May 15,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity

to present government's views with respect to the outcome of a special fisheries

meeting that concluded yesterday in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. I am referring to

the special session of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) that

was requested by Canada. The purpose of the meeting was to consider reforms

which would improve NAFO's capacity to manage straddling stocks effectively, and

which would assist efforts to control fishing activities in the area regulated

by NAFO, including the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks.

Among the items under consideration at the special session

was a new international observer pilot project, and technical measures designed

to improve NAFO inspection and monitoring activities. During the meeting Canada

also served notice that it intended to present a resolution at the annual

meeting of NAFO in September seeking support for some dispute settlement

mechanism. As hon. members are aware, the European Community has been using the

objection procedure to disagree with quotas set by NAFO, to set its own

unilateral quotas, and then to catch fish far in excess of its own unilateral

quotas. In the case of northern cod, for example, the European Community has

ignored the moratorium that has been imposed by NAFO for the past several years.

In 1991 alone, the European Community vessels caught 47,000 metric tonnes of

northern cod, for which they had a quota of zero tonnes.

Mr. Speaker, the proposals tabled by Canada at the special

NAFO session could only be construed as modest and minimum proposals designed to

improve the effectiveness of NAFO. I must emphasize that while the meeting may

leave a perception that a number of technical and procedural modifications to

the NAFO framework are under active consideration, the specific proposals

discussed at the meeting do not represent fundamental changes to the NAFO

structure. In fact, some of the measures discussed should have agreed to years

ago when the NAFO Convention was first implemented. Indeed, some of the

proposals considered at the meeting were so modest and minimal that I could find

it difficult to believe that any country that is a member of NAFO would have any

reason to disagree with them.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are reaching a watershed in

our relationship with, and support for, NAFO.

No decisions were taken at the special NAFO meetings. In our

view the meeting was a non-event, a colossal waste of time and money. The modest

proposals tabled by Canada are to be reviewed again in September at the annual

meeting of NAFO. The European Community delegation at the meeting this week in

Dartmouth did not have the authority to give their approval to any of the

proposals for improved enforcement and NAFO reform.

This government has been supportive of past efforts to bring

about a diplomatic solution to foreign overfishing. However, Mr. Speaker,

minimal and modest proposals which keep the diplomatic process going but which

fail to address the fundamental inadequacies of the NAFO conservation framework

are insufficient.

Canada has clearly demonstrated that international consensus

building and diplomacy through NAFO cannot bring about a satisfactory solution

to the ineffectiveness of NAFO in the short time we have left to prevent

extinction of fish resources on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

If major and fundamental achievements on this issue are not

accomplished at the Earth Summit in June or the G-7 Summit in Munich this July,

Canada will have no choice but to acknowledge these signs of international

intransigence and to proceed to establish its own custodial management regime

which would preserve one of the world's richest food resources and respect the

rights of all traditional users of the resource.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was hopeful that

substantial progress on overfishing would be made at the special NAFO meeting

this week. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in our view this was not the case.

Mr. Speaker, Canada must now reconsider its membership in an

organization which has proven to be a colossal failure.

Thank you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

First, I want to thank the minister for providing me with the

statement before the House started, but I have to say to him that I think this

statement probably is just as significant as the meetings that took place a few

days ago in Dartmouth. I think Greenpeace, the people who showed up there

probably summed it all up when they came dressed up as teeth because of the

accusations against NAFO being toothless. When I look at the statement I am

confused and I can imagine what the people of the Province must be because one

day the provincial government is saying that there has to be an end to

diplomatic efforts, that diplomacy has not worked, it has failed, and yet the

minister in his statement comes up and says that government has been and still

is supportive of diplomatic efforts to bring a solution to foreign overfishing,

which we know has failed for years, so I do not know how to sum it up.

Double-talk is one thing, Mr. Speaker. We know the Province has been on its own

diplomatic mission with the Premier going to Europe and so on but every report

that I hear is that the situation with our fish resources is absolutely

frightening. How much longer are we going to encourage and tolerate talking to

European countries who are flagrantly overfishing and violating a NAFO imposed

moratorium outside the 200-mile limit? I think that -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is too late now.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member for Port de Grave says it is too

late, and he may be right. I am really, really scared that he is right; that we

just may have gone over the edge when it comes to our fish resources. I have to

say that. I am very, very worried that Dr. Harris may just be right - that we

have gone too far - but I think that it is time for someone to take drastic and

dramatic action to try and bring attention to this. The Fisheries Broadcast's

Mr. Wellman said it was so boring that he had to leave. It was interesting as

watching salt fish dry, I believe the man said. That summed up what this meeting

was all about.

I want to say that it is time that we all try to bring

pressure to bear. Some members in the Legislature have suggested that we should

all jump on a plane and go to Ottawa. That all fifty-two members of the

Legislature go to Ottawa and try to highlight this situation, and bring it to

the doorsteps of the Prime Minister and the federal government. They have to

government - and they have to take action. They are going to the G-7 Summit in

Munich in July, and people are going to Brazil for the environmental conference

and so on. When we met, the Leader of the Opposition and I, with the Prime

Minister a number of weeks ago, we told him: Go to the G-7 Summit. Go to Brazil;

but at the end of that process, Mr. Prime Minister, do not tell us then that you

have to reconsider what you are going to do after. You had better have a plan in

your arse pocket once this fails, to deal with this situation!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Because it will be too late to then try to

convince the people of Newfoundland that we have to take another six or twelve

months to see what we are going to do about it. You must have a plan to deal

with it when this fails.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: As much as we would like to see this

succeed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: - the diplomatic efforts succeed, I for one

am not optimistic that it is going to be any more successful than past

diplomatic efforts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before proceeding to the next item of business, the Chair

would like to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery

of a couple of student groups, and to extend to them a warm welcome here this

morning.

Firstly, we have forty-six Grades X, XI and XII students from

Enright Memorial, Mount Carmel in the district of St. Mary's - The Capes, and

exchange students from Matapdia, Quebec, along with chaperons Paul LeBlanc, Tom

McCarthy, Manette Desjardines-Grant, Joceline Fergueson and Mary Ryan. Also, we

have thirty Grade VII students from Beaconsfield Junior High School, St. John's,

along with teacher, Sheila Whitten, and parent, Mrs. Chafe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations if the government intended to hold

any kind of inquiry into the industrial accident that occurred at the Bull Arm

site a few days ago, which claimed the life, unfortunately, of a 36-year-old

man.

At that time, I think, the minister didn't commit one way or

the other, but having had a few days now to review reports of the accident - or

I presume he has - can the minister now say whether or not they are giving

consideration to any kind of inquiry?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

question and being given the opportunity to address it just briefly. The final

investigation as to the tragic and unfortunate accident at the Bull Arm site is

still in the process of cluing up in terms of interviewing all witnesses and

gathering all pertinent information. With respect to any decision by government

as to whether or not there will be an inquiry, it is still very much premature

for any contemplation of that.

The final reports will be forwarded to Justice. The

Department of Employment and Labour Relations, the safety and inspection

officials, and so on, will give an indication as to whether or not the proper

procedures were followed. If there are any charges that should be laid, it will

be done through the proper authorities. Actually, the Crown prosecutors in the

Justice Department would be the department of government that would decide

whether or not there would be an inquiry, because of the fact that some

information could be gleaned from that kind of process that is not gathered

through the normal investigative process.

So, it is still a little too early to tell. The final reports

are not yet in. The details of the unfortunate tragic incident are pretty clear,

but the final wrap-up of all of the interviews and all of the information is not

yet available.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

answer given by the minister. There is no Minister of Justice in the House to

answer the question, which is the reason I asked the question of him.

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the same minister:

This is, I believe, the second fatal incident, although I believe the first

incident - I don't know if the cause or whatever was discovered, but, I guess,

more discouraging is news we have heard recently that there have been,

apparently, some twenty to twenty-four reports of other accidents on the Bull

Arm site just in the last few months - I think those were the numbers we heard.

And since this is a project that is really in the embryo stage, I mean it is

really just starting over the last year, can the minister tell the House, aside

from the telephone hot line he has in place to report accidents, what process

does the government, I presume, his department, have in place to monitor those

kinds of safety situations that should be occurring at the Bull Arm site? What

is the process?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the inspectors from the Division

of Occupational Health and Safety and the Department of Employment and Labour

Relations regularly visit the Bull Arm site. The procedure that is in place is a

monitoring and an auditing of the safety plan that is put in place by the

project manager's HMDC and the on-site people who are contracted out through

Nodeco. There, everything in the safety plan meets and/or exceeds safety

standards as laid out by the Province.

It is true that there have been in excess of twenty lost time

accidents, most of them just for a shift or so, where people suffer some cuts

and bruises in a heavy construction industry site such as that. There was,

indeed, in the past year, one other missing person - which is still categorized

as a missing person - incident at the site, which gave rise to the institution

of a twenty-four hour response line, because there was some time that lapsed,

which did not occur in this case, people were on the site immediately.

By all comparative standards, though, it is still clear to

the people in our department that the safety standards and the safety efforts

being put forward by the employers at the site, which is where the onus lies, is

an inspection and enforcement capability responsibility for the government not

to actually go out and do the thing but to ensure that the employers are taking

their responsibilities as they should. And we have been assured and are

comfortable that that site, even at that number of incidents - because we have

asked that they report even incidents that occur, if somebody bumps into

something that is potentially dangerous, that every incident be reported, not

only an incident that causes someone to lose a shift or two from the job.

So, we have been in the process, because the employers,

themselves, on the site want to identify and want every incident that occurs

that is potentially dangerous, to be reported so that every one of them can be

addressed to eliminate possible future safety hazards at the site. As a matter

of fact, in the Estimates Committee, I might point out to the House, Mr.

Speaker, in response to the question, we undertook to table and provide to the

House of Assembly, full assessment and full documentation as to the safety

record and the record of incidents at the Bull Arm site. The compilation of that

began, actually, the day after the Estimates meeting. As soon as it is wrapped

up, we will be presenting that to the House for the information of all members.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the

minister again, because I am not sure he answered the question: I would like to

know what monitoring process his department undertakes on a day-to-day basis.

What, exactly, is your department's process for monitoring this? What makes you

feel so comfortable, other than the fact that you hear reports back from the

contractors on-site? Is it simply left to the contractors? What is the

government's monitoring process?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the role of the inspection and

enforcement officers and Occupational Health and Safety is that on a regular but

unscheduled basis, because otherwise it would destroy something, they do their

inspections at the site; plus they regularly go out, and the procedure that is

in place is an audit of the safety records of the company. They have submitted

their safety plans and everything to do with that to the department prior to

start-up, and so on, and it has been refined and redefined and reshaped as the

work has progressed to make sure that every safety practice that is being

followed by the companies on-site meets and/or exceeds the standards. Our

inspection officers audit the daily reports that are kept by the companies

on-site, to check and see that they have done what they have told us they are

going to do.

That, combined with the regular unscheduled, unannounced

inspections at the site, itself, have convinced our officials that they are

meeting and/or exceeding the standards, and that by comparative analysis with

any other similar type of heavy duty construction site, that this site is, in

fact, a safe site.

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

MR. SIMMS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister quickly, if he would be

prepared to table in this House a list of those regular and unscheduled visits

from the past. I don't expect him to give it to us in the future, obviously, for

the reasons that he outlined, but I would like to have a list of the visits that

were made, and when, and so on.

Secondly, I want to ask him this: Spending has been

dramatically cut at the Bull Arm site, as he knows, as everybody searches to

replace the Gulf partners. Can the minister assure this House that industrial

safety has not been affected in any way, negatively, I suppose, by the fact that

there have been these dramatic spending cuts on-site?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With respect to both parts

of the question, I believe part of the undertaking that we gave in the estimates

consideration of this whole issue was that we would look at the reports of

incidents at the site, but we can also include in that information as to

visitations and efforts by the Occupational Health and Safety division of the

Department.

Also our information, in checking of the same concern, while

the level of activity at the Hibernia site has not increased the way it was

projected to this year because of the uncertainty with the partner, there is no

information available to us that any of the major performers and major

contractors at the site have done anything to their occupational health and

safety efforts other than maintain them at the levels they were beforehand.

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

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

the Premier. On June 2, 1989, government ordered an inquiry into the operations

of the former Sprung Greenhouse. The commissioner, Mr. Justice Seamus O'Regan,

submitted an interim report in July of 1991 and another in January of 1992. I

ask the Premier: has the commission completed its work? When will government

release Justice O'Regan's findings?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I learned

just last week, or ten days ago, that Mr. Justice O'Regan in fact sent in a

report, and I believe it was with officials in the Department of Justice. In any

event, the Minister of Justice brought it to my attention a week or ten days

ago. He has been away at constitutional meetings since. I have a meeting

scheduled with him later today. That is one of the things that we will deal

with. I would expect that we will be making a decision and a specific

announcement on it probably within the next week.

The minister has to go to further constitutional meetings

this coming week. These constitutional meetings are taking an inordinate amount

of time, and as you know there has been a concentration, so there has been some

difficulty in dealing with those other issues. But I hope I will be in a

position to make a statement to the House in the coming week.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Previous to the

election of 1989, and more specifically during the campaign of 1989, the Premier

talked willingly about all the faults of the Sprung enterprise and the dealings

with it, and more specifically insinuated that there were some shady dealings,

loss of money, lack of facts, no facts, wrongdoing, to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Would the Premier now explain that after more than

three years in office, and two reports from Mr. Justice O'Regan, if it was so

bad then, why after three years hasn't the Premier let the people of the

Province know the real facts pertaining to the Sprung enterprise?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the complaints we had - still

have - is that there was gross incompetence in the handling of the Sprung

venture. The whole Sprung venture was a fiasco of incompetence.

MS. VERGE: Release the Justice's findings!

PREMIER WELLS: We will indeed. Have no doubt that we will

indeed be releasing the Justice's findings. Make no mistake about it, we will.

What we have to decide, frankly - and this is the consideration that cabinet -

is whether we go further with the inquiry. Whether the circumstances warrant

going further, to have a full disclosure of the level of incompetence that was

involved in the management of that venture. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no desire

to go on a political witch-hunt to embarrass the members opposite. I have no

desire to spend more money and waste more on top of the $23 million that has

already been wasted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: We shall see. The members will be very

anxious to see the contents of that document. Really, Mr. Speaker, that is the

decision that the government has to take. The indication, as I understand from

the Minister of Justice, is that there is no indication of any criminal

wrongdoing or anything of that nature, even though the thing is not fully

explained. Perhaps because it is inexplicable, I do not know, we have to make a

decision as to whether we should provide for full-scale public hearings and

incur the cost that is involved in that. Mr. Speaker, our inclination is not to

do it. We would hope that the release of the judge's report would satisfy the

needs to assure the people of the Province that there was no criminal

wrongdoing, just incredible incompetence in the management of the issue.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier. When I asked the other day

whether the Premier would confirm the payments of $129 per month for single

able-bodied people receiving social assistance he, in his usual manner, was

unable to do that and did not like my figures. Well, if he did his checking he

would have found out that I was wrong, Mr. Speaker, it was not $129 per month it

was only $128 per month. Now, I want to ask the Premier whether he is now in a

position to do what he said he would do the other day, either justify that

amount for single able-bodied persons on social assistance having run out of

employment insurance or increase it? Can he tell the House what he is prepared

to do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have to apologize to the House and to

the hon. member. The information was delivered to me in the House yesterday with

a note but it was after a time that was appropriate for me to deal with it. I

did not deal with it yesterday and I left it in my office this morning. That is

my fault. I apologize to the hon. member for that but I will get it for him.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple matter. It

is not a request for information. The information is available to all hon.

members who want to phone the officials of the Department of Social Services.

The amount of money to be received by single, able bodied persons on social

assistance is $128. Now, the Premier said that was unacceptable, if that was

true. If they are living at home it is $88 for hon. member's information. It is

not a request for information, it is a request for government to either, as the

Premier said, justify how an individual is expected to live with room and board

and the necessities of life for $128 a month, or is the Premier going to

increase that amount to a respectable level so that people can actually live?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member takes things

and twists them. He indicated I said that is unacceptable but I said no such

thing. What I said was it is inadequate. I agree, it is not an adequate amount

but we do not have adequate funds for any of the responsibilities government has

to discharge, for a variety of reasons: the small number of taxpayers in this

Province, the low performance level of our economy, the fact that our people are

dispersed among 700 or 800 communities distributed along 10,000 miles of

coastline. Of course it is inadequate, all but a fool would challenge that, but

whether it is within our means is another question. In fact I think the hon.

member may have his figures wrong. I think one of the amounts is $93 or $97,

something like that, but it depends.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: There are a variety of payments depending

on whether the individual is living at home with parents, living with relatives,

or the boarding situation. Government tries to accommodate the need and meet the

legitimate need and not provide an extra benefit for some when the need is not

there and deprive others of it. That is the way it is done. Now, I do not think

it is vastly different in structure than what it was under the former

government. We did not reduce the amount, that is for sure. We did not reduce

it. We probably increased them somewhat but we sure did not reduce them, so this

bit of grandstanding now by the hon. member is just so much stuff and nonsense.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am surprised that the Premier would be prepared to justify

an amount of $128 for an adult person to live on. Would the Premier be prepared

to consider whether or not an individual adult is able to survive on $128 a

month in light of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Is the Premier prepared to recognize that the

needs of an individual receiving Social Assistance for the sole reason of

unemployment are greater than $128 a month? And is the Premier prepared to

recognize that that is totally unacceptable in our society given the needs of

people, given the housing requirements, given the need for food. Can a person

live for meals alone, Mr. Speaker, on $128 a month.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is now making a speech.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, these decision are made by

this government, I suppose as it was by the former government, but I can't speak

for them, on the basis of meeting needs on a fair and balanced basis. They are

not all that familiar with fairness and balance. They are becoming more familiar

with it in the last two or three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Social Services.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if it is a young adult

nineteen or twenty years old living at home with relatives, that is one need. If

it is a young adult boarding somewhere, that is another need. If it is a young

couple having to maintain their own home and pay for an apartment, that is

another need. If it is a couple with children, that is another need. The amounts

are dependent on that, and you can't take that one fact in isolation and

determine that this is not adequate therefore it must be increased. All of it

has to depend on the level of need relative to others. Does the member want the

answer, or does he want to listen to the Member for Grand Bank?

Mr. Speaker, the Province has to meet these obligations and

meet the needs of the people within the limits of its ability. Now what would

the hon. member have us do? Borrow endlessly as does the Government of Ontario

and lose our credit rating as did the Government of Ontario?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what he says.

PREMIER WELLS: The Government of Ontario has some margin

to lose its credit rating from a triple A where it is starting. We are starting

from an A minus. Remember that. We don't have any margins left, partly because

the former government spent us into oblivion and borrowed us into oblivion

without any sense of responsibility, partly because of the recession and for a

variety of other reasons, because the federal government had to cut back to deal

with its own deficit problems. All of these are factors. Our economy is not

performing well at the moment. That is a factor. Whether this government has

some responsibility for that, posterity will judge, or whether it is caused

primarily by the fisheries and other matters, posterity will judge that as well.

Of course I agree, it is not an adequate amount. Now I don't think it is

necessary for him to ask me that again. It is not an adequate amount, but it is

within the level of competence, the financial competence of the government in

terms of all its other needs.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, how can he compare the needs of

an adult to live for a month on $128 when his own office, the office of the

Premier, spends $20,000 a year on entertainment needs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with the question. He is in a

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: How can the Premier make these comparisons,

Mr. Speaker, if he is not prepared to recognize that the needs to survive of an

adult person in circumstances such as the Department of Social Services

recognize. The only amount they are prepared to give is $128 per month for an

adult. How can he make the comparison between that and other problems of other

provinces when he knows, Mr. Speaker, that the money for social assistance comes

through the Canada Assistance Plan where 50 per cent of the money is provided by

the federal government as part of this plan, where a floor level of more than

twice that amount, Mr. Speaker, is provided in the Canada Assistance Plan for

single adults? Why is this Province prepared to treat single adults, who have

lost their employment, who have run out of unemployment insurance, as people not

worthy of more than $1.25 per meal per month? Are those the kinds of standards

that this government is prepared to recognize for people living in this Province

suffering from lack of unemployment insurance, lack of employment, and suffering

from lack of adequate housing? Is that the standard -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - he wants to set for the people in this

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to deal

with all of these issues on a fair and proper and objective basis. Now, if the

hon. member wants to get personal about it and judge whether it is fair that I

should be paid what I am being paid compared to this, is it fair that the hon.

member should carry on a full-time law practice -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - be paid as a full-time lawyer and get

the total pay of a member of the House of Assembly? Is that fair? Is he now

offering up his salary? Is that the basis on which he wants to judge this, or is

he prepared to judge it on fair and objective standards, or does he have a

market on hypocrisy? Is he the only one who -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Does he want to deal with it on a personal

basis? Does he want to compare the income of every member of the House and what

each member does, and determine whether they are entitled to that income

compared to the level of effort they put into it and whether or not they have

other efforts and other incomes that take their time, and determine whether that

should be a factor in setting the level of $127? If he does, then don't confine

the test to me. Let it apply to every member of this House, including himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, if he wants to deal with

it on a straight-up, fair basis and an objective basis and judge the standard by

which we run the government for everybody in the Province and determine the

level of salary or income or support or assistance or whatever for members of

the House, deal with that on that basis and deal with this on this basis. Now,

if he wants to include one factor for comparison, include them all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will allow the Member for St. John's East one final

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier wants to get personal about it, we can do that

in another forum. Let's use a fair comparison, Mr. Speaker. All hon. members in

this House are entitled to a per diem of twenty-five dollars per day for meals

for every day the House is in session. Let's use that as an example of fair

allotments that are provided. Now, let's compare that, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with his question.

MR. HARRIS: I want to ask the Premier whether he is

prepared to see that as a reasonable comparison between what is paid for room

and board, which includes all the meals that a person is entitled to for a full

month, with $128 per month for a single adult person? Now, they are both coming

out of government funds, nothing to do with people's private activities, both

coming out of government funds. Is that a fairness and balance comparison? Is

that a fair comparison as to what is available for people to live on in this

Province who have no other source of income? Is that a fair comparison?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has put the question.

MR. HARRIS: Let's look at that one.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get personal

about it. I regret that I had to answer the hon. member's question in the way in

which I did, but I was responding to his specific question. He was the one who

personalized the issue, not me, and I answered it in precisely the same way as

he asked it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what I

heard. Mr. Speaker, if I heard that unparliamentary remark I ask the hon. member

to withdraw it or hang his head with shame, with his tail between his legs and

slink out of the House as he should do. Despicable!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't like (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No, I just dislike despicable members, that

is all.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the

twenty-five dollars -

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

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I can't let that go by, Mr. Speaker. The

Premier, who likes to be so self-righteous, pious and all the rest of it, just

got up and referred to that member as a despicable member. Surely that is

unparliamentary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that unparliamentary? Is despicable

unparliamentary?

MR. SPEAKER: When hon. members on both sides get into

this kind of thing, of name-calling in the heat of debate, I have asked hon.

members many times to try and refrain from using unparliamentary language. I was

about to deal with it at the end of Question Period. So if hon. member would let

Question Period proceed, I will deal with it.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the specific question

that the hon. member asked last was the twenty-five dollar per diem allowance. I

agree. I don't think it is justified. Let's cancel it. Let's agree now to cancel

it. Agree right now to terminate it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed! Cancel it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The twenty-five dollars a day, let's agree

to terminate it right now. It was recommended as part of the compensation by the

Morgan Report. I don't receive it. I don't want it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wouldn't either, if I were getting what

you get.

PREMIER WELLS: No? Well, you were getting it when you

were over here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with that argument. Maybe

that shouldn't be. The former government put in place a system for setting

compensation. It was done by the Morgan Report. The House didn't change it.

Theoretically the House could have changed it if it wanted to, but it didn't. It

accepted it and put it in place as it is. Now, maybe we need some adjustment to

it, and maybe we should agree that it be reconsidered. But if the member wants

to deal with it on that basis, then deal with it properly on that basis.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the level and standard of support the

government can afford throughout this Province is determined by the financial

resources that the government has. Now, if you cancel the twenty-five dollars a

day I don't know what it would result in for a year. You may be able to increase

that $127 by twenty-five cents or by a dollar. I don't know. I would have to

look at the figures, but it would be minuscule by comparison. But if the hon.

member wants to grandstand on that kind of a basis, I suppose he can grandstand

and there is a certain constituency that will support it. If he wants to deal

with it on merit and in terms of the government's ability, okay we will deal

with it on that basis. But if he wants to carry on this particular

grandstanding, I suppose there is a certain constituency that will be attracted

by that and he, no doubt, has it.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

On the matter of the points of order raised, the Chair is

going to take a look at the Hansard in both cases and report back to the House.

Other than to say to hon. members that when we are in the heat of the debate and

an hon. member, from his or her place, says something that is provocative, very

often the member will come back with a provocative statement. I ask hon. members

please to remember the rules of parliamentary language. The Chair will check

Hansard on both cases.

The Chair would like to bring to the attention of hon.

members the presence of another group of students. I have just received a note

saying that Beaconsfield Junior High people are here. We welcomed you in your

absence. We thought you were here. We did welcome you.

Also in the galleries are eighteen Grades VII to XI students

from St. Peter's Academy School Band, Benoit's Cove, in the district of Bay of

Islands. They are accompanied by their teachers, Kevin Hennessey, Rosemary

Pennell, and Kevin Kendall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the

House today the report of the Royal Commission on Education, headed by Dr. Len

Williams. There are two volumes that I will be tabling. One is the complete

report; the other is a

summary volume. The Minister of Education is at the

moment in the process of making the report public. I understand he has arranged

with the Opposition to provide for a special briefing by Dr. Williams for

members on the opposite side of the House.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order, if I

may (Inaudible).

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I wonder if it might not have been much more

appropriate if perhaps the minister had made a statement in this House, because

presumably he is going to make some commentary on the government's initial

response to the report. If he isn't, then that is fine. But if the government

has some initial response to make, I do not know how they are going to answer

questions to the press if that is the case. The minister is shaking his head,

but -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I understand the hon. Leader of the

Opposition's question, Mr. Speaker. No, it was not more appropriate that the

minister make a statement in the House. All the minister is really doing is

making the report public, will probably express an opinion as to the

thoroughness and general competence of the report from his review of it, and

express appreciation to the members of the commission and the staff for a

tremendous effort on their part. Dr. Williams is also present at the press

conference, and Dr. Williams will explain the report and comment on proposals

that are in the report. But the government has not had adequate time to judge

it. We just got the report in -

MS. VERGE: Six weeks ago!

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. member can moan and groan if she

wants. We got the report -

MR. SIMMS: Six weeks ago! Tell the truth for a change!

PREMIER WELLS: We got the report three or four weeks ago

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

I again say to hon. members that they ought to be cautious

about their language. To shout to a member to tell the truth is an insinuation

that the member is telling a lie. In many jurisdictions on different occasions

that is ruled to be unparliamentary. I just at this point make an intervention.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we just got the report

recently. We got four or five copies of it, just photocopies. It is just now

recently printed. Just printed in the last few days. The first copies of it came

out (Inaudible). So we wanted to release the report immediately and we wanted

Dr. Williams to explain the report.

The government does not have a position on any of the

recommendations at this stage. I have no doubt that there will be a variety of

expressions of opinion on the recommendations that are in the report. I have no

doubt that people will want to make representations to government on it. So in

due course the government will state its position.

In the meantime we are making the report available as quickly

as it was physically possible to do so after the report was printed. We are

making it available as quickly as it was possible to do so, and that is now. We

made Dr. Williams available to the heads of the churches, the day before

yesterday -

AN HON. MEMBER: Wednesday night.

PREMIER WELLS: - Wednesday night, to let -

MS. VERGE: Before us?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, before members of the House,

absolutely.

The churches have a great interest in this issue. We made it

available to the churches -

MR. WINSOR: What an insult to the House!

PREMIER WELLS: It is not an insult to the House. Our

record in dealing with the Opposition is, we might as well make it public as to

give it to the members of the Opposition. But, in answer to the leader's

question, that is the way we dealt with it, and that is quite responsible.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of order with

respect to tabling the report in the House. There is no point of order. The hon.

member used the opportunity to express a view.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon. the Member

for Torngat Mountains asked a series of questions. The first one he asked was

whether the minister or the Premier was aware that some of the agencies of the

Department of Health were entering into discussions with a group from Long

Island to set up an incinerator in St. John's. Both the Premier and I advised

that we were not aware of any attempt going on. Yet the hon. member still seemed

to insinuate that, indeed, within days we would see an incinerator built

somewhere on Water Street or LeMarchant Road.

Then he came back: Are hospital boards involved in

discussions with a waste management company in Long Island - now, I didn't get

the name, Mr. Speaker, and Hansard is not out yet this morning - to set up

facilities in St. John's for the disposal of hospital waste? The answer is that

the Department of Health is unaware of any such initiative between hospital

boards and a waste management company in New York, or anywhere else, for that

matter.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I could speculate as to what the hon.

member is talking about. There are always reports going on, as I said yesterday,

(inaudible) medical waste and that sort of thing, but there is absolutely no

basis for the member's question. I think we see here another example of the

fearmongering that we have seen from the Opposition over the past few days. The

unfortunate thing about it is that one of these days they are going to be right

about something. Then, what will happen is that we are going to ignore them. It

is just the Opposition playing Moriah again, as I said yesterday.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (L. Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 15, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act", proposes to

increase the tax on cigarettes from 6.78 cents to 7.78 cents, or one cent a

cigarette.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) higher?

DR. KITCHEN: No.

I would like to give members a rundown as to what the tobacco

tax is in various provinces, because we have to be fairly careful about the

tobacco tax and not raise it too high, for various reasons, one reason being

that if our tobacco tax rate gets out of line with nearby provinces, there could

be created, as has been in the past, a smuggling problem.

Right now, in Newfoundland, our cigarette tax is 7.78 cents.

In addition, there is a 12 per cent sales tax levied on cigarettes. If you

include that, and you cannot really, but if you want to include that, it drives

it up to 8.71 cents a cigarette. That is the combination of tobacco tax and

retail sales tax per cigarette.

In Prince Edward Island, the tobacco tax is nine cents a

cigarette, which is higher than ours, and there is no sales tax on cigarettes.

In Nova Scotia the sales tax is 6.8 cents, which is a cent

less than ours, roughly, and they have a 10 per cent sales tax on top of that,

driving it up to 7.48 cents, which is a little more that a cent less than our

double tax, our combined tax.

New Brunswick had a very high cigarette tax, but because of

problems of smuggling with the United States, because they are on the border

with the U.S., they reduced their sales tax in their recent budget by

two-and-a-half cents, 2.58 cents per cigarette, so that now, the New Brunswick

cigarette tax is the same as that in Nova Scotia, 6.8 cents, and they have an 11

per cent sales tax on top of that which makes it 7.54 cents. So, Mr. Chairman,

with the exception of Prince Edward Island, which is marginally higher than

ours, our cigarette tax now is higher than the cigarette tax in Nova Scotia or

New Brunswick by approximately 1.3 cents a cigarette, and we had to be fairly

careful about that because we don't want it too high.

Our cigarette tax is not the highest in Canada. British

Columbia's cigarette tax is ten-and-a-half cents a cigarette. Ours is 7.78,

theirs is ten-and-a-half. They don't have a sales tax on cigarettes. In Alberta,

the sales tax is seven cents a cigarette, in Saskatchewan it is eight cents a

cigarette. In neither of these cases is sales tax levied on cigarettes, so that

in Alberta and Saskatchewan their overall tax, combining sales tax and cigarette

tax, is somewhat less than ours.

The Manitoba tax is eight cents a cigarette, which is

slightly higher than ours and they have a 7 per cent sales tax in addition which

makes it 8.56 compared to our 8.71 which is about the same. Ontario has the

lowest cigarette tax in Canada at six-and-a-half cents plus an 8 per cent sales

tax, which makes it almost exactly seven cents a cigarette. They have the

tobacco industry, largely, in Ontario. Quebec - I didn't hear their budget last

night, so I don't know what they had to say about tobacco, if anything, but up

until last night, their cigarette tax was 6.88 cents and they have an 8 per cent

sales tax on cigarettes, and 7.43 which compares to what is going on in the

Atlantic Provinces. I don't know what else I can say about this, Mr. Speaker.

One of the problems with the cigarette tax, I might add, is

that while it hits people of all social classes, there is an inverse

relationship between income and smoking, so, in a sense, cigarette tax is a

regressive tax. And this is one of things we had to be careful about, that, as

we increase the cigarette tax, it tends to hurt poor people moreso than it does

more affluent people. Sometimes it is to cigarettes that people turn to relieve

stress and so on, so we have to be very careful about having it too high, I

think. But, in the meantime, people do have an alternative, they can give up

smoking. If they want to they can give up smoking, but at the same time I

suppose, if they don't want to pay income tax, they can give up working and if

they do not want to pay property tax they can give away the property. So there

is always a way of evading taxes, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: The only tax, I guess, you can't evade at

all, is a poll tax. You can't evade the poll tax, but you can evade most of the

other taxes.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks on the

cigarette tax for the time being.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 1 carry?

MR. WINDSOR: No, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Nobody else wants to speak on this? It's

amazing!

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address this particular piece

of legislation for a few moments. I would like to point out, first of all, that

this is simply another tax grab. As we all know, of course, the minister doesn't

even attempt to hide that. He is talking about a $7 million increase this year

from tobacco tax as a result of this tax increase. Now, that is a pretty major

increase in taxation, Mr. Chairman, for a government that tries to say we are

not increasing taxes. This is only one of the minor ones outside of the other

things that were put in the Budget Speech that are less than honest, Mr.

Chairman. Seven million dollars from this particular tax increased this year,

that is a 12.2 per cent increase in one year - a 12.2 per cent increase in one

year, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in the

Minister of Labour right now. I will get on to him on other issues later on. I

am not going to waste my time with him this morning. I am going to address the

Minister of Finance and the mess that he is making in the taxation system in

this Province. The minister, I think, mentioned a moment ago that one of the

concerns with raising tobacco taxes is that it increases smuggling. Of course,

it will increase smuggling into this Province, and if the minister doesn't think

we have a serious problem now, that is costing this Province millions of dollars

in legitimate tobacco taxes, then he is being less than honest with himself.

Perhaps if he hadn't eliminated some positions, the tax inspector positions in

Port aux Basques, he wouldn't be losing quite as much revenue. Maybe he wouldn't

be losing as much. Maybe he should have added a little bit.

There is big business coming into this Province right now,

Mr. Chairman, in smuggling cigarettes and alcohol, but right now we are talking

about cigarettes. You get a lot of sympathy when you put tax on cigarettes

because there are so many people today - the majority of people today will say

you shouldn't be smoking anyway, so the majority of people will say, 'Good

stuff, sock it to them!' Nevertheless, a lot of people do choose to smoke, which

is their right. I don't, and I don't like to be involved in areas where there is

a lot of smoke. We reformed smokers are the worst in the world. I gave it up

seventeen years ago and I have never wanted one since. Now, I can't understand

why anybody will smoke, but nevertheless, people do have a right to smoke if

they choose, as long as they don't interfere with others. This is one of the

pleasures that these people enjoy. It is probably true, Mr. Chairman, that the

greater percentage of smokers are lower-income people, so this tax is probably

hurting some of the lower-income people moreso than anyone else.

Mr. Chairman, it is no more than a tax grab: $7 million. It

has gone from $56 million to $63 million this year in one smack, an incredible

increase on one item in one year, an additional $7 million. Mr. Chairman, the

minister will have to answer for that in due course.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Motion 3, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion 3, Bill 14. The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to introduce

an act to amend the Income Tax Act,

another simple amendment from the point of view of legislation. What we are

doing is amending the Income Tax Act so that, instead of the federal government

collecting for us 62 per cent of the basic federal tax, we will now be

collecting 64.5 per cent for 1992 and for 1993, 66 per cent. That is basically

what the amendment is. I want to give some comparative figures here because some

people think that the Newfoundland income tax is way out of line with other

Canadian provinces, and that is not the case. In Newfoundland, after our tax

increases now, assuming that we pass this in the House of Assembly today, our

effective rate will be 64.5 cents this year, but we have no surtax in

Newfoundland and we have no flat tax on income, as they do in other provinces.

What we pay in Newfoundland is 64.5 per cent of the basic federal tax. In Prince

Edward Island, their basic rate is 59.5 which looks like it is five cents

cheaper, but in Prince Edward Island, they have a surtax of 10 per cent that

applies to certain higher income groups, and if you are in that income group,

your tax rate is 65.45, which is a percentage point higher than our basic rate.

In Nova Scotia they have an identical rate to Prince Edward Island, 59.5, and

they, too, have a 10 per cent surtax, making them 65.45 for certain income

groups, which is higher than the Newfoundland rate. In New Brunswick, they have

a 60 per cent basic federal tax and an 8 per cent surtax which, for those

affected by the surtax, drives the rate up to 64.8, and ours is 64.5, so they

are slightly higher than ours. While we are higher for certain income groups,

for other income groups we are the lowest in the Atlantic Provinces, somewhat

lower. It is not a lot lower but slightly lower.

Now, I did not get the Quebec Budget last night but, in any

event, since Quebec is the only province which collects its own personal income

tax, is it difficult to make comparisons between the tax rates in Quebec and the

tax rates in Newfoundland.

In Ontario, they increased their rate this year by 1.5

percentage points to 54.5, so they pay 54.5 per cent of the basic federal tax

and, in addition, they have a 14 per cent surtax which cuts in, I think, at

something like $50-something thousand dollars. For those people in that

category, the effective rate is a little over 62 per cent,

whereas ours is 64.5

so that in Ontario, a person's personal income tax would be a couple of points

less than ours and somewhat less if the person has a lower income. In Manitoba,

the effective rate is 52 but they have a flat tax of 2 per cent on net income,

calculate their net income and you pay 2 per cent to the Government of Manitoba

and, in addition, they have - wait now, what am I doing here? I was just

checking to see if Manitoba had put a surtax in their budget and they did not.

So that is the Manitoba thing. It is 52 per cent plus 2 per cent on a flat tax.

Now in Saskatchewan they have just a 50 per cent of basic

federal tax, but they have a flat tax of 2 per cent, and in addition they have a

10 per cent deficit surtax which everybody pays. So that if you are in

Saskatchewan the effective rate is 55 per cent plus a 2 per cent.... I'm sorry.

Twenty-five per cent of fifty is thirteen. So they have a 63 per cent basic tax

plus a 2 per cent flat tax on net income, which drives them quite a bit higher

than our personal income tax.

In Alberta, which has a personal income tax of 46 per cent of

the federal tax rate, they have a flat tax of 0.5 per cent of taxable income,

plus an 8 per cent surtax which drives them somewhat close to ours.

British Columbia's tax works out to be - they have a 52 per

cent basic tax,

whereas ours is 64.5 per cent. But they have this 20 per cent

surtax, which drives them up to 62.4 per cent for most income groups, which is

quite close to ours.

So overall, Mr. Chairman, while our tax of 64.5 per cent

looks high by comparison with other provinces, it is not the highest personal

income tax in Canada. It is not much higher than that in most provinces as a

result of their recent budgets. I might also say this: prior to any of the

budgets this year our general tax in the Province was about 100 per cent of the

Canadian average. Our tax rate in Canada, for all taxes, was right on the

Canadian average. As a result of our budgetary measures, when we announced our

Budget, it went up to 103 per cent of the basic average. But since the other

budgets have been coming in, some of them have increased taxes, and I am not

sure where we are now. We are somewhat less than 103 per cent. I am getting

people to make this calculation, but all the budgets have not been in

sufficiently long enough to make that calculation across all taxes.

But it can be said that as far as personal taxes are

concerned the tax rate in Newfoundland is not out of line with what it is in

other parts of Canada. Particularly that is made possible by the fact that the

property tax rate in Newfoundland is so much lower. So it would be incorrect for

anyone to suggest that the personal taxes in Newfoundland are higher than they

are in other provinces. That is simply not the case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I will address first of all

that final closing statement of the Minister of Finance, which I think shows

clearly his complete lack of understanding of the problems that we are facing in

this Province. What he says is accurate, of course. If you want to take raw

statistics and say that the tax incidence in Newfoundland is I believe 103 per

cent of the national average, that is all. I think that was the last number I

saw. The minister may have a later one. But I think 103 per cent of the national

average. Which comes as a surprise to most people, who think we are paying far

more taxes than anywhere else.

But when you look at all of the taxes, as the minister

pointed out - municipal, provincial, federal and everything else - the tax

burden in Newfoundland - at least prior to the last Budget; I suspect it has

probably increased since then, I have not seen a revised figure - but it was 103

per cent.

What the minister fails to point out is the average income

is, what, 65 per cent of the national average. So there is your difference. We

may not be asked to pay out any great higher percentage of our income, but our

income is so much lower, and the cost of living in Newfoundland is so much

higher, that our ability to pay those taxes is far less than people in other

parts of Canada. You cannot just take one factor, that being a tax percentage,

and consider that as the only issue. You have to look at the cost of living and

the average income, which gives you the ability of the taxpayer to pay those

taxes. Then you can determine whether or not it is a heavy tax burden.

Indeed, we are suffering an incredibly heavy tax burden in

this Province today to the point where, in the last two or three weeks, so many

people who have looked at this issue from their own point of view, because it

was income tax time, have looked at the amount of taxes that they are paying

overall and have said: I begin to wonder why I bother to work. I am almost

better off staying home. Particularly if it is a second income in a family.

A second income in a family: If the main breadwinner is in,

not a high income bracket but, you know, a moderate income bracket, and then you

tack another income onto that, be it a part-time income or whatever, it is

hardly worth the effort today, Mr. Chairman, because it can jump you up into

another tax bracket which can take so much away from what you are bringing home.

You have the expenses of that additional employment and unless you are making a

considerable second salary, it is almost not worth the effort.

There is always a little bit of a difference but, if you

weigh the benefits to the family of having that second person in the home, the

efficiencies of having a second person home, because when two people are out in

the workplace the cost of living goes up for that family. The cost of looking

after children, the cost of feeding children, the cost of making lunches for

children, the cost of having somebody there when they come home or the cost of

having them in day care, the cost of transporting them back and forth to school

when one person is not there, all of these things add up, Mr. Chairman,

incredibly.

So many people today are asking the question: Is it really

worth the effort anymore? For a person, Mr. Chairman, even in the middle income

level who is trying to advance and trying to do something else, work harder and

earn more money, it is almost counterproductive. Every time you earn something

you jump yourself into another income tax bracket and you lose such a high

percentage of it that you wonder if it is worth the effort.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, there was an

article in The Telegram

last night in the editorial

section relating to some stats that had been

released by Statistics Canada recently. It says, "The average family is worse

off today than it was ten years ago." Now, that is a combination of the cost of

living and increases in taxation. When you consider the average family income

today with the cost of living and the taxes taken away from it and you discount

that back to 1982 dollars, compare it with 1982, you will find, Mr. Chairman,

that the average family today is worse off than they were ten years ago. Why is

that, Mr. Chairman? Is it because we are less productive? I don't think so.

Technology today should make us more productive. We should be producing more. We

should have a greater earning power. Maybe not. Maybe because of technology we

are not working as hard as we used to before. Maybe some of these social

programs that have been introduced, so many side benefits of employment, are

costing us a lot more than we think.

My experience in Treasury Board tells me that they can be

frightening. If the President of Treasury Board were here, he would confirm

that, quite often, it is the benefits associated with a labour agreement that

are just as expensive or more expensive than any increases in salaries that are

being proposed. Of course, labour unions and labour leaders know that and they,

quite often, Mr. Chairman, concentrate on negotiating the side benefits rather

than just salaries.

This editorial last night says, "The high cost of living is

one thing, but high taxes that leave many people working half the year to fill

various government coffers is quite another." In other words, what the editorial

is saying, in quoting Statistics Canada basically or basing numbers on

Statistics Canada, is that many people today, almost 50 per cent of their income

is being paid out in taxes, and that does not account for GST and RST, which

takes another 20 per cent after taxes are paid.

So we wonder why people today are being so careful about

using all of the loopholes, for lack of a better term, in the Income Tax Act and

other tax acts, because you have to. You are forced today, if you are in

business, to almost be a tax expert, because if you miss any opportunity -

legitimate opportunity - I am not talking about anyone who is trying to avoid

taxes. I have no tolerance for that; but anyone who is in business must take

advantage of every legitimate opportunity to reduce the tax burden on them. So

people are being very, very cautious today.

More and more people are down loading their costs from

themselves to companies and that sort of thing, and again in negotiating

contracts. They would rather negotiate a benefit than a salary. It is better to

have a car provided by a company and take no increase in salary than to get an

increase in salary and have to buy a car, because you pay for your car, you pay

for it after taxes, if it cost you $10,000 a year to own and operate a vehicle,

which is not out of the question. It is a fair estimate, an average cost of

owning and operating your car, paying for the principal and interest on it, if

you have a loan on it, and gas and maintenance and so forth. It is going to cost

you $10,000 a year. If you are in the middle income range, you probably have to

earn $16,000 a year in order to have $10,000 in your pocket to pay for that car,

whereas your company can provide it to you for $10,000. It is an expense to

them, of course, no income tax must be paid on it, so that sort of a thing.

Of course, the Income Tax Act is dealing with that now,

because now you must declare a portion of the usage of that vehicle as a taxable

income. So if the car cost $10,000 to operate, and 50 per cent of it was used

for personal use, then you must declare $5,000 as taxable income. What you lose

on one end they get you in the other, but only partly so.

What we have seen here, what this act proposes to do, is

increase the personal income tax imposed by this Province by 2.5 per cent

effective January, 1992. That is January past, so that is already in place, and

another 1.5 per cent next year. I can hear the minister now, next year coming in

saying, we are not going to raise personal income tax this year. No, because he

has already done it this year for next year. That is 4 per cent over two years.

That is a substantial increase - a very substantial increase. Now this was done

under the guise of, well we are eliminating the school taxes so we are going to

increase personal income tax. That is how the minister tried to pass that one

over on us. We eliminate school tax, so we are going to increase personal income

tax. That was the biggest sham that has ever been brought before this House. The

school tax certainly has not been eliminated - far from it. The school tax per

se as a school tax is being eliminated, but the government is raising many more

millions of dollars through the tax increases in the payroll tax and personal

income tax than ever were raised by the school tax.

We have some numbers. These are numbers that were provided by

the minister, by his staff, comparing the amount of money that is raised -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: I will have another go, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want a few minutes to speak on this particular bill mainly

because it is an income tax bill - not a major bill but certainly some minor

changes. I think it is very relevant to what I have to say this morning, and

especially since I just listened to the hon. Member for Mount Pearl make a

couple of remarks on which he is quite right, about how difficult it is this day

on the income compared to ten years ago, and that the average family is probably

worse off today than it was ten years ago. I have no doubt that the hon. member

is absolutely correct.

I think that it is very difficult to live under this day and

age, Mr. Chairman, in the fact that there are so many social programs and so

many social sector programs that the individuals need today and the cost of it

is just escalating right through the roof.

What I want to do is take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, -

and I know there are not going to be many people listen to me because I have

said this so many times before - to take this opportunity on why taxes have to

be increased, and the reason why the governments of any day would have to deal

with the low income brackets that is earned in a province and is related to the

province itself.

I think anybody who listened to the morning show this morning

would realize what I have been saying over the last eight or nine months is

real, that I have not been misleading the people, that I have not been lying to

the people of Newfoundland, that everything I have accused our federal

government of not doing and doing in relation to the fisheries, which is the

main basis of income for this Province, is absolutely correct.

When I heard Jim Wellman from the Fishermen's Broadcast make

a report on the morning show this morning brought to light, brought back to my

mind everything that I have been saying over the past twelve months is

absolutely correct. He found the NAFO meetings in Halifax this week too boring,

no substance, so much so that he put his microphone in his suitcase and he came

home. I think, Mr. Chairman, that tells us all very clearly where the future of

Newfoundland and Labrador is headed.

Mr. Chairman, I will make this statement in this House this

morning, and I will put my reputation as a politician up on that statement that

the future of Newfoundland and Labrador's economy is headed for a total

collapse. There is nothing in this world that is going to stop it now. It is too

late for crying now, and it is too late to do anything about it, and we are all

wimps. Provincially and federally, and the union men, the fishermen, the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal politicians of Canada, we are

wimps. We are letting every other country in the world destroy the very

existence of what this Province has lived and stood for for the last 500 years.

And you cannot collect taxes from people who are not earning

any income, and the real basis of what is going to happen this summer in

Newfoundland and Labrador with a population of 230,000 people in the work force,

30 per cent unemployment rate, 75 per cent people involved directly and

indirectly in the fishery will not be earning an income this summer. There is

absolutely no way to catch fish if there is no fish swimming in the water. You

can have all the technology, all the education, all the expertise, and all the

human strength that you can muster together, but you cannot catch if there are

no fish swimming there.

And the NAFO meetings this week in Halifax proved the

European countries have absolutely no interest in conservation in the

environment, in protecting the stocks and doing anything about the serious

situation on the Grand Banks, because, Mr. Chairman, they speak very clearly,

they will rape, rob, steal and deplete the stocks, the complete extinction and

then they will move onto another country, another part of the world and do the

same thing there because there is nobody in this country who has the guts, the

initiative, the drive, the willpower to stand up and say: no more, we are not

going to allow it. It is just like asking a bank robber who is coming in with a

twelve gauge shot gun, puts it front of the tellers face, passes him a note that

says pass over all over your money and the teller looks back and says please

sir, don't rob me. That is exactly what is taking place with Canada versus all

of those countries out there.

But even worse than that, Mr. Chairman, even worse than the

federal government, and even worse than the Prime Minister and the Federal

Minister of Fisheries and all the politicians in Ottawa, the people in

Newfoundland, every man, woman and child in this Province has not yet admitted

that we have a problem, and that is a fact. We have not yet admitted the

seriousness of the crisis facing the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Every man, woman, and child in this Province is guilty of that. We are facing

complete depletion of our stocks out there. It is happening. We have all of our

deep sea boats tied up. We have boats sailing out there every day in the week,

and they are coming back after a five or six day trip with not a codfish, and

nobody gives a damn about what is happening out there.

I had a report sent to me two days ago from Iceland. Listen

to this. Portugal today is trying to unload 540 tons of codfish off of three

ships in Iceland because they cannot sell it anywhere else in the world. The

largest fish that they are trying to sell is seven ounces in weight. Seven

ounces!. Five hundred and forty tons multiplied by 2,000 pounds represents

what?... millions of pounds of junk cod. And they are still catching it on the

Grand Banks of Newfoundland and selling it and trying to offload it in Iceland,

seven ounces, I have the statistics up in my office, sent to me by the people in

Iceland, an actual true report.

We have businesses closing up every day in the Province, we

have the government trying to increase taxes, trying to bring the economy back

to a stable position but it cannot be done, Mr. Chairman, unless the people are

working. If you take 75,000 people out of the work force in this Province, that

is 30,000 directly, 1.5 spin off jobs indirectly, you are talking not another

45,000, you are talking 75,000 jobs employed even at the worst time in the

fishery which was last year, and we are going to lose most of that this year and

nobody is up in arms.

NAFO meetings in Halifax the whole of this week, the news

reporters define it as boring, they came home and there is no big flotilla in

Halifax this week. I did not see the union arranging a big demonstration up

there - ten or twelve Greenpeacers with a pair of false teeth, where were all

the big demonstrators who gathered on the waterfront in St. John's, the 20,000

people? That is where the strength should have been put, Mr. Chairman, where it

could have made some impact.

AN HON. MEMBER: What (inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: Everybody is guilty. I said every man, woman

and child in this Province is the problem we are having, but the first thing,

Mr. Chairman, we are not admitting that the crisis that is facing Newfoundland

is complete extinction of the cod stocks, and I am sick and tired of everybody

pointing fingers at everybody else. The fact is that nobody is realizing it and

everybody has his own little angle to work. The hon. Member for St. John's South

made a good statement one day when he sent out a press release: every member of

this House of Assembly should be on the doorsteps of Ottawa, every single MHA,

representing every rural district and every city, town and urban centre of this

Province, because it matters to everybody, but, Mr. Chairman,nobody is taking

the issue seriously.

If we are, why aren't we fighting? Why don't we copy off the

little country of Iceland, why don't we use some imagination and use some

courage and some guts like the Icelandic people used? A 230,000 population

depending totally on the fishery the same as Newfoundland and Labrador, 5 per

cent unemployment rate compared to almost 30 per cent in this Province.

I had a video I watched last evening which they sent me over

from Iceland, an actual video of the cod war; an actual video of the cod war in

Iceland in 1976, where the Icelandic boats went out and took on the British Navy

and they drove the navy away. They rammed a few boats and they obstructed them

in the fishing out there, the trawlers and it was so embarrassing for the

British Navy that they had to go away, and there are 230,000 people in Iceland

compared to 25 million in Canada. We had the power to send a warship over to

Kuwait but we do not have the power and the guts to send it out on the Grand

Banks to protect what rightfully belongs to Newfoundland and Canada? No, because

of trade relations.

We are selling the souls of Newfoundlanders for the

manufactured goods in Ontario and in British Columbia and in every other part of

Canada, because Newfoundland is so small and we are only Newfs down here, we do

not matter. We are not standing up for ourselves and are allowing it to happen

so we are just as guilty as the people in Ottawa. Mr. Chairman, we do not have

time any more to pussyfoot around. We do not have time if we want this Province

to survive.

You cannot create small businesses if there is no income to

support them, there has to be a basis of income; anybody who has any business

experience knows very well, you can hope, but if no one has any money they are

not going to spend any money. It does not matter where, in Corner Brook, in

Grand Falls, in Gander or in St. John's, everybody depends on the rural

population of this Province to spend their money in those urban areas to keep

the businesses going.

75,000 people in the fishing industry, earning on an average

an income of $300 a week for the 30,000 people directly and $200 a week for the

minimum income combined with UI, works out to $900 million earned income a year.

Now take that $900 million away, out of the economy of this Province, and if

that is not enough to frighten the living daylights out of everybody, what do

you need? What businesses and governments can survive and pay their social

programs and collect taxes if you take $900 million earned income away? You have

nothing left, only brown envelopes coming from Ottawa. The provincial government

is not going to be able to pay anything out because they are not going to get

their taxes in; you can increase 2.5 per cent effective January 1, 1992 income

tax but what is the good increasing taxes if there are no incomes being earned

to pay taxes? It all has to come from a solid base.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, this is what has happened, and

it is important in conclusion that we recognize what happened in Halifax this

week, that we have lost every opportunity to make an impression and some

changes. Mr. Chairman, none of us, me, you, and everybody else included did not

take advantage of the situation. We are giving up to total collapse and we are

going to lose everything that this Province has stood for for so many hundreds

of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a few

moments on the tax bill. I come from a rural area and I certainly know people by

their first names. You can see what people are doing, you can see how hard it is

for people to live and it is certainly not getting any better. When I see some

of the down loading that is being done as far as municipalities are concerned -

municipalities are increasing their taxation rate, their mil rate, in every

respect. There are new assessments being done on their homes and it is all

coming out of that one dollar. There are a lot of people out there who are

hurting.

I know government, if they are to continue with services that

are being rendered now, need money and the only way to get that money is through

taxation. I have no qualms about that but the qualm I do have, Mr. Chairman, is

that I am not sure how much more taxation our people can take. We all talk about

what is happening in Canada and what is happening all over the world and we see

what is called a recession. We all talk about it but if there are that many

people in this recession and there are that many people hurting how much more

taxation can we put on their shoulders? How many more cents of that dollar can

they pay? I am telling you that I take full responsibility for anything I played

a role in. I am not saying that our side was any better than what is over on

that side today but what I am saying is what is morally out there, people are

paying as much as they can afford.

If they pay that few cents to the councils, if they pay it to

the feds, if they pay it to the Province it is all coming out of that dollar and

the dollars are scarce and somewhere down the road we are going to have to take

a look, and not alone as politicians. We are talking about saving money. Perhaps

we are directing our money to the wrong end. The Minister of Health just said

what we did wrong when we were over there. I do not think that I did anything

wrong personally but I was part of a group that perhaps made mistakes, yes. I

agree, but I want to say to the President of Treasury Board that if you want to

save some money I personally do not think there should be fifty-two of us here

costing this Province X number of dollars. I do not think we should be here. I

think fifty-two are too many.

Money should be saved. It is costing this little Province

that does not have the funds thousands and thousands, millions of dollars, I

suppose. If you want to do something constructive look at it, have a committee

formed and not politicians, outside the political arena. Have this looked at,

the number of politicians that represent these 570,000 people compared with

other constituencies. Have a look at it if we want to save some money. If we are

in dire straits then look at all aspects of it. Perhaps fifty-two should be

thirty-six. That is the figure that comes to my mind. Thirty-six would be plenty

here in this House of Assembly. With today's media, with today's technology,

glory be to goodness do you mean to tell me we need fifty-two members sitting in

this House costing this little Province all kinds of money? Then the Minister of

Finance will get up and say, rightly so, that we have to increase taxes. We have

to increase taxes to pay for what? Essentials? Is it essential, to have

fifty-two members in the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, no matter, they are still being paid.

That is something that should be in the Election Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. PARSONS: There should be a committee struck -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I will, and I will speak to it when it comes

up. There should be a committee struck and outside of parliamentarians,

legislators. That because some nitwit may get in power somewhere in the future

and he will want to increase the fifty-two perhaps to sixty. To make it

advantageous for his party to win the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: It never changed since I came here. I would

not be party to it if there were any suggested changes.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Province owes you a great debt.

MR. PARSONS: The Province owes me nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Don't owe me anything. But fifty-two members

are too many. Costing too much money for this little Province. If you want to

save some money, then that is a way that you could save it.

I want to speak now to the Member for Port de Grave. He got

up and vilified all the federals - the federal Minister of Fisheries, the Prime

Minister. Then we asked him how about his own Minister of Fisheries. After all

the vilification, all the finger pointing, he said: I am not pointing my finger

at anyone. What about your own Minister of Fisheries? What is he doing as it

pertains to overfishing? I have asked the Member for Port de Grave on numerous

occasions.

MR. EFFORD: Why in the name of God don't you stand up in

Question Period and ask the minister?

MR. PARSONS: I am not the fisheries critic, and I have

asked him questions about it.

MR. EFFORD: You haven't opened your mouth (Inaudible)!

MR. PARSONS: You haven't got the guts of your

convictions, you're afraid to say anything about your own minister. You're

afraid, you're grandstanding! You're picking on the feds, you're talking about

Iceland! Oranges and apples!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)!

MR. PARSONS: Look here, let me tell the hon. Member for

Port de Grave. Five or six years ago we started NIFA. We went around. Yours

truly was in his own car with a little old microphone, telling people to come to

a meeting in the Goulds. When we told them, we want experts, we want biologists.

We want people who were surprised to be in the know. But we called a meeting up

there and we told them what was going to happen. That is years ago.

MR. EFFORD: You quit!

MR. PARSONS: Where were you then?

MR. EFFORD: I was there at the meeting!

MR. PARSONS: Yes. If you were you weren't very vocal,

because I never knew you were there. We went to Bonavista Bay, we went to

Clarenville, we tried to awaken the people to it. All you could hear then was:

more fishing. You had your own senator, Senator Kirby, come down here and it

cost hundreds of thousand of dollars to do a survey. He recommended 480,000 tons

in 1988. There weren't 480,000 tons out there altogether in 1988!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, why didn't you stand up

(Inaudible)?

MR. PARSONS: We tried it! We tried it in every form. The

hon. Member for St. John's South, you should have better sense, you were

involved in it. You should have better sense than to get up and listen to your

colleague there on your right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) don't know what's happening.

MR. PARSONS: Don't know what's happening? No. You know it

all. Don't know what's happening. We told them then and I am telling you now, we

were our own worst culprits. The only reason why I stood here today and said

that overfishing should be stopped by the foreigners is because there are no

straddling stocks. There are no stocks inside. Because we devastated them! We

did it! We did it ourselves!

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you tell the Member for Grand

Bank that?

MR. PARSONS: I told the Member for Grand Bank that. We

have no ties in this Party. We tell the truth as far as the way we see it, we

stand on our own two feet, we're not like the Member for Port de Grave when he

gets up there, vilifies everyone. He is afraid to say one word against the

Minister of Fisheries. Or the Premier. I told him before and I'll repeat myself

- he doesn't have the guts of his convictions!

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth!

MR. PARSONS: The Member for Grand Bank and I, he will

stand in his place and he will say that I did say to him years ago, and we

disagreed. We disagreed as men should disagree.

MR. EFFORD: You're a quitter!

MR. PARSONS: I never quit, never quit anything in my

life. But I am not a grandstander either. To get up and call everyone down. This

one is doing wrong, the feds are doing wrong, we get out there with the

gunboats.

MR. EFFORD: Gunboats?

MR. PARSONS: That's what you said. You said the navy went

out in Iceland -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. PARSONS: You said they sent a boat to the Gulf -

MR. EFFORD: They never used gunboats!

MR. PARSONS: They sent a boat to the Gulf!

MR. EFFORD: You don't even know what is happening boy,

sit down.

MR. PARSONS: You said they sent a boat to the Gulf War.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: You said it. You said it.

MR. EFFORD: They sent out the Coastguard.

MR. PARSONS: What is that? What is that? What is that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what you said they should do.

MR. PARSONS: You are grandstanding. You are grandstanding

to try to get yourself a position or something in a union.

MR. EFFORD: What a bunch of idiots.

MR. PARSONS: Talking about them, about people and what

they have done over the years. The federal government, what they have done. Get

out with the gun boats. Get out with the gun boats. You only started about eight

months ago. What about when they devastated the Caplin over in Conception Bay.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Imagine. That is what the hon. gentleman

said. Send out the Navy. That is his rationale. That is his level of

intelligence.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That is his level of intelligence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

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

MR. EFFORD: No but he sent them over to Kuwait.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a

point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, you know we don't mind a bit

of banter back and forth when other members are speaking, but it was difficult

when the Member for St. John's East Extern was speaking to know who had the

floor, who was recognized by Your Honour. The Member for Port de Grave spoke. I

don't think too many were shouting him down. I don't know what Hansard is going

to record, Mr. Speaker, if it is the Member for St. John's East Extern or the

Member for Port de Grave. When I am speaking I like a bit of banter, but I at

least want to be heard.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order also the

socialist triplets at the gallery here, if we could perhaps contain them, the

meeting down here from the two socialists and the former socialist. Perhaps if

they would go to their offices and have a proper meeting we would hear

everybody.

Mr. Speaker, this House lends itself to lively debate - now

they are going into the office to have a real meeting - but I think I concur

with the Opposition House Leader that while there is a certain level of banter,

we shouldn't be in shouting matches back and forth. That is better left for

proper debate. So we would ask that while there are barbs and spars across the

floor, perhaps we are losing something in the intelligent debate. I know that

the hon. member has a lot of intelligence, and wanted to debate this issue, but

we have to be prepared to cross swords every now and then, but not to get into a

scrap that loses all intelligence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To that point of order I agree with the hon. Opposition House

Leader and the Minister of Development in that it had reached a level that the

Chair tried to intercept a couple of times, but no one paid attention to the

Chair. I ask hon. members to restrain from shouting across the House. I think we

deserve to have a certain level of decorum in this place.

With regards to the Speaker's gallery, I ask hon. members to

refrain from carrying on meetings in the Speaker's gallery. The Speaker's

gallery in parliamentary tradition has a certain deal of decorum and respect,

and I would ask that visitors and hon. members would take that into

consideration when they are conversing in the Speaker's gallery. If hon. members

want to have meetings, there are offices and places provided for meetings to

take place outside of this chamber.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I want to say I am sorry to the

Member for St. John's South. If I became rambunctious in that lively debate, I

am very sorry. I will certainly ask the concurrence of the House in accepting my

apologies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Apology is accepted.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am not

one bit surprised about what just happened because deep down we all know in this

hon. House what a wonderful gentleman the Member for St. John's East Extern is.

So in the heat of debate, you know, even the hon. the Member for Grand Bank who

is renowned as being a wonderful school teacher gets carried away once in a

while. I am sure he wouldn't want his students to see him sometimes. I know he

would not want them to see him. They would say: Gracious, that is not the school

teacher we had, who talked so much about giving everybody a chance and being

fair and not shouting at other people and all that. They would not believe it

was the same hon. man, of course, but that is what happens obviously in the

House. We all get involved.

I want to respond to something that -

AN HON. MEMBER: He was a better soccer player than he was

a teacher.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, he was. That is true. The Minister of

Energy says that the hon. member was a better soccer player than he was a

teacher. If he was half the teacher that he was a soccer player then he was a

good teacher, because he was a super soccer player.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: The Member for St. John's East Extern got up

and talked about saving money, and why we would not need to address new tax

legislation. Well I do not know. He obviously speaks honestly from where he

sits, and his opinion is his opinion; but for me as a full-time MHA, and when I

say full-time I mean just that - full-time. This job, in my experience,

representing the constituents in my district, is at least seventy hours a week -

minimum. Now maybe -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well for the first time in my life I am being

conservative. So I say to you, I do not know what the hon. member does, but I

receive anywhere from forty to forty-five phone calls a day, correspondence,

trying to do district needs in social service work and housing requirements.

Everybody knows the job situation in the Province, and people are so frustrated

that they turn to their MHA's. So perhaps the hon. member, when he talks about

reducing the members in the House, I suppose you could do it, but then you would

have to hire staff, or get somebody to give members the assistance that is

required to answer constituency needs. I notice the Opposition House Leader

nodding, and I know what he is saying. He knows only too well. He has burned the

midnight oil trying to represent his district, and it is very difficult.

Now a few words about the economy as it relates to the

fishery. You know, what we saw here this morning when we saw the outburst is one

of the real problems associated with the fishing industry in this Province. A

house divided soon falls. We see hon. members protecting the inshore because

they have an interest, for whatever reason. We see hon. members protecting the

offshore, for whatever reason, because they have a reason; and we never seem to

be able to get our offshore industry and our inshore industry together to

collectively fight the foreign overfishing. If we do not do that, how in

heaven's name can we expect to tell the world our quandary and our problem when

we cannot agree among ourselves? One thing at a time when it comes to the

fishery, and the number one issue right now is to get the foreigners off our

grounds. We have to do that. If we do not, I do not know that we will not

totally lose the fishery as it is.

The hon. Members for Burin and Grand Bank the other day asked

the Premier questions about a moratorium. What is going to happen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: That is right. What is going to happen is, we

are going to have a moratorium and it is not going to be a formal moratorium. It

is going to be a moratorium because there is not going to be a fish out there.

So we have to stop this bickering among ourselves in the

House of Assembly and perhaps - just perhaps - we need to show Ottawa a little

more courage and strength. I said to the hon. Member for Grand Bank before, that

maybe this whole House needs to go up on the steps of Ottawa. Every single

member in the House needs to go up and put on a contained demonstration showing

the problems of the fishery to the rest of this country. Somebody might argue

that was a waste of time and money. Well, if you do not speculate, and you do

not take the chance that your efforts are going to be recognized, then what is

going to happen if you sit back with complacency is that you are going to lose

it all.

Mr. Chairman, I never had an opportunity but yesterday

afternoon the Member for Humber East got up and we were talking about taxes and

the need for taxes. Now, that has been discussed this morning and we saw the

heated dialogue during Question Period. I heard the hon. Member for Humber East

singing the praises and the accolades of the previous Premier. She said that

Premier Peckford was a man of the people. The hon. Member for Humber East said

Premier Peckford was a man of the people. Now, I want to remind the hon. member,

and she will no doubt recall, and I had to look, in June of 1989 the House of

Assembly had not sat for over eighteen months. Now this is a Premier of the

people. The House had not sat for eighteen months, no Throne Speech, no Budget,

eighteen months with no public review of government expenditures, not a whiff.

They kept the House closed so nobody could get a chance to have a look at what

they were doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, it is true, and that is obvious. They

were feeling their grip of power sliding away. It was sliding away on them and

they could sense it so they shut her down. Shut her down Brian. Keep her shut.

This is the great man of the people. The Member for Humber East said yesterday

he was a man of the people. The Premier of today is not a man of the people but

the previous Premier was a man of the people. It was sliding away and they knew

it, so what did they do? They did everything behind closed doors, Mr. Chairman,

and to pay for everyday expenditures what were they doing? They were using

Lieutenant Governor warrants for a year and a half and we wonder why the debt

load and why the hon. the Minister of Finance has this horrendous burden. I do

not know how the hon. minister can get up from his place and walk. The yoke of

the responsibility must keep him in his seat. The hon. Member for Humber East

worked for this man of the people, this man of the people and these $57,000

weekends.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MURPHY: Oh, yes, these $57,000 weekends. That is

right. Was it Boston? Limousines. Let her go. The man of the people - private

dining rooms - now, we have been through this before. A house paid for by the

government. Now, you hear the hon. Member for Green Bay talking about the

present Premier using $20,000 a year to do what needs to be done and here is a

private house sitting on the hill costing the taxpayers of this Province an

untold fortune. Then the Member for St. John's East Extern gets up this morning

and talks about how to save money. Well, he was here then I remind him. He was

in the House. He was a sitting member and if he wanted to be so forthright then

what he should have done was jumped in the caucus room and said: off Mount Scio

Place, Mr. Peckford. Get out of there because this is not good for the people.

The hon. member stood in his place this morning and he wants to cut her down to

thirty-six members, and maybe he is right, so then we hire another fifty staff

to do the work that needs to be done for our constituents so then we are not

saving any money. It is ludicrous, it is stupid and it is silly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member used an unparliamentary word.

MR. MURPHY: I used what, stupid?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This Chair has always ruled that-

MR. MURPHY: I am very sorry about that, Mr. Chairman, and

I withdraw the word stupid. I certainly withdraw it. Perhaps lack of knowledge.

I did not say the hon. member was stupid, Mr. Chairman, I said his thought was

stupid, not the member. The member is anything but stupid. He is a good member

and I have nothing for respect for him as I said in my opening remarks.

The Member for Humber East was talking about the previous man

of the people. Now, the man of the people had a full-time bodyguard, Mr.

Chairman. The Member for St. John's East was up this morning, the great crusader

for the unfortunate Newfoundlanders who are forced on public welfare right now.

The bodyguard that the man of the people, Premier Peckford, had, cost enough to

look after at least a dozen people on social assistance. Now, this is the man of

the people. We are talking about the money, and what happened. So, when the hon.

member, with his double standard attitude, gets up and talks about defending

social assistance recipients in this Province, and says the money they get is

not sufficient - we all know, there is not one member in this House, who

doesn't, every single working day, have to go somewhere and try to do something

for somebody on social assistance. Every single day they are after the member,

after one of the staff people and you are doing everything you can because you

know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to rise and have a few words on what we are

supposed to be debating, Bill 14, the amendments to The Income Tax Act. It is a

very wide-ranging debate, talking about the economy and the fishery and other

things, members benefits.

It has been interesting, really, to listen to members, and I

think one thing that is healthy about it, is that there is obviously a

difference of opinion when it comes to number of members who should be in the

House of Assembly, benefits and other things. I have to concur with a few

comments made by the Member for St. John's South, maybe there could be a

reduction in the number of members in the Legislature, but if you look at the

situation -

I can only speak from my own experience, that if there were

only one member for the Burin Peninsula, you would certainly need a significant

support staff in order to carry it off, and having been at this now for ten

years, I can tell you that it has been ten busy years, with the telephone

enquiries and asking for representation that comes to the House, functions in

the district, and everything else, there is, no doubt, an impression and a

perception that we get paid lots of money and do very little. But I, for one,

could say, Mr. Chairman, that I don't feel one bit bad about what I am paid as a

Member of the House of Assembly. I feel quite justified in accepting what I get.

I have to maintain two residences, one in Fortune, I have

always maintained my home there and I have to operate a place in St. John's

where I stay when I am here attending the House and doing other business on

behalf of my constituents, so I don't feel one bit guilty about what I receive

from the taxpayers of this Province. As I said publicly some time ago, when one

of the news media was doing a story on it, everyone in the Province knows what I

am receiving as a member of this House of Assembly, it is published two or three

times a year across the television screen and if there is anyone out there who

thinks that he should run against me and defeat me and come to the Legislature

and reduce the benefits, he is free to do so; If they think my job is so

attractive and the pay is so attractive, the opportunity is there, the

democratic right for them to put their name on a ballot and run and try to get

the position that I now hold, so I do not feel one bit bad about that.

Having said that, if you look at the full Province, maybe

there could be a few less seats, maybe there could be arrangements made whereby

some areas the Province - sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, maybe some rearrangements could be

made to reduce the number of seats, but looking at my own area of the Province,

I say we could not get by with any less than two seats or two members. The

member made a good point with support staff. You only have to think what

happened when this government came to power, when the Premier reduced the size

of the Cabinet, I say to members opposite, and maybe he was right in doing that;

maybe the Cabinet was too large, I have to say yes, it was too large and a

reduction was necessary. Whether the degree of reduction should have been as

exaggerated as it was, is another question, because what did the Premier do when

he eliminated the four, I think it was four Cabinet positions? There were

nineteen when he came to power, it is now I believe, himself plus fourteen or

fifteen, so he eliminated, let us say, four ministers.

What cost was associated with those four ministers, Mr.

Chairman? $1 million a year maximum, but what did we see? We saw the

establishment, the appointment of the Economic Recovery Commission. How much

money has that cost the taxpayers of this Province in the last three years, I

ask the Member for St. John's South? - several millions of dollars. They have a

Department of Development, which they still have, a Department of Fisheries,

which they still have, a Department of Finance, which they still have, and then

they appointed this Economic Recovery Commission. Millions and millions of

dollars, this has cost the taxpayers of this Province.

The Member for St. John's South is right. That if we reduce

the members in this house to thirty-five or thirty-six, there will have to be

support staff hired to assist those members, so, financially, we may end up

worse off, I say to the Member for St. John's South and to other members.

Now, the Member for St. John's East, this morning, brought up

the issue of single able-bodied persons and what they are receiving. We all deal

with it. That is serious. They are not getting enough, we all understand it.

There are some people out there who are not getting anything. You run into them.

Their parents are expected to keep them, they can't get any assistance, a very

serious problem out and about. The member is right, and he made reference, too,

he is worried about those out and about our society who are becoming suicidal

because of it. It is true. Out in society today there are some very serious

problems. There are tremendous financial pressures. It is all part of the whole

system, the whole process of the worldwide recession and what is happening in

North America, what is happening in Canada, what is happening in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

It was only a couple of nights ago that we had a young

gentleman jump into St. John's Harbour. Now, what it was related to, we don't

know. But the incidence of that is increasing, I say to members opposite. It is

increasing, and it is because of the social problems that are out and about the

Province. The Member for Burin - Placentia West a few days ago said it is only

the tip of the iceberg, and that we are sitting on a time bomb, and we are. All

of us who are dealing with it on a daily basis must recognise that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we talked about other things this morning.

The Member for St. John's South brought up Premier Peckford and limousines and

cigars, and on and on it went.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am going to talk about this now, I say to

the member. We have a premier right now who makes over $100,000, gets a car

allowance, $20,000 a year to supposedly run his home, enough to keep fifteen of

those single able-bodied persons on that $128 a month for at least a year, I say

to the Member for St. John's South. But what do we know on top of that? What

happens on top of that? First of all, we are led to believe that that allowance

was given to the Premier so he could entertain at his home with delegations and

so on coming to the - what do we find out is happening now? That those people

are entertained around the hotels and restaurants of the city and those bills

are then sent to the various departments of government, Mr. Chairman. So it is

not $20,000, we are probably talking about $65,000 or $75,000, I say to the

Member for St. John's South. So you have to be careful when you start comparing.

Put all the facts on the table, I say to him.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we are here to talk about this Income Tax

Act, where the income tax of the people of this Province was increased by 2.5

per cent as of January 1, 1992, and it is going to increase a further 1.5 per

cent as of January 1, 1993, an increase of 4 per cent in personal income taxes.

That is what the minister announced in his last Budget. Now, already it has been

increased since this minister took office by 2 per cent before this, so personal

income taxes in this Province have increased by 6 per cent since this Minister

became Minister of Finance.

Now, if we could see the financial situation of the Province

improving, I suppose we could support it. If we could see the financial

initiatives that have been taken and the financial direction of this government,

that it was improving the bottom line of the Province, if it was improving the

services to the people of the Province, we would probably support it. But what

has happened in the time since they have come to power? There have been more tax

increases than ever seen before in our history for the same length or period of

time, any three or four-year period. The tax increase, there is no question, you

cannot compare it. It has never been as great as it has been under this

administration.

So, for those who argue that we are probably at the point of

diminishing returns in taxes, they are probably correct, that now, the tax

measures that the minister brings in are regressive, they are counterproductive.

Our economy is shrinking as a result of these tax increases. So why doesn't the

minister consider changing his approach to the way he is trying to run the

financial situation in this Province, Mr. Chairman?

But they do not want to listen to that. They want to keep

going on the same course, taxing the people to death. The payroll tax -

they announced that they were doing away with all those

licenses and fees. What do we find out? Most of them don't come into effect

until 1993. People who run bars, and so on, in the Province knew what the

announcement meant to them when they went to renew. They had to pay two years up

front, I believe someone told me.

So that is what this Minister of Finance has done. To

increase personal income taxes in this Province by another 4 per cent in this

last Budget, is pretty staggering stuff. People just can't take it any more.

They are not benefitting. At the same time as the government is doing this -

increasing taxes so significantly - they are cutting services. I have had people

say to me out and about the Province: 'What, in the name of God, do they do with

the money?' They have increased taxes, they are spending less, they are getting

a few extra dollars from the federal government each year, so where does the

money go? That is the real question that is being asked around the Province:

'What are they doing with the money?' But they don't answer that, Mr. Chairman,

they try to avoid it.

Now, a few fisheries remarks that were made across the floor

today - there is no question that the Member for St. John's East Extern was

right about the Member for Port de Grave, he is a grandstander. He does point a

lot of fingers and cast blame. He casts blame on the federal Minister of

Fisheries and on the Prime Minister and on the union. He attacks different

groups as he goes about his bit and piece. He does do that. We went to a meeting

with him at the Holiday Inn a few months ago when the Icelandic people were

here, and he was talking about all of us having to work together. Everyone said:

"Yes, we have, John, we should all work together." We woke up the next morning,

and what did we hear? As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: - at that meeting there was a committee

struck to get together to evaluate the situation to see what we should do about

this very serious issue of foreign overfishing, to bring attention to it, to try

to get it stopped. We scheduled a meeting.

We woke up the next morning and what did we hear? - that the

Member for Port de Grave was up to the Marine Institute and was going to march

them down to the White Hills and have a big demonstration. He was attacking

everyone again the next morning up at the Marine Institute, attacking half the

people who were at the meeting the night before. So much for co-operation and

going in the one direction, Mr. Chairman. So that is the kind of person we are

dealing with with the Member for Port de Grave. I don't have to tell members

opposite, because they know better than any of us what kind of an individual

they are dealing with with the Member for Port de Grave.

The Member for St. John's East Extern was right. Behind

closed doors he will tell you how disappointed he is with the Minister of

Fisheries and the Premier in the approach they have taken to the fishery. But he

will never find it within himself, publicly or in this House of Assembly, to

question their actions or question their lack of action with regard to the

fishery.

He was over there grinding his teeth this morning when the

minister gave his ministerial statement - grinding his teeth behind the back of

the minister, only wishing he could react to the Ministerial Statement, how he

was going to tear shreds off the minister. But he wouldn't say a word. There are

names for people like that. You can't say them in this House. But, at least, you

have to be up front and honest with others and yourself. Either the Minister of

Fisheries and the Premier are doing a good job with this fisheries issue, or

they are not. They can't be doing both.

I have to say that they are not doing a good job with this

issue. They are trying to confuse the people on the issue. One day they knock

diplomatic efforts, the next week they are involved in diplomatic efforts

themselves. The minister today stands up and says that they support diplomatic

efforts. I wouldn't be surprised now Tuesday you will hear him say: Diplomatic

efforts are no good, we have to get away from that. So that is what we are

up against, that kind of thing here. But there is one thing I

must say, Mr. Chairman, blame the fisheries problem on the feds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, blame it on the feds. Blaming it on

the feds they are going back a long way, Mr. Speaker, when they used to give

away our fish, Romeo LeBlanc and Pierre De Ban and all of them. Tons and tons.

You would pick up the paper and read that they had given it away to this country

and that country. It goes back a long way, Mr. Chairman. It goes back a long

way. It goes back a long way like the debt of this Province goes back a long

way. It didn't start in 1984, 1982 or 1979, and we should all be men and women

enough in this Legislature to recognize that.

The fisheries' problems have been coming for years and years,

and now it has come to the breaking point. But still the Member for Port de

Grave will get up and talk as if it only happened within the last four or five

years. That was when the trouble started. There was no trouble before. Never

cast any reflection on his Mr. De Ban, his Mr. LeBlanc. Senator Michael Kirby,

they had nothing to do with it, or Pierre Trudeau. Never opened his mouth about

it. All that in the last four or five years.

I have told him before and I have told members here that when

I was a boy growing up in the Town of Grand Bank there was enough foreign boats

out on the Grand Banks that it was like a city. You could almost jump from one

to the other, I say to the Member for Port de Grave. That is how long ago it all

started, but like anything else it didn't reach the crisis point until now. We

all have to take the blame for it, and someone has to straighten it out. It just

so happens now that Mr. Mulroney and his government is the government of the day

in Ottawa, and the responsibility to correct it rests with them.

But, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the fishery failure in

this Province, there are a lot of social problems connected with it. It is going

to get increasingly worse, and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador has a responsibility to the people of this Province to put plans in

place to get them through the crisis, I say to the Member for Port de Grave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes I am absolutely - Let him tell his

minister of fisheries and his Premier then. Absolutely right because if the

Premier and the Minister of Fisheries and other ministers opposite keep going

the way they are going, we might as well not only reduce the number of members

in this House, we might as well close it up and throw everything over to the

Government of Ottawa and let them run the Province. Throw it over because I

haven't heard anything in the last three years I have been here where this

provincial government is responsible for anything in this Province. You are not

responsible for anything. So if you are not responsible for anything, shut the

doors, save the money, and let Ottawa run the Province. You have a

responsibility to the people of this Province. You have a responsibility I say

to the Member for Port de Grave and to others over there.

Everything that comes up, it is not our responsibility, it is

not our responsibility. What is your responsibility, I say to members opposite?

Would someone one of these days be so kind as to tell us and inform us what is

this administration's responsibility to the people of this Province? The

President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader, yes he can get up

whenever he feels like it. You are responsible for more than freezing their

wages and shutting down their hospital beds, and closing down their schools, and

reducing the number of school boards, and reducing the number of health care

boards, and amalgamating communities. You are responsible for more than that.

You are responsible to help them stay alive, Mr. Speaker. Help them stay alive

through this crisis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: You have established commission of

government I say to the Minister of Finance. There are more commissions and

boards running this Province than there were during commission of government.

You have turned the reins of governing over to someone else, that is what you

have done. Tax them to death and let someone else run it. Tax the people to

death. That is what you have been responsible for, I say to the Minister of

Finance, taxing the people of this Province to death and then turning the reins

of government over to some nonelected board or commission. That is what you have

done, and the consequences now are coming home to roost, I say to members

opposite, they are coming home to roost, and we are going to see it before too

long.

The Member for Port de Grave is right about what is going to

happen out and about this Province. I have heard him say it for a number of

months. It is getting pretty serious out there. All you have to do is look, Mr.

Chairman, at what has happened to some of the communities in this Province over

the last few weeks. It never happened before. People rioting, doing damage,

burning other peoples sheds and boats, turning over their cars. When ever did we

see that in this Province before?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not inciting it. I am telling the

Minister of Finance if he doesn't already know that is what is happening in this

Province today, and he has to take some of the responsibility for it, I say to

him. It is like the Member for St. John's East said this morning, Mr. Chairman.

He said he was concerned not only about the amount of money they have to survive

on, but many of them are becoming suicidal, and he is right. He is right because

financial pressures and other pressures, there is nothing else, Mr. Speaker,

like it that affects the human being, and that is just how bad it is out in this

Province today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Than