Minister of Justice may shake

his head.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) there isn't any.

MR. WINDSOR: There isn't any increase in tax on alcohol?

Well, since the figure that's in here from the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation

is different from most other numbers - most other numbers can float, depending

on volumes used and so forth. In the case of Newfoundland Liquor Corporation the

minister tells the Corporation how much they are to return to him each year and

the board is then responsible for adjusting prices to meet that amount. Would

the minister confirm therefore that the board has been told that they will find

an extra $1.5 million in the last third of this year, and that that amount will

therefore be multiplied by three times to $4.5 million for next year? And that

that in fact amounts to an increase of 2 per cent or $1.40 for a bottle of

twenty-six ounces?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Now he's got it wrong, Mr. Speaker, now he's

got it wrong.

MR. WALSH: There'll be no change in sticker price.

DR. KITCHEN: What happens with the Newfoundland Liquor

Corporation, and it's happened for a long time, is that we ask the Liquor

Corporation to turn us over so much money. Now then, they can do it by raising

prices or they can look at their returned earnings and their cash and say: we

will pay you a dividend out of our retained earnings. This is basically what

we've asked them to do this year, and also to put off certain expenditures that

they had in mind to do. So what happens this year has no relationship with what

would happen another year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, any way you cut it the minister

is still taking an extra $1.5 million from Newfoundland Liquor Corporation this

year. On the same page, under Provincial Tax Sources, an item called " Other."

Now these are little bits and pieces that are not spelled out carefully. These

are small amounts. The increase here from $8 million to $18 million. A $10

million increase. Now that couldn't possibly be from increased usage, unless

there's a miracle or there is a Santa Claus, one or the other. Would the

minister like to tell us which taxes have been changed? Because these are tax

sources. These are provincial tax sources, Mr. Speaker. What new taxes have been

put in place here that are going to increase those revenues by 225 per cent this

fiscal year? Let alone next year.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, on these "Other," the other

provincial sources. As he indicated, originally we had proposed $11 million and

now we're looking for almost $20 million, which is a considerably greater

amount. But I haven't got the breakdown of that here now, but I will undertake

to look at the breakdown and let the member know at the first opportunity.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: The minister, Mr. Speaker, is looking at the

wrong column but he's answered my next question. That's other provincial

sources. If he looks about an inch and a quarter further up the page, under

Provincial Tax Sources, "Other," he'll find that it's gone from $8 million to

$18 million. Other provincial sources, which are various other things, Mr.

Speaker, other than taxes, and these are the fines and forfeitures, 171 of them

the minister tried to tell us he was eliminating. But these sorts of things have

increased from $11 million to $19 million this year. So he's picking up another

$8 million there this year. Obviously he doesn't have the answer. Would the

minister tell us that all of these things that I've just talked about amounts to

a $200 million tax grab on an annual basis?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the breakdown of these things I

undertook to get. I'll also undertake to get the annualized amount, if any.

Sometimes these can be annualized and sometimes they need not be annualized.

I'll undertake to get the breakdown. Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct

my question to the Minister of Education. With Friday's mini-Budget showing

almost $18 million being sliced from the operating budget alone under account

expenditures in education, I ask the minister how much of that $18 million will

be cut from post-secondary education over the next four months?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure I agree with the

$18 million figure. I wish we could find that much money for education. The

school board sector, we're going to find $1.5 million; the University, $1.6

million; the colleges... I just don't have the amount in my head now but it is

probably in the $2 to $3 million range. Wherever the hon. member got the $18

million figure, I would like to know. I only wish we could make that kind of

savings and have no worse impact on education than we are having with the

peanuts we are taking out.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Schedule 4 shows $80 million cut from education alone. Could

the minister confirm that $1.6 million, I think he said, would be cut from the

university budget? Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. On December 1, your deputy minister

sent a letter to school boards warning that the new grant system may be

postponed indefinitely. Has that happened, and will the new grant system be

implemented at all this year?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion

over a letter written by the deputy minister. Now, in that letter the phrase

which caught the attention of the hon. member was `the full implementation of

the grant system.' So let me explain for hon. members. The new grant system

fully implemented would have seen every single board receive equitable amounts.

Now, after the school tax was taken out, we replaced that with $35 million which

resulted in every single board in the Province receiving an increase over last

year. The minimum increase was 8 per cent. Some were up to 15 and 16 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, in order to achieve full equity there is another amount of money

required somewhere in this fiscal year in the vicinity of $2 to $3 million. That

money, as a result of the restraint measures we have had to take, will not be

added. So, therefore, as much as we would like to achieve full, total equity in

this fiscal year, we are not going to receive it. So in the sense, I suppose, of

that very narrow, fine definition of full implementation, it will not be fully

implemented.

However, the formula used to award money to boards based on

heat and light, based on travel, based on all these things, that same formula

will be used. But if you are going to get really strict and say full

implementation of their grant system, it means that total equity has been

achieved. In that sense, I suppose, it is not, Mr. Speaker. But the new grant

system will continue to be used to distribute the money that we have.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Your deputy minister indicated: it appears that full

implementation of the new grant system may be postponed indefinitely, pending an

improvement in government's financial position. The deputy minister indicated

and inferred that it was the intention of this department to implement, this

year, a full grant system. This government promised elimination of school tax

which they delivered, and they were going to respond with a full grant system.

So the minister has now indicated that they are not going to fully implement the

grant system which was supposed to replace the school tax. So I am clear on his

response there.

Now, I would like to ask the minister: Will he tell us how

much money was deducted under the 1 per cent and 3 per cent that were announced

on November 12? I asked this question on a few occasions before and he indicated

he couldn't answer it until the budget was brought down. So would he please tell

us now, how many dollars were taken back from operating grants to boards because

of this 1 and 3 per cent?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member still does not

understand what I said about the full implementation of the grant system. Before

the elimination of the school tax, Mr. Speaker, we had school boards who were up

there and we had school boards who were down here. Now, we eliminated the school

tax and we replaced it by $35 million. That brought everybody up, and it brought

the ones who were down here up closer. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is going to take

about $2 to $3 million to bring them all level. So it is considerably better

than it was last year and the year before.

What the hon. member probably doesn't understand is that

there always was a tremendous gap between the ones that have not and the ones

that have. So in that very narrow

interpretation of the new grant system, I

suppose if you accept that, it is not fully implemented, Mr. Speaker. We are

between $2 and $3 million away. But that does not, in the least, have any

bearing on the fact that we are distributing grants based on the new grant

system which takes into consideration debt retirement, takes into consideration

the travel, heat, light and everything else, so that when we finally get into

the classroom the amount of money which is spent on programming and teaching is

equitable no matter where you live in the Province. So the hon. member doesn't

quite understand or doesn't want to understand.

The second part of his question, Mr. Speaker, is $1.5

million.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The deputy minister circulated to every single board in this

Province, a new schedule, and I have copies from some school boards- I thank him

for the total. I asked him how much was being taken back under adjustments -

there is a

schedule attached to that letter by the deputy minister and I have it

for one board, here in front of me, I wanted to know the total for all the

boards in this Province that you are deducting from their operating grants

because of this 1 and 3 per cent. That is quite clear. I asked that in the House

on November 13th and I did not get an answer; and I would now like to ask the

minister: how much also, on other than this 1 and 3 per cent, is his department

clawing back in other revenues from school boards in this Province for operating

grant purposes?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I just gave the hon. member the

answer. It is $1.5 million, I told him that is what we are taking back. He is

anxious to ask the questions but he just does not accept the answers. He might

not like the answer, but the answer is $1.5 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, other clawbacks as he calls it from boards,

there might be a few minor things but there is no other major request to have

money come back from the school boards. Now the hon. member might have fallen

into the trap over this so-called windfall with school taxes that were

collected, which we are asking to take back and I make no apologies for that.

The hon. member is falling into that trap which some school boards would like

him to fall into and see that as a clawback, but whether or not there were

restraints, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education and government would have

been asking for a refund on the school taxes which were collected after we had

paid for these school taxes. We are not going to double fund the school boards

any more than we are going to double fund any other board in this Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I have a letter here and it is addressed to your deputy

minister from one school board that is getting 18.3 per cent less than the

budget they were given earlier, and, I ask the minister, how much, and the

minister has a copy - if he would like to have it tabled, I am sure that is not

necessary. I will ask him: how many dollars were taken back in school tax, this

shortfall, from the boards across this Province, could he tell us that amount

now? That boards who were told that the school tax would be eliminated and a new

grant system would be substituted for it, the grant system is not implemented

and still this government is taking back or clawing back monies on school tax.

Could he tell how much money is being clawed back? One particular board here is

clawed back $49,000; one board is clawed back to $162,000, another board,

upwards to almost $300,000. Could he give the figure for all boards in this

Province, that are being clawed back on the school tax?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I warn the hon. member not to be

sucked into the trap about the school taxes and he is sucked into that trap. I

will table the letter; it is from Conception Bay South Integrated School Board

in Manuels, Mr. Speaker. I will also table, because it is too long to read, the

real truth.

Reference is made to this letter from the school board: In

the department's view, school board officials have presented financial

information which is incomplete relative to the 1992-1993 Budget. The school

board has not, has not, sustained an 18.3 decrease in funding when all relative

factors are taken into consideration,Mr. Speaker. Then, it goes on to explain

the $2,004,261 this year compares to $1,000,797 last year for an increase of

11.5 per cent, Mr, Speaker. The hon. member does not know what he is - I will

table this, it is a drawn out report, I will table it, Mr. Speaker, but you

cannot be sucked in to school boards, Mr. Speaker who play with figures. These

are the real facts.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has still refused to indicate the amount that

was taken back in school tax, he still has not indicated the amount. Now, I

would ask him: the deputy minister stated also, that boards would have to

operate on less money and learn to live with less money than they received in

their interim budget. This financial statement by the Minister of Finance

indicated that $18 million less will be received for education under current

account. Will the minister confirm that operating grants will now be $10 million

to $12 million less than they were last year?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this fearmongering is really

beginning to get tormenting. He talks about the amount taken back by school

taxes, zilch, zero, there is nothing taken back, Mr. Speaker, because, as I told

the hon. House before, the Province bought the ledger. We bought the outstanding

school taxes and we replaced them, Mr. Speaker, with more than the School Tax

Authority or the school boards ever dreamed they would receive. We bought it, we

put it back in, it cost the Province $35 million. So, it is wrong to ask about

what was taken back because there has been nothing, there has not been anything

taken back, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: What did you do with the rest of the money,

buy door knobs?

MR. DECKER: No, we paid off $24 million on Sprung - that

is where it went, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: That is where it went. If we only had that

$24 million, we would not have had to take it back (inaudible) the school

boards.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about an interim

budget, that word is misleading too, it is a tentative budget. Every school

board was given a tentative budget; in some cases, it was 8 per cent more than

last year and in other cases it was 15 per cent more - everybody received more

than last year. Now, Mr. Speaker, in reality, because of the restraints, these

tentative budgets became the real budget. The school board was saying you were

supposed to get $2 million, this is a tentative amount. In actual fact, the

budget is levelled off at $2 million. Now, how much of that was taken back, Mr.

Speaker? I have already told the hon. member, I will either write it out or

spell it out for him, $1.5 million, Mr. Speaker. Now why the hon. member refuses

to - he can disagree with the answer all he likes, but that is the answer - $1.5

million.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One final question:

School tax was eliminated in lieu of initiating a new grant structure. I repeat,

school tax was eliminated to bring in a new grant structure, which was not fully

implemented, and this Province has taken over the ledger of school boards. Will

the minister tell us how much money was in that ledger, that they received as a

result of taking over the ledger?

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

MR. DECKER: Oh dear, Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable!

When the Province abolished the school tax, this abomination in the school

system, which should never have come in, there were two problems with the school

tax; number one, there was an inequity throughout the Province, some schools

were way up there and some were down here. My children went to a school where it

was down there, Mr. Speaker, and had to go door to door to get chalk to write on

the boards, I know the result of that. Now, Mr. Speaker, the $35 million with

which we replaced the school taxes, corrected that inequity, it brought that up.

Now, to bring them up fully equal, I told the hon. member, that was stage two,

which in this fiscal year would require another $2.5 million. That has been

intercepted because of the restraints. Now, Mr. Speaker, the amount that we

thought we were buying in relation and the amount - these things are all

irrelevant, the fact of the matter is if we collected a billion dollars it

belongs to the Province. If we collected $1 million, the Province is the loser.

When we went to buy that ledger, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, there was nobody

who did not want to sell it. But after we bought it, and came up with the scheme

that if you paid all your taxes by the end of June you would get off with half

or something, people were lining up to pay taxes, because they got a bargain.

The school boards are saying now, that is our money; well, they may think it is

but, in reality, Mr. Speaker, it was the ledger that we bought. The actual

amount that was collected is irrelevant. The amount is irrelevant, Mr. Speaker,

whether it is $1 million or $10 million.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, but he is not here, so maybe the Minister of

Finance or the acting minister will answer the question. The revised estimates

in the mini-Budget show that in Works, Services and Transportation, a decrease

of approximately $15 million in capital expenditure occurred - in that one

department alone. Can the minister explain how and where a $15 million decrease

in provincial capital expenditure could be achieved in one department?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon.

member the details but Works, Services and Transportation is the department that

builds roads and it also awards government contracts for buildings and things

like that, so obviously what has happened is that all this money will not now be

spent that was in the forecast to be spent this year, but if the member wants to

know the details I can have it looked up.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations. The minister is well aware that the

construction industry is one of the major employers in the Province. As a result

of this curtailed spending of $15 million in Works, Services and Transportation,

how many jobs were lost in the provincial work force during this past summer, as

a result of not activating that $15 million in capital works?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the question. The answer is very

straightforward, actually, that there were no jobs lost as a result of

activities. There were many jobs created in this Province last year because of

the capital works program which is conducted through the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation.

The members opposite do know - unless they have such short

memories that they have forgotten exactly how this thing works in the

three-and-a-half years that they have been sitting opposite - that it is normal,

in any one budgetary operational year, for some of the funds to lapse at the end

of a year and for projects to start early in the Spring with monies that are

left over from the previous year.

If the members opposite are now suggesting that all of a

sudden the world has changed completely in three-and-a-half years, then I must

say that there are a lot of people in Newfoundland who agree that there has been

a great change in the Province and are very thankful for it. They appreciate the

fact that this group is here to properly manage the affairs of the Province,

which is what we are now demonstrating that we certainly can do. I look forward

to an opportunity to address that in the debate later today.

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

MR. WINSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, according to the stats that

came out last Friday, this Province is doing well in administering it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Let me ask the minister this: The mini-Budget

last week did nothing to stimulate the economy, especially in the short-term.

The November labour force stats show an adjusted 21.9 per cent unemployment

rate, up from 16.7 per cent. We also have 20,000 people receiving northern cod

moratoriums.

Tell me, what is the minister going to do to - what kind of

action is he going to take to help the 53,000 unemployed Newfoundlanders right

now - 53,000?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was expecting today that the hon. member opposite might ask

his monthly question about the unemployment statistics. It is clear, obviously,

that he, and whoever is advising him from a point of view of research, still do

not understand these numbers and the implications of what has happened in the

Province, unless they choose to ignore the fact that they are still continuing,

with only signs now recently being reported that the recession that has been not

only in the Province and in the country, but in all of North America, and global

to a large degree, has had an impact in the Province, compounded by difficulties

associated with the moratorium, where 20,000 people directly were placed out of

work - many of whom still are not settled by statistical persons who accumulate

these records on a monthly basis as to how they fit into these statistics, plus

the fact that in meetings just this morning with groups again, they brought to

our attention that there are, in fact, others out there who are displaced

because they are working close to and related to the fishing sector and the

processing sector, that are impacting on these figures.

When all of that settles through, you will see that the

numbers here - even as large as they may seem on first blush and on first glance

- are nowhere close in terms of the problems and the difficulties that were

equally shown, and even worse so shown in a period of time ten years ago when

the only real comparable stats could be used in the Province at a time when the

previous administration tried to handle a recession in the Province and did not

do nearly the job that this particular administration is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Notices of Motion

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

Labour Relations.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled "An Act To Amend The Buildings

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling Orders of the Day, the Chair

is ready to rule on the point of privilege raised by the Member for St. John's

East on Thursday. In this regard I wish to thank hon. members on both sides of

the House for their submissions. Members will recall that there were some

comments related to the notion that the Chair may have intervened too quickly. I

might explain to hon. members, this was done because the Chair was under the

impression that the Member for St. John's East was making substantially the same

point of privilege which had previously been ruled on. However, allow me to say

this: I do not think any fair or reasonable Speaker feels threatened or offended

if any member courteously and respectfully explains that he or she might be

given a little additional time to further explain or elucidate on the point of

privilege. What is offensive and must not be tolerated are derogatory and

derisive remarks shouted against the Chair from members sitting in their places.

All hon. members have a responsibility and an obligation to ensure that the

respect and the dignity for the Chair are appropriately maintained.

More precisely, to the point of privilege, allow me first to

quote from Beauchesne, page 50,

section 172. I want to read subsections (1) and

(2) in this regard. Subsection (1): "When a complaint of breach of privilege is

raised the Speaker decides whether a prima facie case has been made which would

justify such proceedings taking precedence over the other business of the House.

If the Speaker, states that a prima facie case exists, the proposed motion is

then put to the House so that the House may decide what action is required in

the matter."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Subsection (2): "It has often been laid down that the

Speaker's function in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege does not extend

to deciding the question of substance whether a breach of privilege has in fact

been committed - a question which can only be decided by the House itself." So,

substantially, the Chair's decision is to rule upon whether or not there is a

prima facie case and this would allow the debate to take place. In making that

decision, of course, the Chair is governed by the authorities and by the

practice and tradition of this House. Now, the hon. member, in his submission,

used Erskine May and quoted a case in 1924, and I might say hon. members will

realize that Question Period operates a little differently. Although we do not

encourage that members get into falsifying statements, but the very nature of

the process, on both sides of the House, at times, finds us in a position where

we did not have the full information. That is why members take things under

advisement and sometimes we find that the more accurate information is on the

Opposition side, because they have researched the matter. But Question Period,

in its practice, allows for this and does not apply some of the rules, I think,

that we have here, and, in this particular case, we are talking about a breach

of privilege considering referring to documents. It says that it is a breach of

privilege to present or cause to be presented to either House or to a committee

of either House forged, falsified, or fabricated documents with intent to

deceive such House or committees, or to subscribe the names of other persons or

fictitious names to documents intended to be presented to either House or a

committee of either House, or to be privy to, cognizant of such forgery or

fraud. We are into criminal activities here and it goes on to name the kinds of

activities, such as forging signatures to petitions, subscribing fictitious

signatures thereto, tampering with a petition, forging council's name to an

appeal without their knowledge, fabrication of documentary evidence, making an

altercation on paper ordered to be laid before the House. These are practically

criminal activities and I do not believe - they hardly apply in this particular

case. A quote I want also to read for hon. members is on Page 190 of Maingot,

which is considered to be the authority in Canada on parliamentary privilege. I

will quote the whole text. The first part might not apply strictly, but as we

get into the quote, hon. members will be able to see precisely what I am saying.

Page 190: "A dispute between two members about questions of

fact said in debate does not constitute a valid question of privilege because it

is a matter of debate. Similarly, the alleged lack or unsatisfactory nature of a

reply to an oral or written question is not a question of privilege, because the

practice of the House does not compel a reply. An allegation of misleading the

House -" which is where, essentially, the hon. member's point of privilege was -

"is not out of order or unparliamentary; nor does it amount to a question of

privilege."

The final quote the Chair would like to make is from

Beauchesne, page 151,

Section 494. It refers to the acceptance of the word of a

member. "It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members

respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be

accepted. It is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by

Members as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional

falsehood is permissible."

The point I wanted to make is that in the House all members

are honour-bound to accept the word of each other. The House is built on that

kind of respect and dignity. For these reasons, I therefore rule that the hon.

the Member for St. John's East did not establish a prima facie case.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Could we deal first, very briefly, with

motions 4, 5 and 6, which are just simply to move matters forward to first

reading?

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 4 to 6?

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance, the President of

Treasury Board, and the Minister of Justice to introduce respectively, bills,

"An Act To Amend The Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax Act," "An Act To

Amend The Public Sector Restraint Act, 1992," and "An Act To Amend The Electoral

Boundaries Act."

On motion, Bills, as named, read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we shall carry on under the

agreement reached by members of the House on Friday with the debate on the

Ministerial Financial Statement. My friend from Fortune - Hermitage, I think,

adjourned the debate and I assume he wants to pick it up.

My understanding is we will go to 5:00 p.m. and then the

matter will come to an end. I don't think you can take a vote. There is actually

no motion before the House, by my understanding of the matter, but the agreement

is that we will terminate the debate at 5:00 p.m. Then, at that time, I will

indicate the business for tomorrow in the usual way.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: On Friday, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if, just before the hon. member begins, the Table

could advise the Chair how much time the hon. member has left?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Ten minutes left.

The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: On Friday, Mr. Speaker, I spoke for ten

minutes on the Financial Statement that the Minister of Finance brought to the

House, and showed some of the merits contained therein. I recognise, as do all

of the members of the House, the situation the government found itself in. Going

back to a few years ago when Mr. Peckford was Premier of the Province, he

recognised, too, the mess that the Provincial Government was in, and he said if

it were not dealt with, that within a couple of years, it would be 1933 all over

again, I am sorry. I would like to build a little bit more on that for the next

few minutes.

The Member for Mount Pearl earlier today commended the

Premier, I think, and the government on this particular statement and the fact

that he was indeed pleased with what had been done.

I think that up to this particular time we have realized that

the status quo, and things that have been done in the past, would certainly not

suffice for the future. We had to find a new way to do things - a new way to

solve our problems. When we realize, in the world today, with the United States

economy in a recession, and the Japanese total fiscal policy being reduced

somewhat in the world over, the revenues are not there. So the government, in

its strategic economic plan, and again in this Financial Statement, has shown

that if we are to lead - if this Province is to come out of the economic

situation in which it finds itself, then obviously we have to diversify into

high tech industries and into cottage industries in order to make the Province

work.

I recognize also the situation that the Finance Minister

found himself in with all the public service unions, and being able to consult

with them to achieve a desired result. I do not think for one minute that we

realize, or the people in the Province realize, that all of the problems are

over. We have a lot of problems to solve, and I am sure that the minister and

the government, with consultation, can work things out with the particular

public service unions.

The Opposition Leader, also in a speech on Friday, said that

he was not one bit put out by what was in the report. I am sure that is right,

and from this side of the House the same thing - that the government has agreed

and is giving small businesses the extra impetus it needs to further stimulate

the economy in the Province. Small business and entrepreneurship must be alive

and well in the Province if we are to charter our own destiny.

We have seen that, in the past, our projects that have been

taken upon us, what we have done has not been able to pull the Province out of

the doldrums; but now we have to find a new direction and I believe that the

government's strategic economic plan has recognized that, and I think in time we

will do that.

There are a tremendous number of positive changes. Small

business is becoming stronger all the time, and the viability and the sheer

determination of Atlantic Canadians and Newfoundlanders is slowly but surely

gaining respect in helping the economy in this particular Province and Atlantic

Canada, and all through Canada itself.

Most of the infrastructure is in place, I believe, for small

business, but nevertheless they have to be encouraged and bolstered, and I think

that the rule of the small business in economic prosperity in the country has

never been as important as it is now. I can quote an example of, in my own

one of its kind in the Province, I believe. Recently they have gotten orders

from within the Province because they realize that the cassette tapes are first

class quality and that they are more than competitive in price; and I am hoping

that government and business in the Province would use the expertise that we

have here to further generate support and further generate jobs within our own

economy.

As I said, the Opposition House Leader was not concerned

about the things that were in the report, but he was somewhat concerned about

the things that were not in the report. Obviously, I guess, he was concerned

about the Province, the way that it would deal with its public servants, and

probably was expecting that there would be legislation that would be brought

before the House that would probably have rollbacks and tampering with the

collective agreements of the public service, but that did not happen. The

government, through conciliation and through consultation with the unions,

realized that would not be necessary and they found ways whereby that could be

alleviated, and I am sure that the people out there are pleased with the

government's action.

I think the statement that is said most often - that I have

heard most often over the weekend - and I am sure other people can probably bear

with me in the sense - is that the deficit has been incurred by everybody in the

Province and the government has recognized that everybody in the Province must

share the responsibility. That is why, I guess, there was an increase in income

tax and also in the gasoline sales tax, and the public servants are much

appreciative of the government's way of dealing with that.

As I said, I am sure that the public unions recognize, the

same as government, that in the future things are still going to be difficult.

There has to be ways of finding things; ways of co-operating; ways of being able

to bring a new order to the collective bargaining process in the Province. I am

sure that if the unions and government concerned recognize the serious situation

that the government finds itself in, then I am sure that we can find a will to

find a way out of the economic mess in which we find ourselves.

I think also the realization of the people out there in the

Province is that they realize the situation the Premier inherited, that he finds

himself in. Really, in a sense, we don't have the economic thrust in the

Province to deal with it in the way that we would like. Nevertheless, the

Premier and his government have been candid with the problems facing the people

in this Province and the people are appreciative of that and, I am sure, willing

to help out in any way they can.

I heard from my district many times, as I said, and I heard

from people over the weekend, and I recognize the financial situation that we

are in but, nevertheless, believing that the government has the will of the

people behind them in trying to solve the crisis that it faces.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, as I did earlier,

about my own district on the Connaigre part of the Peninsula, where that

situation is relatively good as far as the fishing is concerned. There is not as

much fish as there had been in recent years but, nevertheless, the price of it

is there, people are finding employment and they are happy about that.

I realize also, as do all of the people in the Province, that

there are difficult times ahead. I am sure, by being candid, open-minded and

conciliatory in the approach that we take in being fiscally responsible, that we

can find a solution to the problems that are facing us. I have every confidence

in the Premier and the government to do that.

Not only in the fishing industry do we have problems, but we

also have problems in forestry. Again, I believe that consultation and

understanding can work to make things happen in that particular area. In my own

town, where most of the people are loggers, they are concerned about the

mechanization in the woods and the harvesters who have come in and taken some of

their jobs. Again, through the early retirement package and so on, many of these

people have been able to retire and the younger workers have been able to move

in and do the job. I am sure that that will happen and continue to happen in the

Province as a whole. I believe that we have young people out there, young

entrepreneurs, who are ready and willing to work.

I give, as an example, where only recently two young

entrepreneurs have started a new fishing industry in my area, The Sea Urchins.

They have put a considerable number of dollars into it themselves, and I am

hoping that over the next little while, within the next few weeks, that there

can be as many as twenty-five or thirty, probably even forty fishermen, who will

be able to avail of this new industry. There is quantity in the area and the

scientific research that has been done showed that the area of Fortune Bay has

the highest quality of sea urchins in the Province. So I am looking forward to

that coming on stream, I am looking forward to that generating more employment

in the area, and I am also looking forward to other underutilized species

creating employment in the area, and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LANGDON: Just one second - and I am sure -

MR. SPEAKER: I told the hon. member his time is up, does

he get by leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MR. LANGDON: - also for a new industry of dog fish in the

area that is in plenteous supply, and I am hoping that through the government's

Department of Fisheries, we can make that work because there is money there to

be made in the new industries and diversification. That is what it is about,

generating revenue, generating new dollars to do the things that we want to do

in the Province. Thank you very much.

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

Extern.

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

I would like to have a few words to say pertaining to this

mini-Budget or Financial Statement. I listened to many of the speeches since it

was brought in to the hon. House on Friday, but I must say I listened with

intent to the Member for Stephenville, who gave a very fine speech and also said

that he, as part of government will certainly accept recommendations from anyone

who could come up with good recommendations to try to rectify the present

problem that the government is having in a financial way.

Certainly, we are looking for some kind of a stimulant and I

am sure the government has tried, but, Mr. Speaker, I listened the other day and

of course over this past six weeks, and especially from the labour movement

there was a lot of apprehension out there caused by the Premier, the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, when they spoke to the unions and told them

about the rollbacks and the Minister of Finance who, I am sorry is not in his

place today - you played a role, it had to do with labour, but they were told,

it was taken back to the unions and they said: look, there are several

alternatives; one, would mean a rollback and we all know today, as common people

with some common sense, that that was never the government's intention in the

first place and it was actually a farce. There was never meant to be a rollback.

What the government did was very good and I suppose with the

exception of putting all that doubt and fright and scary tactics, the rollback

was never meant to be. There was never going to be a rollback and what the

government did was, the same as you would do to a child, you threaten them: I am

going to give you a slap on the hand but instead of that you put him in his room

for ten or fifteen minutes. It was a very, very naive thing on the part of

government to cause such an uproar when they never had any intentions in the

first place of rolling back anything pertaining to wages.

Then we had great applause from the government side about

Bill 17, which was to be rescinded and everyone would go back to normal.

Negotiations were to go on in a normal way, but, Mr. Speaker, what are the

unions going to negotiate? I mean, the government has already decided that there

is going to be a 4 per cent cut next year right across the board. It has to come

from the compensation package, be it less employees or less take home pay, there

is no other way you can do it so the unions are - certainly the bargaining table

is open but what are they going to bargain? There is nothing there to bargain,

so that Bill 17 was another farce, another something that was immaterial because

of what was happening.

Mr. Speaker, on the personal income tax bit, this is where I

have some grave problems. I mean, in the last year, over the twelve-month

period, that is counting the new tax increase, it has gone up 7 per cent, seven

percentage points and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: A good bit.

MR. PARSONS: A good bit. I suppose half as much as it

would cost the hon. gentleman for Port de Grave, so he can figure out that one

for himself. Let me say this to you, Mr. Speaker, that in personal income tax, a

person who makes $20,000 a year. Let me read this to you, Mr. Speaker. Say an

individual making $20,000 with no dependents, no way to get back anything, the

basic exemption is $6,456 so his overall salary is $26,456 which is not a great

amount of money. Fifteen years ago it was a good salary but today it is only

survival money. His taxes now, Mr. Speaker, have gone up $238 per year and for a

person who receives $30,000 his taxes have gone up $364 a year. For a person who

earns $35,000 his taxes have gone up $455 a year. Mr. Speaker, these are the

same individuals who are paying the shot for everything, those are the

middle-class people who are paying the shot for you and I to be here in this

House, for other expenditures of government and everything else.

I was not surprised the other day when Stats Canada said that

out of every dollar there is 62.1 cents of taxation, be it hidden or up-front,

and ours, Mr. Speaker, are now increasing from 61 to 65 in an overall way, 65

cents of every dollar. There were some good things in that financial statement

as pertained to small business. Certainly there is a stimulant there for small

business. There is an opportunity for small business to do something but I want

to emphasize to the House, what can small business do if the climate is not

there to do the work? What are they going to do? What can small businesses do to

operate in this Province with the opportunities as we see them now? I have some

suggestions. Like the hon. Member for Stephenville said, I have some

suggestions. We have about $200 million to be spent on the northeast Avalon as

it pertains to road work and $140 million of that is federal funding.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: I do not sell stovepipes and I do not have

any shares in Rolls Royce. Now, I do not want to hear any more from that hon.

Member for Port de Grave.

Mr. Speaker, could I have protection from the hon. Member for

Port de Grave? He is over there squabbling like one of those lame ducks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is of no consequence.

MR. PARSONS: It is of no consequence, that is right. He

does not have the intestinal fortitude to get up and say anything himself but he

sits over there and nags and torments everyone else.

Mr. Speaker, there is about $200 million out there to be

spent in federal funding. The Outer Ring Road, the Gould's bypass road, the

Conception Bay bypass, the Torbay bypass, and $60 million of that that has to be

provincial funding. We all know that. But in spending the $60 million what would

go out there in wages and the cost of other materials certainly would take at

least 60 or 70 per cent of that and put it back into the coffers, put it back

into revenue, and the other $140 million, if we got 70 per cent of it, there is

still another $100 million out there. Then we would create an environment that

would be acceptable to small business. That is what small business is all about.

Small business is not opening up a grocery store. That does not serve any

purpose for the economy. The position those people have to be in is creating

employment, by doing work necessary for the area. People will say, and my hon.

friend for Stephenville might say to himself: what good is the work that goes on

here to the people in Stephenville? I remember the second phase of the

Trans-Canada Highway.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for the second

time, are you going to quieten the Member for Port de Grave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I am not going to tolerate him any longer. I

am asking you, Sir, to quieten the Member for Port de Grave. That is a job, Mr.

Speaker, I know it is, but I am asking you to do it because he is interfering

and has no sense of anything, all he knows about is getting up and doing

something in the House that he is going to get a bit of publicity for. I am

asking him now to be quiet, just be quiet, keep restrained, you are not going to

get your picture in the paper today, so just be quiet.

Mr. Speaker, if we took into consideration the road building

propositions that are out there, that are federally funded - a couple of them

are totally federally funded, the Outer Ring Road is on the 70/30 percentage

basis so we are looking at $70 million from the Feds. Mr. Speaker, this will

certainly put a great number of people to work. What I was going to say to the

hon. Member for Stephenville, I remember on the second phase of the Trans Canada

Highway there was a company from the west coast who did the major construction

on the highway so, when you are speaking about this kind of highway construction

you are talking about the entire Province. People would certainly be involved

from all over the Province and Labrador because construction workers are such

that they travel to all parts of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think that that will certainly stimulate a

part of our problem as it pertains to our labour problems. Mr. Speaker, you know

in saying that, when we talk about the extra taxes the 3 per cent or the 5 per

cent really, that will go on to personal income tax, I know that I am not alone

in saying that I have friends and relations who are in these brackets, $20,000

to $30,000 brackets and Mr. Speaker, they do not have a nickel when payday rolls

around. They are on a budget.

I was speaking with a little girl here today, a Page, she

gets $6,000. What would you do with $6,000? Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of

people out there who are hurting and these people with families that are getting

$20,000 a year are hurting, Mr. Speaker. Now, I have no problem with paying my 3

per cent or my 5 per cent but when I went downstairs - and this is immaterial I

was not going to speak about it but I have to - I went downstairs on Friday

afternoon. We know that the government is having problems financially, we know

what is happening all over the world - when I went downstairs on Friday morning

to go home, to go back to my office, I saw a whole load of 2X8 solid oak going

upstairs. I said to the guy who was bringing it up, I said: are you going to the

dump with that, and he looked at me like I had ten heads.

Boy I said look don't be foolish, I only said it as a

facetious question anyway. I said I did a bit of building myself years ago but I

said I just wondered - and you know I was thinking about it all the way back to

the office - I said here we are cutting into the people that do not have the

money, people who are on a budget right down to the nickel, and we can afford in

this day and age, now I am not saying that it should not be done in times when

we have lots of money, we can afford to have solid oak going somewhere in this

building - I mean as far as I am concerned there is something wrong, nothing

politically, something wrong. Now if we did it there is something wrong. No

matter who did it, there is something wrong with it. There is something wrong

with it.

Mr. Speaker, like I said the small business, you know, it is

a good incentive there, a company has a profit of over $200,000 per year, the

corporate taxes have gone from 17 per cent to 16 per cent. That is about equal

to most of the provinces throughout Canada. A company that has a profit of less

than $200,000 per year, the tax will be cut from 10 per cent to 5 per cent and

that is a good thing. It will put more dollars into those small companies so

they will be able to hire people and whatever, Mr. Speaker.

Now I have another recommendation, Mr. Speaker. We have,

since this government took over, and I think it was the Premier in his speech,

he set up the ERC, the Economic Recovery Commission and Mr. Speaker, when we

look at why this statement was brought in, and this government after under

calculating $153 million than I wonder what happened to the Economic Recovery

Commission. Now, Mr. Speaker, I always thought and always said, wide open up

front, that it was another form of commission of government and Mr. Speaker, it

is and for what useful purpose they are serving, I challenge the Premier, I

challenge anyone on the other side, to get up and explain to me what the ERC is

doing for this Province. Not an iota, Mr. Speaker. I'll tell you. The cost of

the ERC last year to this little Province, the little Province now that's taking

3 per cent off the people who can't afford it, that is charging two more cents

on a litre of fuel, two more cents on diesel. These are the people who can't

afford it.

This Economic Recovery Commission cost $2,542,672 last year.

Two million. Now the Premier says: look at what you did years ago. I didn't have

anything to do with it anyway, but the point remains we did have nineteen

members in the Cabinet and now they have fifteen. But taking into account what

that ERC costs, not alone do they have fifteen members, they have twenty-five. I

know the ministers are getting too much money but that would facilitate at least

ten more ministers. Two million, five hundred and forty-two thousand six hundred

and seventy-two dollars, for the ERC!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) more than that.

MR. PARSONS: No, no. I have it, buddy. Don't you think

I'm - I know what I'm talking about. Let me tell the minister what some of the

breakdown is. Salaries and benefits: $891,769. That's to a group of people who

serve no useful purpose. Let me say this to you. That there's enough, a great

number, on the other side who believe the same as I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. PARSONS: The same as I do. What's the Minister of

Development, what's his part, what role does he play in this government? What

does the Minister of Labour - remember that this commission is answerable only

to the Premier. Only to the Premier. But if the Premier can get up and tell me

one thing that they've accomplished in the last three and a half years, one

little thing that they've done....

They have done nothing. I know, perhaps if I was on the other

side I'd have to sort of say it, I'll have to support the government, we'll have

to support the Premier. That's where it ends. Because you know as well as I know

that that should never be put on the backs or burden the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. It's insane. It's criminal. Abolish it. It serves no purpose.

Anything else that serves no purpose, get rid of it. Mr. Speaker, $130,000 for

accommodations.

But my time is getting limited, so I'm going to have to touch

on something else. The one good thing that this brought in was the reduction in

the seats. But now let me say this to you, that's only the tip of the iceberg.

Anyone who doesn't believe it, you're asleep. You're sleeping dogs. Because

you're going to awaken one of those days and you're going to have to look at

reality straight in the face. Here we are. Not alone should we start this

operation, this should be implemented immediately. The commission should be

appointed.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that?

MR. PARSONS: Redistribution. Because I want to tell the

hon. members that when they signed that agreement - now, from where I sit, it

may not be in my time. But does anyone realise in this House that we have 200

legislators in Atlantic Canada? In those four provinces? With the same ethnic

groups, with the same religious values, with the same geography? Two hundred

legislators. Four premiers. Four Ministers of Finance, four Ministers of

Justice, four Ministers of Recreation. For what? Less than 3 million people. Not

as big as downtown Toronto. Three million people.

The day will come - and that procurement agreement was the

first start of it - when we'll have one Atlantic province. Because that's all we

can afford. That's all we will be able to afford. When I hear the Minister of

Finance say the oil will roll, the best we're going to see as far as I'm

concerned out of Hibernia is the building of it. That's where you're going to

see the most dollars. Without things changing in the Far East, without things

change, or we subsidise the cost of oil. It's the best thing that ever happened,

sure it is. Because it's after creating employment for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and it will until 1997.

But let me tell you something, that these Atlantic provinces

cannot afford the cost of government. It's gone beyond the realms of sanity, and

you are living in a glass cage. Someone is soon going to start throwing rocks,

and the day will come - and I am saying to you people today, the day will come

when you will see one province in Atlantic Canada. You will not lose your

identity, but you will see one Province. All is there is 3 million people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate,

and in the time allotted I was hoping to reference four or five things that I

think should be said for the record, based on the statement that the Minister of

Finance made on Friday past.

First of all, I have been trying to follow both the debate in

the House from the critics from the opposition, as well as the kinds of things

that have been stated in the media, looking for some kind of consensus as to

what are the good things that everybody agrees are positive and good in the

statement; and I am trying to find some sense in the criticism that is being

mounted by the opposition to see whether or not I, at least, should reconsider

part of it and think about anything that would make us change our minds.

It is becoming very difficult, because the opposition in

particular cannot seem to make up their minds as to what really happened here on

Friday, and they are still a little bit lost, or they are groping or grasping

for straws, or they are trying to find some kind of way to say something about

it because they do not seem to know what to say about it.

I think they are so flabbergasted by the fact that it, in

fact, is a very good approach to the problems that we are dealing with for the

rest of this year, that they have now tried to cast most of their attention to

what it might mean in the future. Well what is going to happen in the future

will be dealt with in a future Budget and will be disclosed in this Legislature

for everyone to see, and there will be a lot of discussion and debate and

negotiations and so on that will go on before that.

Just to make the point about - it seems that there is some

difficulty in making up their minds. On Friday in speaking as the lead speaker

for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, the Finance critic,

launched into an attack and a bit of a tirade at the beginning until he got

tired for some reason and just quit talking because he had nothing to say. He

certainly did not offer any alternatives. He was on the attack for five or ten

minutes, tired out very quickly, and sat down; but the basic thrust of it, as I

understood, and made my notes, was that he was taking the view that this group

was admitting that we cannot plan; that we are mismanaging; that we are a bunch

of idiots; we do not know what we are doing; and he railed about that for five

minutes or so until he got a bit tired about that and he went on with something

else.

Then, surprisingly enough, his leader, the official Leader of

the Opposition, my good friend and colleague, the Member for Grand Falls, got up

afterwards and tried to expound upon this thesis that not only could we plan,

but this was all part of a great plan that had actually started last March -

that in fact there was a great master plan here, a great scheme, that we were

foisting on the people and that in fact we were the best planners that he had

ever seen; that we were in here with this fantastic plan and we were playing it

out a little bit at a time. We were sort of sucking the people in one step at a

time, and it was all concocted; it was all a big plan.

These are the two people who sit next to each other and

advise each other as to what the Opposition thinks is wrong with what the

government did. One of them was saying that it was evident that we could not

plan a good hen fight, and the other one saying that it was the best plan he had

seen for a long time and that he was going to spend some time within the next

couple of weeks exposing it to the people of the Province. So I really think

they should get together and have a few meetings and sort of make up their mind;

but I can understand the confusion on Friday because they were in such a state

of shock that they did not know what to say. They were really hoping that there

would be something disastrous - that they could come out and attack the

government. As per usual, they were not really that interested in participating

and helping with something that might help all of us through a particularly

difficult time and move on to the future.

The same kind of thing again witnessed on Friday and again

today that the Finance critic again, the Opposition Leader, the Member for St.

John's East - the real unofficial opposition over there - they all talked about

the fact that actually the government had really planned a rollback and that the

one thing we wanted to do was have a rollback, and that in fact we got scared

off by the unions and changed our minds.

Then today in a speech another member of the opposition gets

up and says: Oh no, no, no. It was part of another scheme. You guys never ever

intended a rollback. It was the furthest thing from your mind. It was just

something you threw out as a little bit of bait to scare people and to get back

to what you wanted.

So again we have members of the Opposition, in the same party

in different parties, running off with all kinds of these wild schemes and

theses as to what they think it was all about, because they have refused again

to understand and accept that when this government writes something down, it

says what it means and it means what it says.

You do not have to read between the lines; you do not have to

guess what is in it, all you have to do is to be able to read -

If you could read -

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

MR. GRIMES: - then you could understand exactly what was

put forward. It was quite clear in the document tabled in the House of Assembly

on Friday past and presented so ably by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. I

would like to deal with a couple of the issues though that have been raised,

because there is again, some confusion.

The finance critic, the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl,

dealt with this idea again; he was railing on about this was an admission of

mismanagement, not knowing what we are doing and I find it very unfortunate that

a couple of the leaders of some of the public sector unions who are actually

good friends of mine, continue in their public rhetoric to talk about this

demonstrates the mismanagement of the government, when in fact, those people,

every single one of them, if they have, they are refusing to recognize and admit

to people that they have, but they should go and talk to any recognized

financial adviser they can find anywhere, and any person with credibility

involved in financial institutions and involved in giving advice will say the

exact opposite to the members of the Opposition, and to the leaders of the

public sector unions and to the members of the public sector unions who work for

the Province so capably.

Anybody, with any credibility giving advice, will say without

reservation, that it is only because of the very good fiscal management record

of this government that we are not into a much deeper crisis at this point in

time, and that in fact, other provinces, because they have not managed the

finances in their own jurisdiction like this administration has done, have found

themselves losing their credit rating, seriously at risk at this point in time,

and now looking two and three years later, at taking the kinds of measures that

this government took a couple of years ago, to maintain a proper fiscal capacity

capability for the Province, because without that, we would all be in very

serious trouble and it is only because of the continued good management and

practices, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a position now, where we hope, that

again, by the actions taken on Friday, because we will have to wait a little bit

of time and see that the financial advisers and those people who talk to the

rating agencies and so on, will hopefully, leave our credit rating intact as a

result of the latest moves that we have taken, will not find any reason to put

us on credit watch or downgrade us, so that we can continue to raise the

finances that are necessary to continue offering the public services on a daily

and weekly basis that are necessary for the people in the Province.

I feel it necessary as well, Mr. Speaker, to take a couple of

minutes to spell out what is happening to the personal income tax, because, in

comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in his remarks on Friday, it was

obvious that he was very poorly briefed. He obviously has no personal notion of

what is happening with personal income tax in the Province at this point in

time, and it is unfortunate that his colleagues and his advisors let him stand

in the House of Assembly and talk about something of which he has no intimate

knowledge or at least, nothing that anybody could perceive to be knowledge of

what is going on according to what he said in this Legislature on Friday.

Certainly, had he known the difference and had he known what

was happening in the Province today, and what is scheduled to happen on January

1, with respect to personal income tax, he would not have had himself laughed at

in this legislature like he did on Friday, because while there is nothing funny

about what was done on Friday, it was a very serious bit of business that we

were dealing with and announcing, but what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition

said was so hilarious that we almost laughed him out of the Legislature because

it showed that he obviously did not know what he was talking about, because

anybody who could reference what is happening to personal income tax versus how

it is being collected in the Province today, in the middle of December, and how

it is going to be collected on January 1, and then to call that the mother of

all rollbacks, could not have known what he was talking about, absolutely could

not have known what he was talking about and the point in fact that I just might

reference for a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, because I know the Minister of

Finance or others would do it if he were in the Legislature, that they would

feel obligated to do so, so that the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition,

does not embarrass himself in future.

Before the Budget last year personal income tax in the

Province was being collected at a rate of 62 per cent of the federal basic tax.

Because we had eliminated the school tax, the most unfair tax in the Province,

it was announced that in two stages that would go to 64.5 per cent for the year

1992, and 66 per cent for the year 1993. That's what the annualized rates of

collection of personal income that's the tax tables that would be presented for

all businesses deducting personal income tax for employees in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

But because the change for school tax was only made and could

only be made July 1 for six months, in order to get an annualized collection

rate of 64.5 per cent, which was a 2.5 per cent increase, it had to be collected

at a 5 per cent increase for six months in order to give a 2.5 per cent increase

for a full year.

The members of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, stood in the

Legislature during the Budget debate last March and that was explained to them.

Because they didn't understand at first so we had to take some time in the

Budget debate to explain that to them. They were then saying to the people of

Newfoundland: don't be fooled by this 2.5 per cent, it's really going to be a 5

per cent increase on July 1. We explained to everybody, we said: that's true.

It's going to be collected at a rate of 67 per cent of basic federal tax taxed

from July 1 to the end of December. Because that 5 point increase will give us

2.5 percentage points for the whole year, from January to December, which will

replace the money that the people were given back in school tax.

It was explained to the world. Everybody in Newfoundland and

Labrador understood it. We even thought that the Opposition understood it.

Because they raised the questions in Question Period, they raised the questions

in debate, and we explained it to them. Every citizen in Newfoundland, who has

been fortunate enough to be working and paying income tax, has been having it

deducted from their cheque since July 1 at a rate of 67 per cent of the basic

federal tax. That's what they're used to seeing coming off their cheques today,

last week. Next week. That's what's going to happen until the end of December.

Had we not announced the 3 per cent change from Friday - had

my colleague, the Minister of Finance, not announced that change - on January 1

the rate would have dropped back to 66 per cent. Because we could have collected

it for a full year, it would have replaced school tax next year for the full

year, and that's the only reason the increase was there in the first place.

But what will a person see? A person will see exactly what

was spelled out in this document released by the Minister of Finance on Friday.

A person will see their rate of collection of basic personal income tax go from

67 per cent to 69 per cent. Which is a 2 percentage point increase. I would hope

that maybe some of our friends from the media who I know are not in the gallery

but do have their tapes on in the back, they should make a correction. Because I

read four different written stories on the weekend. I watched three or four

television interviews. Not one of them got the numbers right on personal income

tax. Some were talking about a 5 per cent increase, somebody talked about as

high as a 7 per cent increase, somebody talked about a 2 per cent increase -

they never ever got the numbers right.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's how good you are at bafflegab!

MR. GRIMES: So I would wish that they would just take the

numbers and understand them. If they'd only take a minute to ask anybody how the

rates are being collected now, how they are intended to be collected, and the

reason that we were honest and straightforward with the people. We said: your

personal income tax rate will increase 3 points on January 1, because without

the changes announced on Friday the rate would have been 66 per cent. But with

the changes announced on Friday it will be 69 per cent, a 3 point increase.

In terms of the affect on the cheque it'll be even less that

that, because it's already being deducted at a 67 per cent rate. There will be a

$1.15 difference per week on a cheque for somebody averaging $25,000 with no

dependents. As everybody knows, the way the system works with dependents it's

even less than that. In our Province what's important, Mr. Speaker, is that the

average salary, by the way, in our Province, is less than $20,000. So the impact

will even be less again than $1.15 a week, and for people with dependents it'll

be even less than that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition rose to his feet

because he had taken the time to go in the lobby and he heard a couple of

members out there. The only thing they could be critical of was that the

personal income tax was going up. He heard a couple of people in the lobby

criticise it so he ran back in because he took some time out to be in the lobby

circulating, finding out what's going on, because he didn't know. He did not

want to stand up and react without finding out how somebody out there reacted,

so he came in to make his speech. He got up and we laughed because he heard some

people out there criticize the personal income tax increases and he came in here

and tried to tell the people of Newfoundland that it was the mother of all

rollbacks, a $1.l5 a week on average and less than that for most people because

our average income is less than $20,000 a year, and with dependents it is even

less than that again.

The Leader of the Opposition would describe that to the

people of Newfoundland as the mother of all rollbacks. Now, try to make me

believe that I am suppose to accept that with some degree of credibility. I

prefer to forgive the hon. member and suggest that the next time he please make

sure he is a little better briefed and that he understands the situation before

you embarrass your leader by having him stand in the Legislature and be taped

and presented on television in the Province with such a ludicrous statement,

such an absolutely ludicrous statement.

I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, in my role as the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations if I did not take a couple of minutes in the

time remaining to me to also look at the initiative so loudly and clearly

applauded by the public sector unions in terms of the announcement that the

third year of Bill 17, and again the finance critic today, the hon. Member for

Mount Pearl, does not understand Bill 17 because he thought it was only for two

years. Bill 17 covers three years. It covered two previous years and the year

coming up. What we have said and what the unions are very pleased about is that

the year coming up will be dealt with to the greatest extent possible through

the collective bargaining forum and that any restriction in terms of legislation

telling people what they can or cannot attempt to accomplish at the bargaining

table will be removed by an amendment in this Legislature.

Only today did I personally, and the Premier and others,

receive letters and indications from representatives of the public service

unions that that initiative is greatly applauded. Now, that in turn has reduced

the Opposition to the position of doing what they said we were doing for the

couple of weeks leading up to this statement. Now, they are out there and the

first thing they could come up with on Friday: oh, it is fearmongering. The

Opposition is saying: you need not worry about it. We are going to get you in

March. You people only delayed it.

Again, I find it unfortunate that a couple of the leaders of

the labour movement that I saw interviewed on the weekend indicated that was

their initial assessment of it, but I will be talking to those friends of mine

and invite them to meetings to suggest to them that there is an opportunity

here. There is an opportunity for everyone involved to use the collective

bargaining process to deal with the government in terms of now, in a meaningful

way because they complained they did not think it was meaningful before, of

looking at the cost of employing the people that offer the services to the

citizens of the Province. I think all of us will be very pleasantly surprised to

find that they will offer some very good suggestions, ideas, innovative and

creative ways, as to how to arrange the total compensation package for all the

people who are paid from the public purse. They will probably be very ingenious

and they will have the opportunity to demonstrate that, in terms of making sure

that together we can all manage the financial commitment that places on the

government for the future and that we can work together to find out what the

best way is to look at the benefit packages in the 1990s versus taking the old

stance as some people want to, to say any change, adjustment, or re-arrangement

is an infringement, but in fact many of the benefits that are in place were

negotiated in the 1970s and sometimes in the 1980s but they may not be the most

appropriate for the day.

There is a perfect window of opportunity for everyone to

reassess the whole nature of these compensation and benefit packages to see what

is most appropriate for the 1990s. I think all of us are going to be pleasantly

surprised by the initiatives and the creative things that are put forward in

these discussions that will take place starting immediately. All of us will be

better off when we do the thing jointly rather than going about saying: do not

worry about it. It is doom and gloom and there are either cuts or rollbacks, or

jobs lost in March or April. I think if we use the time constructively we will

have a lot better recognition and idea of what should be happening in terms of

the collective bargaining process in the near future.

So I hope that in the rest of the debate today, members of

the Opposition will point out some things that make a little better sense in

terms of any commentary that they have; any criticism that they have; any

compliments that they might want to give about what happened here on Friday,

because it is very clear to me so far that from Friday's reaction and from the

tone of Question Period again today that the members opposite are still in a

state of shock, or they are stunned by what happened. They were so wishing that

there would be something disastrous that they could rail about, and it did not

happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: So I hope they will listen carefully to see

if they can contribute a little more positively to the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a pile of gibberish! It is almost as bad as the

statement he made in Confederation Building the day he had to ask somebody to

get him a package of Kleenex. He was that depressed because the teachers were

only going to get a 3 per cent increase, that he had to break down and cry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: How can you be nice when someone gets up and

gets on with that? You have to expose him. He has to be exposed.

I say to the members opposite, I went to a meeting of

teachers last week in my own district and they asked if there was any way

possible, they asked the vice-president, - I think he is vice-president of the

Provincial Association - if there was any way possible at the next annual

general meeting of teachers, that they could pass a resolution barring any

President of the NTA from seeking public office for any party for at least five

years. That is how disgusted they are. That is how disgusted they are with this

gentleman there. They have never, ever felt betrayed before -never, ever felt so

betrayed before than they have by the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations.

He has turned his back on the teachers of this Province, and

he comes in and here we have a Budget that was brought in the other day. What

does it show? Eighteen million less for education in this Province; and you get

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, a former educator, to stand on

his feet and try to defend that. He should hang his head in shame. That is what

he should do, to be part of the Cabinet that would cut education by $18 million

for the remainder of this year. One can only imagine what is to come, I say to

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations - and you have all these

educators.

The Member for Carbonear - how can he go back to his

constituents and say that they have cut the Budget by $18 million for education?

AN HON. MEMBER: Every man celebrating. No rollbacks

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Celebrating no rollbacks. What to celebrate.

What a celebration - no rollbacks. Well I can tell you, they are not celebrating

- there have been rollbacks. There have been rollbacks by 15 per cent of

personal income tax since this crowd came to power, I say to the former Minister

of Social Services. There have indeed been rollbacks.

As a matter of fact, I have a copy of a letter that was sent

to the Premier by a teacher: Each time you have had difficulty balancing your

Budget, you had to take the axe and chip away at the educational budget for this

Province without regard for the consequences for your actions. What does the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations think about that? It goes on to say:

A few years ago - here is what a teacher said to the Premier: A few years ago I

was fund-raising for the things I could not expect the Department of Education

to provide. Now I am reduced to begging for necessities. A few years ago I

collected money from students for skating trips and graduations. Now I collect

money for home economics, industrial arts, art, and even for books needed for

remedial purposes. I used to work after school for class clubs and special

events. Now I have added to that, tired of professional bumming from

corporations, and the Federal Government, to compensate for the inability of the

school system to advance the technology we need to provide proper education for

our children. What does the Minister of Education think about that? What does

the Minister of Employment think about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of

Employment - and my colleague from Kilbride will understand that - here is what

the teacher said in the letter she sent to the Premier: 'In spite of all this

and all you said yourself about the need for cutbacks, you dismissed those who

question your self-perceived rights to have your office redecorated and your

travel arrangements made first class. This leads me to wonder where you would be

if those who encouraged you - if their education did not come first'. That, I

say, is what a teacher wrote to the Premier. The final paragraph says it all: 'A

true leader would see greater reward in being remembered favourably by future

generations than in being re-elected at the expense of future generations'. That

is what the people of this Province think of the educational system, Mr. Speaker

- $18 million cut from the education budget from now until the end of the year.

What about health, Mr. Speaker - $4 million cut from the

health budget; that is what we are seeing in this Province today. You have seen

backbenchers, Mr. Speaker, like the Member for Port de Grave, who have been

beaten from pillar to post by the Premier, standing up and defending cutbacks to

education and health. You have seen the Member for St. John's South, who just

had surgery on his knees, resulting from kneeling, begging the Premier to take

him into Cabinet and yet you will see him standing and supporting the Budget,

Mr. Speaker. He has been on his knees trying to get into Cabinet - had to have

surgery done.

MR. MURPHY: I had trouble getting up. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I just want to correct the hon. member: My knees are coming

along and I just want to remind the hon. member, an operation is nothing new to

me. I think if the hon. member opposite had an operation for haemorrhoids it

would be classified as brain surgery.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That's raising the decorum of the House.

MR. TOBIN: I wouldn't even respond to it, I say to the

member opposite.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) put that on the news tonight.

MR. TOBIN: No, I wouldn't.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen members in this House go low, but I

say to the Member for St. John's South, I am very disappointed. I say to you in

all sincerity, 'Tom', I am disappointed that you went that far. Anyway, forget

about it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stand today to defend the rights of

the people of this Province. The Member for St. John's South can get on with all

that scum that he wants to; he can squirm and be a snake, Mr. Speaker, he can

live in the leaves of cabbage if he wants to live in that kind of world, but the

bottom line is that the people of this Province have been taken aback by people

they have elected to come in here and stand day-in and day-out and defend a

government who would chop $18 million from an education budget. Heaven knows,

that isn't what we need in this Province - $18 million chopped from an education

budget.

I also say to members opposite - I see Municipal Affairs cut,

I say to my colleague, the minister, and I sincerely hope that is not dealing

with capital works; I don't think it is, I am sure it is something to do with

the operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: MOGs, that is.

MR. TOBIN: Well, the minister, I am sure, will address

that.

But when the Federal Government gives a break on income tax,

why does the government have to increase personal income tax in this Province?

The Federal Government decreased the income tax by the 1.5 per cent to try to

stimulate the economy, to try to put more money in circulation -

MR. WINSOR: And 'Clyde' takes it out.

MR. TOBIN: - and, Mr. Speaker, what happened? This

government took it back.

Why does the Minister of Health cut his budget by $4 million?

Why does the Minister of Education stand idly by and see Cabinet slash the

department by $18 million? Those are the questions that have to be answered. Why

are there so many people unemployed in this Province, and therefore, not paying

into the tax system and not spending money? That's the question that has to be

asked.

Why is the government continuing to target the people in this

Province who are barely making ends meet, in order to gain revenue? Why do you

hear people in this Province kicking up a fuss about - it doesn't matter what it

is.

MR. EFFORD: Like cucumbers.

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for Port de Grave, no, you

were kicking up about your fire truck.

MR. EFFORD: What fire truck? I haven't got one.

MR. TOBIN: Making some nice complimentary statements

about my friend from Placentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about what

can happen and what didn't happen and what should happen; one cannot forget - I

remember in the old Legislature one day - I'd say it was probably 1983 or 1984,

when the then Minister of Energy stood up. At that time, Quebec Hydro was

getting $800 million from our power resource and we were getting $88 million.

Quebec was collecting $800 million from a giveaway by a Liberal Government in

this Province, and we were getting $88 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Last year we got $27 million.

MR. TOBIN: Last year, my colleague points out, we got $27

million from that agreement. Is that something that anyone takes great pride in?

AN HON. MEMBER: John Crosbie (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Your Premier was around. That's who was around

when it was signed. Your Premier was there, and the Minister of Justice was

probably there at the time, I'm not sure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Five hundred Sprungs!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your John Crosbie spoke on behalf of it.

Gerry Ottenheimer (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I don't care who spoke on behalf of it or who

signed it, I say to the minister. I don't care who spoke on it. Whoever spoke on

it and whoever voted for it was wrong! They sold out Newfoundland and Labrador,

that's what you did. You sold out. The Liberal government sold out Newfoundland

and Labrador, and it sold out generations to come. It didn't stop there, it sold

out generations to come. If we had that money today the Minister of Finance last

week would not have had to stand in this House and bring in the statement that

was going to rob $18 million from the education system in this Province, that

was going to rob $4 million from health care in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down and stop making a fool of

yourself!

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you stand up and say something? Mr.

Speaker, the minister talks about making a fool of himself. I saw that happening

up in the old House about two years ago, when my colleague from Humber Valley

rose on a (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Actually, Mr. Speaker, it was a Friday

morning. It was the first time ever I saw the Premier really laugh about

something, when he turned around and asked: 'What's Graham trying to say?'

MS. COWAN: He has bad eyesight, too.

MR. WINSOR: He said: 'Graham, that was (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, I say to the Minister of Environment that

she should keep quiet when I am on the floor. She had just better keep quiet.

MS. COWAN: Why?

MR. TOBIN: You had just better keep quiet, I say to the

Minister of Environment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I won't say it. But I tell you one thing,

if there is anyone who should never shoot anything across the House at anyone,

it is the Minister of Employment.

MR. WINSOR: Environment.

MS. COWAN: Oh, we have him (inaudible) now.

MR. TOBIN: No, you haven't got me rattled, but you got a

lot of other people rattled, I say to the Minister of Environment. She should be

more careful of what she says outside the House than inside the House, I say to

the Minister of Environment. Stop insulting honourable, decent, honest people.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Get back on the bus, Premier,

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Back on the bus - I wish you would get off the

bus. Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINSOR: She didn't giggle Friday morning.

MR. TOBIN: No, I said I wish he'd get off the bus. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier of this Province and the Minister of Finance - it's

unfortunate he can't be here today, and we all understand and appreciate why the

Minister of Finance cannot be here. There are people today in this Province who

are concerned as to what is going to come.

I had a call today, as a matter of fact, from someone who

said: 'What's going to happen to me next year?' 'I haven't got a clue, and I

don't think the Minister of Finance knows what's going to happen to you next

year,' I said to him with all honesty. There was only one person who knew what

was going to be this Budget and there is only one person who knows what is going

to be in the next Budget, and that's the Premier of the Province.

I can say I was disappointed that there is no support, there

was nothing there more specific to stimulate the economy. There were some good

things there, and I give credit for that, but there was nothing there to

stimulate the economy. For example, in my own district, I say to the Member for

Port de Grave, when this crowd came to government the fish plant was operating

in Grand Bank, Fortune, Marystown, Burin, and the secondary processing in Burin,

and there was 500-plus employees at the Marystown Shipyard.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the Shipyard is basically closed. The

Marystown fish plant is closed and the trawlers tied up; the refit centre in

Burin is reduced; the fish plant in Grand Bank is closed. There is practically

nobody working on the Burin Peninsula. They are going away, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: Do you want me to tell you why your fish

plant closed (inaudible) the (inaudible) today?

MR. TOBIN: There are a lot of reasons why the fish plant

is closed.

MR. EFFORD: Did you hear today what they gave the foreign

ships inside the 200-mile limit? - thirty-four thousand metric tons.

MR. TOBIN: There are a lot of reasons why it is closed.

But one reason why it is closed is totally because of the deep-sea trawlers, I

say to the Member for Port de Grave -

MR. EFFORD: What!

MR. TOBIN: - who has spent his lifetime attacking the men

who manned them.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is one reason why they are not there.

Because there has never been a more dedicated, bunch of harder-working fishermen

in this Province, I say to the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: It has nothing to do with hard work - fishing

during the spawning season!

MR. TOBIN: The months of January, February and March, I

can tell him where the crowd was.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The deep-sea fishery kept the South Coast

alive for years, Mr. Speaker!

MR. EFFORD: That is the reason (inaudible), brother.

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

MR. EFFORD: That's the reason. The (inaudible) was

fishing during the spawning season! That is the reason there isn't a plant.

MR. TOBIN: Oh! Who, besides yourself, made you the hero?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Go talk to some of the trawler captains and

find about it!

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. TOBIN: You were never out on one of the trawlers, so

you know nothing about it.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, no!

MR. TOBIN: You were never out on one of the trawlers and

you know nothing about it. The most ever you did was gill net. The most ever you

did was set gill nets. And I'm not sure if you took them back or not.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have here - and I have only a

couple of minutes left -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) by leave.

MR. TOBIN: No, I won't 'by leave'. But I will say to the

Member for Windsor - Buchans that I don't need any instructions from him as it

relates to the fishery in this Province. The point I was making is that the

whole system in this Province is a mess - the Burin Peninsula. And I wonder what

the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir thinks of the statement by the Member for

Port de Grave.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that?

MR. TOBIN: That the trawlermen ruined the fishery of this

Province.

MR. EFFORD: During the spawning season!

MR. TOBIN: I wonder what the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir - Burgeo being in his district - thinks of that statement; or the

Member for Fortune - Hermitage, who has trawlers; or the Member for Trinity

North, who has the fish plant in Catalina. You hear your colleague saying the

reason why your fish plants are closed is because of the hard-working men who

were on the trawlers. That is what the Member for Port de Grave has said in this

House.

It is like the other day when the Member for Fortune -

Hermitage - and he isn't here - got up to present a petition - legitimately, and

I think he did it sincerely, on behalf of the people of Seal Cove. Not one

person over there, including the Minister of Education, spoke to support it.

That is the type of government we have in this Province, I say to members

opposite.

Mr. Speaker, if my time is up, I want to say that this

document is a deceptive document. It is saturated with deceit -

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't read, you can't read.

MR. EFFORD: You can't read, that's right.

MR. TOBIN: - saturated with deceit, Mr. Speaker. And

something that this Province could ill-afford at this point in time is an

increase in taxes. When you go to get gas, drop into a gas station, now I am

told today it has increased four cents a litre at the pumps.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: Four cents a litre at the pumps.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and

address the contents of this Financial Statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the Province finds itself in a

very interesting position in the economic history of the world. If you look back

over our longer term history perhaps the easiest point at which we can find an

equation is that period of time in the late 20's and early 1930's when the

Province found that in a time of increased expenditure it had drastically

decreased revenues. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have reached that stage but

certainly the lessons learned during the 1930's will perhaps serve us well as to

how one might address these questions in the future. I believe the Minister of

Finance in giving his statement has brought to attention very serious matters

for the people of the Province to consider and I will touch on them briefly.

First of all of course it is frightening to all of us when we

hear that the public debt in this Province approaches the cost of $10,000 per

person and that is just our provincial share of the provincial debt and not the

share of our national debt and of course we have the cost of servicing that debt

on an annual basis which again increases it from year to year. The minister also

touched on the problems we have had with maintaining our credit rating and there

is only one bonding agency in the western world which gives us an "A" of any

sort and that is an "A minus" along with several "B's". What that relates to in

terms of the Province's position is not only increased cost in borrowing but

also more dangerously the availability of funds from pensions and other large

corporate lenders in order to allow us as a Province to continue to finance the

services that we provide to our residents.

It is interesting to look at the statements that are appended

to the minister's financial statement which were not read on Friday past. In

looking at our credit rating, I think it is important for us to realize that not

only have we increased our total budgetary requirements this year from

approximately $240 million to $265 million but that we have also increased the

amount of our redemptions. In other words, Mr. Speaker, those funds which we

borrowed in previous years have to be redeemed this year in the amount of $198

million and that is the problem with the deficit, Mr. Speaker, as we continue to

borrow money it means that in ensuing years we have to find additional monies to

pay back those that we borrowed in the past.

I believe that it is indicative of the Minister of Finance's

prudent usage of public funds that in this year, it being one of very low

interest rates, has increased our redemptions of past year's issues from $99

million to $142 million and that will result in a net savings over the coming

years as a result of refinancing that debt at a lower interest rate. The third

factor that he alluded to were the declining revenues which had been dramatic on

the shrinking tax base that we have and the shrinking economy which has declined

from a projection of one-half of 1 per cent to 2.8 per cent. We have experienced

significant reductions. Retail sales taxes have declined from $562 million to

$545 million, personal income tax more dramatically from $517 to $472 million

and as well corporate income tax by over $4 million from $48,600,000 to $44

million, even mining tax and royalties, Mr. Speaker, have declined from $20.9

million projected to $17.9 million a decline of some $3 million or 15 per cent,

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I do not know if we should look at it as consoling or

disturbing but the major increase in government revenues this year are in

lottery revenues and those have increased from a projection of $29,500,000 to a

total of $40 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Well the hon. member opposite says desperate

people, it is often said - not a proposition with which I agree, that in times

of economic peril people are more inclined to spend money on items of chance and

gambling that perhaps concern them less when times are good. One might have

different rationales for it, Mr. Speaker, but I think in any event all of us in

this House would sooner see the monies coming into government coffers from

things like income tax and retail sales tax where people are earning and

spending more, than to see it come from things such as lotteries. On the other

hand that may be a simple minded view because one generally tends to think that

lottery revenues are in the nature of a luxury and perhaps people who are

spending on lotteries are doing so from excess income. But of the two choices I

expect that the first rather than the latter, is a more appropriate analyst at

this point in our history.

The other distressing factor is the extent to which the

federal government transfers to this Province, the monies that we have available

to finance our various services, has declined precipitously from 50 per cent

some several years ago about 1989 to 43 per cent today. This inequalization

alone means a difference of some $49 million, as a result in part of the

national decline that free trade has created in this country but more

importantly I think it is a sign that the federal governments economic policies

are not working and they are seriously and adversely affecting this Province.

No doubt we find ourselves, to some extent, a ship with some

sails but with several that have been torn by the winds that beset not only this

Province but also most of