April 29,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 38

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, this is my first report since

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation was officially opened on

January 1, of this year.

This initial report covers the two-month period of January

and February, 59 days; however, I intend to, in the future to report on the

activities of Enterprise Corporation to the House on a monthly basis, and when

the House is not in sessions, through the media and to the people of the

Province.

Through our five regional offices and seventeen field

offices, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador has provided a one-stop centre for

business information, assistance and support to all segments of the economic

development community of our Province.

The business support services which the corporation brings to

the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador include: a business resource

library, specialists in various fields, marketing and engineering assistance, as

well as financial assistance in the form of loans.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, this Government signed the

utilize the most up-to-date computer telecommunications facilities to link all

of these offices.

This Electronic Highway, called the ACOA/Enterprise Network,

will enable users to hook into databases and retrieve information on business

opportunities or to quickly get information on any type of business through the

Corporation's business resource centre. These databases will now be available to

all of rural and isolated communities throughout our Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have begun the job of economic renewal; we

are assisting the start up of new businesses, we are assisting in the

stabilization and expansion of existing businesses and we are providing business

capital to lever private sector investments; we are doing this, Mr. Speaker,

despite the recessionary environment in which we find ourselves.

The volume of inquiries coming in to the Enterprise

Corporation, is an indication that our initiatives are stimulating great

interest in the private sector. From January 1 to February 28, of this year, the

Enterprise Corporation responded to 2,128 inquiries pertaining to business

development right across the Province.

In this short time, the fifty-nine days that we have been in

existence, the Avalon Regional Office has received 457 inquiries from

businesses; The Eastern Office, 244 inquiries; The Central Regional Office, 363

inquiries; The Western Office, 656 inquiries and the Labrador Office, 480

inquiries. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that decentralizing our business services

was the right course to follow.

Term loans, equity and interim financing and venture capital

from the Corporation have leveraged ACOA grants, bank loans and private

investment. During this fifty-nine day period, a total of $4.5 million has been

approved to assist sixty-five companies right across the Province.

With the disbursement of these loans over the next two to

three months, we will have helped to create 155 new jobs and maintain 338 jobs

which would have been at risk without our assistance. Mr. Speaker, this

assistance is being provided throughout the Province and the nearly 500 jobs

involved with these loan approvals are located in all regions of the Province.

In the Avalon Region $497,693 has been approved to assist

eleven companies and will create eight new jobs and maintain another seventy

eight. In the Eastern Region $74,300 was approved to assist three companies, it

will create twelve new jobs. In the Central Region $246,277 was approved and

will assist seventeen companies, and will create twenty-seven new jobs and

maintain another twenty-nine. In the Western Region $832,664 has been approved

to assist twenty companies, will create fifty new jobs and maintain an

additional seventy-one. In the Labrador Region $168,000 has been approved, will

assist five companies, creating nine jobs and maintaining a further sixteen.

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporate Office has also approved $2.6

million in loans to nine companies which will create forty-nine new jobs and

maintain 144 others.

Mr. Speaker, these companies are involved in almost every

sector right across the Newfoundland economy. Individual projects have ranged

from engineering and consulting services to improving the production and quality

of fish products from computerized geophysical plotting services for mineral

exploration to the establishment of a quality manufacturing and sewing shop in

Gander. From the provision of capital for a restaurant in Labrador City to a big

game hunting camp for Dashwood's Lake; from construction of a fiberglas boat

building and shop equipment centre in Hatchet Cove to an adventure tourism

package in Gros Morne National Park.

Mr. Speaker, these business ventures that we have assisted

are just a few of the many that I could list. The positive results of the

services provided by Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador are laying a strong

foundation for creating new enterprises, more jobs and a greater confidence and

pride in Newfoundland and Labrador in every region of our Province.

The success of the first two months confirms the wisdom of

our decision to consolidate our many business services and to establish these

regional offices throughout the Province. The entire Province now benefits from

these services, Mr. Speaker, and I am confident that Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador will play a key role in our Province's economic revitalization in the

months and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, we have done very well. I am happy to table this

first of the two month reports. I will table the March report in the next week

or so and I will continue to table updates on what is happening at Enterprise in

the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all let me say to the Minister, thank you, very much

for a copy of your statement outlining the funding that has been spent today in

the name of economic renewal. Let me also say to the Minister that while we have

been critical of the efforts of the Economic Recovery Commission so far, and I

believe justifiably so critical of the Economic Recovery Commission and its

efforts to date to stimulate the economy, let me say to the Minister that if the

Economic Recovery Commission fulfils its mandate, or even creates one job that

would not have otherwise been created by the various funding agencies within

Government, then the Minister can rest assured, and the Government can rest

assured, that they will get appropriate credit for having done so. Now, the

Minister says that Government has begun the process of economic renewal. Well,

let me say to the Minister, the Premier, and to this Government, that we see

very little evidence to date to indicate that the Government has begun the

process of economic renewal.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is just the opposite.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, it is just the opposite as a matter of

fact, when one considers that when this Government took office back two years

ago the unemployment rate in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was 17.5

per cent and now to date it is up to 23.5 per cent with an Economic Recovery

Commission that has been in place, in existence, for a little bit over two

years. We see very little evidence to date, Mr. Speaker, that could indicate

that the Economic Recovery Commission has done anything to stimulate the economy

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We see as well the Minister

stating today that $4.5 million has been disbursed between January and February

and they have assisted sixty-five companies and helped - that is a very

interesting word which was always absent from previous statements - they have

helped to create 155 jobs. I am glad that the Minister has said 'helped' because

we are hearing that the Federal Government and ACOA are a little bit ticked off

with the Minister and the Government in that they have conveniently failed to

mention the other funding agencies that have assisted the Economic Recovery

Commission in creating some of these jobs. I do not mean to intentionally

minimize any efforts of the Economic Recovery Commission but again let me say

that there is absolutely no evidence in this statement either that would

indicate that the Economic Recovery Commission is in any way starting to fulfil

its mandate or that they have created jobs that would not have otherwise been

created by the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation, the

development

section of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development or, for that

matter, the Department of Fisheries or other funding agencies of Government. We

see absolutely no evidence to indicate that these jobs would not have been

created by these funding agencies if the Economic Recovery Commission were not

there. The Minister will have to forgive me for being a little bit sceptical,

but the Premier stated a few weeks ago that the Economic Recovery Commission had

created 1,565 new jobs that would not have been created by any other agency of

Government and, when we examine the facts, Mr. Speaker, we find that ACOA had,

indeed, been one of the major funding agencies involved with the Economic

Recovery Commission.

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is not what you said. You said you did it

all.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier had told us that the

Economic Recovery Commission was totally, completely responsible for the

creation of these jobs.

MR. SIMMS: Exactly, that is what you said.

MR. DOYLE: When we examined the figures, Mr. Speaker, we

find that the Economic Recovery Commission, while they had some involvement,

were trying to take full claim and full credit for the jobs that have been

created.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

Are there further Statements by Ministers?

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement today. My

apologies to my critic, who I do not believe got a copy ahead of time, or if he

did, it was rather late. My apologies for that.

I would like to comment today on the unfortunate comments

regarding the circumstances surrounding my attendance yesterday at a wreath

laying ceremony on the day of observance for workers killed, injured or disabled

on the job. I hope it did not take away, at all, from the importance of this

occasion. However, my invitation clearly read 2:30, and it is very disturbing

that some individuals would choose, Mr. Speaker, to play politics on such a sad

and important occasion.

I will be tabling, with my Statement today, the letter to the

Premier, received by his office, asking him or his designate to attend at 2:30

on Sunday.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight for

this hon. House that yesterday, April 28th, I attended and laid a wreath, on

behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, at the Ocean Ranger

Memorial, honouring a Day of Observance for workers who have died, been injured

or disabled on the job. As well, an Assistant Deputy Minister of my Department

laid a wreath on behalf of the Occupational Health and Safety Branch.

The Canadian Labour Congress has observed April 28th for the

past several years as a day to draw attention to the sacrifice which many of our

workers have had to pay in order to earn a living for themselves and their

families.

As Minister with responsibility for occupational health and

safety, I am very conscious that effective occupational health and safety

standards, as well as enforcement, is essential in ensuring that every worker is

afforded an opportunity to work in a safe, hazard free environment. It is very

important to understand that the pain and suffering is not only limited to the

employee, rather, it is also extended to their families, co-workers and friends.

My Department is committed to taking proactive approaches

with respect to occupational health and safety prevention in the workplace. We

are committed, in this proactive approach, to deal with the prevention of

accidents in the workplace rather than being involved after the deed is done. In

order to ensure our success, it means that my Department has to and will work

along with those employees and employers in the workforce. Only when this

approach is adopted and accepted by all three involved will we be able to

greatly reduce accidents in the workplace.

We are looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to a very successful

year in collectively dealing with these issues.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not get a copy of the Minister's Statement until just

now, so it is difficult to respond in any detail to what the Minister had to

say. I am very pleased that the Minister laid a wreath on behalf of the

Government over the weekend to mark this very, very sad event which happened

many years ago and, of course, I understand that my colleague the Member for St.

John's East Extern laid one on behalf of the Opposition.

Let me say to the Minister that I agree that Health and

Safety Week generally draws attention to the importance of health and safety in

the Province and in the workplace. I do not believe there is any

section in the

Minister's Department that is more important than the health and safety sector

of her Department. However, I am a little bit disturbed, I have to say to the

Minister, quite frankly, by some of the comments I have seen in the paper over

the weekend by one Martin Saunders, a staff representative of the Canadian

Labour Congress who makes the point that essentially the Provincial safety

inspectors fear getting fired if they say too many negative things about

companies or what have you. And I think that is a very, very frightening

statement for anyone to make, and I would hope that the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations will take it upon herself to investigate that particular

complaint that the Canadian Labour Congress has made. I understand these

statements were made at a hearing of the Workers' Compensation Commission.

I would also say to the Minister that she has within her

Department some of the best, if not the best legislation in all of Canada, in

the health and safety area. She has the best legislation in all of Canada. But I

believe the Canadian Labour Congress are making the point that the legislation

is no good if it is not enforced or if the Minister's Department does not get on

the ball and give some teeth to her health and safety inspectors, because if

that statement is true: that there is a problem within the Department of the

safety inspectors in not being able to do their job properly because they fear

the Government, then the Minister has a very, very serious situation on her

hands. I believe the point was made as well at that conference, at that hearing,

that it might be a good idea for the Minister to put in place a yearly

conference to be held each year to discuss matters related to health and safety.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have not had a chance to look over the Minister's

statement but will probably be responding in more detail later.

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

MR. HARRIS: I wonder if I could have the unanimous

consent of the House to respond briefly to the statement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No.

Oral Questions

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Energy. I want to say to the Minister that just recently he was quoted in the

Evening Telegram as having said to the Telegram editorial board, I believe it

was, that in order to see power from the Lower Churchill by the end of the

decade, and this is the Minister's quote: that we need to start construction

around 1994 or 1995 and that can be done if we reach agreement in principle in

1991. Now, I want to first of all ask the Minister whether or not that is a

correct statement and whether or not that statement is still accurate today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have not been talking to the editorial board

of the Evening Telegram. I have read the editorial that was in the weekend

edition as well and it did show some confusion and lack of understanding and

knowledge of the situation. In order to have first power by the year 2000 we

need about a five to six year construction period on the Gull Island Project

which would be the one that would go first and get first power, so you would

need to start construction about 1995 to get that first power by the year 2000.

Muskrat Falls is the second part of that project and it would be phased to

conclude about three years later. There are some other smaller components that

could be added on later so you are looking at a total construction period of

about eight years, maybe ten years, depending on the smaller components to come

later. With construction required by 1995 you will get first power

sometime in the year 2000.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been, I

think, forthcoming in his answer and has confirmed, that, in order to have first

power by the year 2000, construction must get underway in 1994/1995, but the

other part of the question was this: The Telegram is alleging that the Minister

said to the Telegram, either to the editorial board or in an interview, I do not

know, the Minister can comment on that, but the Minister is alleged to have said

that, for that to happen, construction must begin in 1994/1995, but, in order

for that to happen, we must have an agreement in principle in 1991, is that

still the case?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is true, because we

would need about a three-year period, three to four-year period, but

particularly a three-year period to complete the environmental assessment

process that is required for this project; it would have to be done Federally

and Provincially and probably jointly, as was done in the past and also the

detailed engineering work that would have to be done.

As I would see it now, if we could be fortunate enough, and I

can never be sure that we would be, to get an agreement in principle this year,

and for everything else to fall in place, then, we could start the detailed

engineering work and the detailed environmental work and have it completed in

time for first contracts to be called by the end of 1994 for first construction

in 1995, but that is what is required in the period between now and then.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the

Minister. The Minister has confirmed now that in order to have construction

started in 1994 and 1995, there would have to be an agreement in principle in

1991. Now, let me ask the Minister this, Mr. Speaker:

The Minister is aware, no doubt, having read the

article to

which I am referring, that the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, is

quoting Quebec Hydro as saying that they have no interest in allowing or

participating in any start up construction on the Lower Churchill until after

the completion of the Great Whale Project in Quebec, which is not scheduled to

be completed until 1998.

Now therefore, the question obviously to the Minister

is, how does the Minister square that statement from Quebec Hydro with the

statement that he has now confirmed to this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member, Mr.

Speaker, is not quite straight on the facts of what is in that article. Really,

they are not saying first construction of the Churchill, they are saying power

from the Churchill would come after power from the Great Whale.

The Great Whale would have to be under construction now with

first power by 1998 and, the Lower Churchill would have to be under construction

by about 1995 to have first power by around the year 2000 and, the third major

project that was talked about was the NBR Project in James Bay, which would have

first power, I believe by 2005 or thereabouts.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon.

Minister of Mines and Energy could bring the House up to date, very briefly, on

the status of the negotiations with Quebec.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations are

continuing; there have been twenty meetings to date and there is another one

scheduled for the near future and every time there is a meeting, meetings get

tacked on to the end, and I cannot suppose what might happen in the next one,

but there is another meeting scheduled that has not yet been held.

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

MR. HEWLETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if

the Minister would indicate if the meetings recently or the ones to come, are at

the Ministerial or First Ministerial level?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the meetings are between the

negotiating teams and are not at the political level. It is the negotiating team

for Newfoundland and a negotiating team for Quebec.

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

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Is the Minister concerned, that given the

fall out from the Constitutional crisis in this nation, and the role played by

the First Minister of this Province, that there might not be real negotiations

underway, that there is a pall over these negotiations, once it is necessary to

get to the political level?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: From day one, Mr. Speaker, these discussions

have been based on a commercial basis for the power and will continue to be

based on a commercial basis for the power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, in the hydro registration

document under The Environment Act it is stated that Federal funding is required

for this particular project. Could the Minister indicate if a proposal has been

made to the Federal Government in this regard, and what sort of response he has

gotten from the Feds?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go into the

details of the financing aspect in our consultation with the Federal Government

at this time. I do not think it is appropriate to discuss that at this time. But

I will keep the House informed as we do proceed on the matter.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

Minister a further supplementary on the same subject. The Minister just left I

think the impression with the House, as a result of my questions, that it was

first power that he was talking about. But let me quote from Hydro Quebec for

the Minister: Hydro Quebec had scheduled a project - that is the Lower Churchill

project - to commence after the completion of the Great Whale Development, which

is 1998. Now how does the Minister square that with what appears to be the

official position of the Province - it says commence after?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of those particular

words, but I think right there you have to read the word 'commence' in terms of

when power would be available, not when construction would start. And it would

be phased based on when the power would be needed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Can the Minister tell this

House what plans he has to ensure that the Province's needs for electricity are

to be met, in particular if the Lower Churchill is delayed for another four

years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, for the near term Hydro is

presently assessing the decision it will have to make for what we need for this

Province between now and the year 2000. At this time our options are quite

limited. We have three small sites in the Bay d'Espoir watershed, two of which

have gone partly through the environmental process and nearing completion, and

one which has not yet gone through the process. We have a number of other sites

around the Province for relatively small hydro but there are no major hydro

sites left on the Island of Newfoundland. The other option on the Island at this

time that Hydro is considering is Unit No. 4 at Holyrood.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister confirm

that without access to Labrador power, electricity rates in this Province will

exceed the Canadian average by 35 per cent to 40 per cent by the year 2000?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: I cannot confirm those numbers, Mr. Speaker.

I am not really familiar with those numbers. But if we do not have access to a

significant source of power beyond the year 2000 I do not really know at this

time what our options are going to be, because the small hydro that is left and

the other options for us are more thermo generation like Holyrood, and to

consider other possibilities. But I do not really know at this time what the

rate options may be.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to

note to the Minister that those numbers are quoted in a registration for

environmental assessment by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. So those numbers

are what Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are giving out.

Mr. Speaker, when will there have to be a commitment made to

put another oil generator at Holyrood in order to keep up with the needs, if we

do not access power to Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, based on our present usage and

our present load growth in electricity for the Island, we are okay until about

1995-96. Hydro must make a decision this year, 1991, to have extra power

available at that time, 1995-96. So sometime this year it will decide whether

that is going to be Holyrood No. 4 or some of the small hydros that I mentioned.

The assessment is being done now. These particular items would keep us going

maybe to the year 2000, and by that time our load growth would have caught up

with us again and we would have to be, within the next four years, looking at

other options by 1995 - 1996, certainly seriously looking at other options for

beyond the year 2000.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a final

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder would

the Minister confirm or would he let this House know and the people of the

Province know if he has given recent consideration to nuclear generation over

the last while, in case Churchill Falls is not on stream in time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. I

have given no consideration at all to nuclear generation and personally would

hope that I would never, ever have to.

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

MS. VERGE: Humber East, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Humber East, I am sorry.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

I have a question for the Premier. Does the Premier approve

of the comment of his Treasury Board President, quoted in The Sunday Express, to

the effect that if the public service union's legal challenge to Bill 16, the

Government's rollback legislation, is successful and the legislation is struck

down, the Government absolutely will lay off a massive number of public

employees?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know precisely what the President

of Treasury Board said on that occasion. I saw what was attributed to him in the

media. I can only say that if that were to occur - and frankly, I cannot foresee

it occurring because I do not think there is any legal basis for the challenge -

but they are perfectly at liberty, of course, to pursue it if they wish, and I

am not concerned about it because I do not expect it to occur, but it is

remotely possible. Should that eventuality occur, we would have to consider

bringing in a mini-budget, and that budget would decide what course we would

follow in terms of providing for the financing of the Province. If there were

something wrong, legally, with anything we did and we had to correct it, we

would have to find the means of doing it; and the means of doing it would be

one, or two or three possibilities; raising more taxes, trying to borrow more

money if we could, laying off more people if we had to, or find some other

course that might be available. I do not know; that is a decision the Government

would have to take at the time.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest that the Premier check on the accuracy of The

Sunday Express story and when he finds that The Sunday Express quoted the

President of Treasury Board accurately, to the effect that should the court

strike down Bill 16, the Government absolutely will lay off a massive number of

public employees, that the Premier instruct his President of Treasury Board to

retract those statements.

I would like to ask the Premier whether, in his opinion, as a

lawyer, such threats by a senior Government Minister constitute improper

interference in legal proceedings?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Your Honour will forgive me if I do not

answer all the questions, I have forgotten some of them. To try to reconstruct

the comments the hon. Member made, I can only say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if

we were faced with the problem at the time we were preparing the last Budget, or

right now, knowing what we know now in terms of the financial markets, the

economic situation in the country, not alone in the Province, and the Province's

overall situation, if we were faced with it right now, frankly, I do not believe

we would have any alternative but to lay off more people. I believe that is the

only practical alternative that would be available to us. That is the best

judgement I can give the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am hesitant to even give this credibility,

because I say to the House, I do not think there is a snowball's chance in you

know what, that it could happen. I do not believe that it can be upset legally,

because the approach has been taken by other governments in a variety of other

places. So I am hesitant to be discussing this for fear of giving the

proposition credibility when it really has none and should not have any.

However, whatever occurs, if anything occurs at any time, we will have to deal

with it in the light of the circumstances, including the financial circumstances

that are prevailing at the time it occurs, if, as and when it might occur, if it

does occur.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is not the Premier and is not the President of Treasury Board

showing contempt for the law and the Constitution by making statements such as

the Premier just made and such as the President of Treasury Board made to The

Sunday Express?

MR. DOYLE: Yes, of course he is.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know where the Member is coming

from, `showing contempt for the Constitution'. I say to the member and to the

House, no, I have no contempt for the Constitution. I have nothing but high

regard and respect for the Constitution, as I believe most people in this

Province and this country would readily agree. However, the member either has a

particular

interpretation of the Constitution, to which she is entitled, I am

certainly entitled to hold a contrary view, and if what she is putting forward

is her

interpretation, I think she is dead wrong. There is a remote possiblity

she may be right, but I think it is so remote that it is not worth considering -

but she is entitled to that. Now, the mere fact that I hold a different view as

to how the Constitution would be interpreted by the courts surely heavens does

not mean contempt for the Constitution. Does the hon. Member really know what

she is saying?

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to go to the President of Treasury Board who is at the

centre of this latest controversy, this latest scandal. The weekend press does

quote him, as he knows, as saying: Government is absolutely prepared to begin

large scale lay offs of another 3500 public servants if the court action

challenging Bill 16 is successful. Now, that is what is being quoted in the

press. Now, the Premier has just said he hesitates to comment on it even,

because of giving it some credibility. Can I ask the President of Treasury Board

this question: why then did the Minister comment or make such a statement, and

what purpose is served by making such a provocative statement? Is it not the

truth that once again the Government is trying to intimidate? Is that not the

reason?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I did not go out and make a

statement. I did an interview with a reporter from the Sunday Express who was

asking me some questions on some other issues and finally at the end he asked

the question concerning the number of layoffs, the court challenge, and so on,

and the effect of - if we had to now reverse ourselves. If we were now forced to

reverse ourselves and my answer was quite simple - we cannot manufacture money.

We did not do this because it was a choice. We did this because we felt we had

to do it, that we cannot manufacture money, and that we cannot go out and borrow

more money at this point in time in the market, so the answer is obvious. The

way we have been explaining it in terms of the pay equity, the $24 million

there, and in the case of the other amounts in terms of the pay freeze we have

been talking in terms of $30 million, meaning 1000 job on the average in the

public service, and for every $30 million we are forced to spend then that in

essence means 1000 jobs because that is how we spend our money in providing

service to the people. If we were forced today to come up with another $30

million that would mean lay off of 1000 people. It is as simple as that. That is

the only way I can equate it. That was the discussion and I do not apologize for

any such discussion. I do not know what the economic circumstance is going to be

like two years down the road. If two years down the road there was a resolution

of a court case then who knows what the situation will be, but right now, today,

if we had to come up with that extra money it would mean a cutback in services

in this Province certainly.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: This is precisely the reason for the

questioning because the impression he gave is that clearly - and maybe he can

address this - the impression that was given by that press story and now being

repeated not only in this chamber but in other places this morning, for example,

was that there would be massive lay offs if the court ruled against Bill 16.

Well, everybody knows that this kind of a court procedure would probably take

two to three years so it is rather silly to suggest that two or three years from

now he would be laying off 3500 employees. That is what is being perceived and

that is why we are asking the question. Will he once again tell the House now

that he should not have opened his mouth on it, all he did was cause more

trouble and more confusion, and would he retract it?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not retract what I

said. Obviously, if the question had been, three or four years down the road

what would you do if something happened, my answer would have been different.

There is no doubt about that. But the reality of the situation right now is that

we cannot manufacture money, we do not have this big supply of money that we can

draw on, and we have to do what we have done in order to protect the integrity,

the fiscal and financial integrity of this Province and we make no apologies for

doing what we have done and what we had to do.

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

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there may be something behind

this after all. The Government House Leader would remember that Members on this

side of the House made some sensible suggestions during the course of debate

that this Bill be referred to the courts before implementation, and they refused

to do that. Is the Government now, I wonder, somehow worried that maybe Bill 16

will not stand up to the test of court scrutiny? Is that perhaps one of the

reasons? Is it not a fact that the real reason and the real purpose of his

statements this weekend was really to try and frighten, intimidate and bully

public employees in this Province in an effort to try to get them to convince

their union leaders to back off on their court action? Is that not what is

really happening?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of

questions there. The first one: no, we have no doubts about the validity and the

legality of Bill 16. The second question: no, I did not go to the press and make

a statement designed to do anything - I was simply honestly and truthfully

answering a question asked to me by the press. And the third comment, Mr.

Speaker, the question had to do with the tremendous wonderful, marvellous

suggestions that Members opposite have been making about the courses of action

and the only suggestion and the one he mentions is that we put the whole thing

off. We go to the courts. We take a year or two or whatever to go to the courts

to sit on our hands for a year and let this Province go bankrupt. No - you might

have done that. We are not going to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) Union bashing.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Premier. It has taken the Government forty-five days to produce the Budget

estimates which report the salary details for the various civil servants and the

salary details are always, as the Premier knows, released with the Budget, but

they were held back this year because the Government said that they did not have

time to compile the list. Now let me ask the Premier: is it not true that the

salary details were excluded from the Budget document because the salary details

revealed wage increases for political staff and senior executives which could

not be defended in the Budget that laid off 3,500 public servants and rolled

back wages of another 35,000?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: A good question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are no increases

provided for in the Budget for any senior public servants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The increases took place last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure they did.

PREMIER WELLS: That is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: As they did for everybody.

PREMIER WELLS: As they did for everybody and we had to

provide for the increased amount in this coming fiscal year. Now that is where

the increase was. But the increase came about subsequent, and the adjustments

came about subsequent to last year's Estimates. Now the hon. Members opposite

want to try and concoct something, because they cannot find anything of merit.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why the details were not tabled at the time the

Estimates as a whole were tabled is because of the substantial changeover in the

public service, due to that we needed time to figure out what the numbers would

be in each of the individual Departments and Divisions.

Now so far as I know that it is the explanation. I did not do

these estimates myself. I did not know what they were going to contain in any

kind of detail. But the President of Treasury Board assures me that is the

explanation. I can assure this House, Mr. Speaker, that I accept without

question his explanation of it and reject totally the concoction put forward by

the opposite side.

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

MR. DOYLE: Let me say to the Premier his response is

quite predictable. In other words, he looked after his political staff and his

political buddies before the Estimates were released.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Member is on a

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Let me ask the Premier what does he think the

response to his Budget would have been had the unions and the public employees

known about these increases in salaries for the political and executive staff?

He knew full well that there would be little tolerance for his restraint

program. Was not his decision to withhold the documents, a damage control

decision, to avoid any immediate outrage from public employees and the public

generally?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

no increase. There is no increase, there is no increase, there is no increase in

this coming year from what they were paid in the last year. The last increase

took place at the end of the year and it came into effect on 1 January, a 2 per

cent increase for the senior executive level of the public service, a 2 per cent

increase on January 1. All of the other increases occurred last year. And some

parts of it were adjustment because of reclassification and so on. Now that is

it, Mr. Speaker.

Now the Members opposite can go so far as to get down on

their knees and pray.- it will not change the character of it. It is what it is

and I have nothing to be concerned about. The increase is exactly what -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - took place last year.

Now the second part of the hon. Member's question, Mr.

Speaker, was as for payment in providing for increases for political staff. It

is not an increase for political staff, and I have to tell the House again, Mr.

Speaker, that the amount paid to run the Premier's Office has gone down each

year since the Government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: It has gone down. Not only down in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind hon. Members that Question Period is not the

time for debate. I ask hon. Members to please afford the courtesy that ought to

be afforded in Question Period. It is not a period of debate and we are not

suppose to have interruptions.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will give them the precise figures. The

amount budgeted in 1989-90 was $1,388,900 and the amount budgeted in the

estimates 1990-91 was $1,169,800, and the amount budgeted in the current

estimates is $1,145,700, now that is $300,000 or $400,000 less.

MR. SIMMS: What was budgeted last year?

PREMIER WELLS: In this current Budget?

MR. SIMMS: No, in the 1990 one.

PREMIER WELLS: The amount budgeted in 1990-91 was

$1,169,800.

MR. SIMMS: What was the revised?

PREMIER WELLS: I will get the revised.

The amount budgeted in each year has been less. Mr. Speaker,

I will also dig out the amount budgeted in the year 1988-89 and provide that as

well. Mr. Speaker, I intend now to dig out and make known to the House the full

details of the operations of the Premier's office prior to our coming to office,

and demonstrate for the people of this Province the terrific financial managers

that we are.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs and it concerns the disposal of the septic waste from areas around St.

John's and the Robin Hood Bay dump. The Minister knows that this dump will be

refusing to accept, according to the City of St. John's, septic wastes by June

30. Would the Minister consider trying to negotiate a delay of that deadline of

June 30 in order to find time to undertake what might be a unique demonstration

project to allow private industry to develop an alternative more environmentally

sound disposal of the septic waste rather than develop another landfill site and

further destroy the environment?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in the House

last week, in an answer to a similar question, the Minister of Environment and

Lands is presently looking at the problem with septic waste disposal and he is

probably better able to answer this particular question. I can say from the

municipalities' standpoint that we will co-operate as much as we can in an

attempt to get the municipalities who have this particular problem, and really

most of them in the Northeast Avalon do, to work with the Environment Department

and work with the City of St. John's to see if we cannot in fact, extend the

deadline, if that is necessary, to beyond June 30. I am sure the Minister of

Environment and Lands would also explain that we are looking at whatever

alternate methods are available as well as using landfill.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, for the information of all

members, I would like to table the 1990 report of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Minister responsible for the Office of the Legislative

Council, pursuant to

Section 18 of The Statutes And Subordinate Legislation Act,

I am required to lay before the House of Assembly, a copy of the subordinate

legislation filed under that Act. Accordingly, I table the editions of The

Newfoundland Gazette, published between April 20, 1990 and April 19, 1991.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Co-operative Societies Act.

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly oppose the

Provincial Government policy of reducing funding for municipalities and shifting

costly responsibility to municipalities, thereby squeezing municipalities at

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

service.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition signed by sixty-one residents of Jackson's

Cove in my District of Green Bay.

The prayer of the petition is simply: The undersigned

petition the House of Assembly to finish paving the road to the Harry's

Harbour-Jackson's Cove area.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I have raised

this particular matter in the House. For three springs in a row, this particular

road has gone without being finished.

When the Wells Administration took office, the road to the

Harry's Harbour-Jackson's Cove area was completely rebuilt and about two-thirds

paved. In the intervening two or three years, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, most

of the top grade on that particular road has now ended up in the ditch insofar

as traffic has put it there, and the road, if and when pavement ever does come

again to that particular area of the world, will need substantial upgrading on

the surface of the road.

There are many roads, Mr. Speaker, in Green Bay, not paved.

When I first raised the issue of this particular road three springs ago, the

hon. Minister responsible for Transportation got up and basically laughed at me

and said that all roads in Green Bay were paved, so why would I ask him for

pavement?

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the District of Green Bay had the

son of a former Premier as a member for a good many years, and all he had to do

was put his name on a ballot paper and he automatically got elected. As a

result, Green Bay did not enter the twentieth century, really, in a lot of

respects of public services until such time as Brian Peckford was elected in

1972. From the Smallwood Administration, two small strips of pavement were laid

in Green Bay, one around the community of King's Point during the desperation

times in 1971-1972 and one in the mid-sixties from the Trans-Canada Highway into

the largest community, Springdale.

This road to Harry's Harbour-Jackson's Cove has been

shamefully neglected three years in a row, Mr. Speaker. The people sent in a

petition. Last year, they decided, upon the advice of the Liberal District

President at the time, to take the petition quietly to the hon. the Minister of

Transportation so as, I guess, to not give air to their grievance in this

particular forum, where the press or public are present, and that brought about

absolutely no results except embarrassment for the President of the local

Liberal Association.

This year, Mr. Speaker, some residents have seen fit to send

a petition to me, their Member, and asked that I present it on the floor of the

House, so that their grievance of three springs in a row can be brought forward.

Since this administration has come to power, Mr. Speaker, one bridge has been

replaced in Green Bay and that is it in terms of transportation infrastructure

and, as I indicated in petitions earlier last week, the ferry services in the

district are due to be downgraded and we are awaiting the Minister's decision on

that.

Mr. Speaker, I support the prayer of the petition of these

people from the Harry's Harbour-Jackson's Cove area, and I ask that the Minister

believe that there are many gravel roads in Green Bay and this one, in

particular - it is really a shame - was newly constructed as a gravel highway,

partly paved, and now, if and when pavement does come, considerable

reconstruction will have to take place, as well. That is not a wise expenditure

of public funds, and this year, Mr. Speaker, we saw 95 per cent of the road work

in the Province going to Liberal districts, totally counter to the Premier's

fairness and balance proposals that he put before the people. The people of the

community of Jackson's Cove, in particular, I guess, took the Premier at his

word, because, by a slim majority, they did vote Liberal. The hon. the Minister

of Social Services indicates that this Government would not discriminate against

Liberals but, in this particular case, with regard to this particular community,

for three years in a row, not even the Liberals in Green Bay have seen the

meaning of fairness and balance. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to rise in my place today to support the petition so

ably presented by my colleague the Member for Green Bay, and as the Member

pointed out, through negligence, or I guess through political negligence at

least, by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and certainly by

the Minister in Government whom we have today, it will now cost more - if ever -

to get the road in the Harry's Harbour - Jackson's Arm area up to the reasonable

standard which people might expect in the 1990s going into the year 2000. It

does not seem to be unreasonable for people to expect that if a road was

upgraded to a standard that was ready for pavement, that within the next year or

so before all of that road completely deteriorated, it would make sense for a

Government to complete the job that was started some years ago.

Now, Mr. Speaker, by ignoring the wishes of the people from

this area, what the Government has now done - I mean the road will eventually

have to be upgraded again now and the road will, undoubtedly, eventually be

paved if our Province is to progress in any way at all - but what the Government

has done now, is decided to waste a considerable amount of money that had been

spent on the road in the past to upgrade it, and what will happen now, it will

cost them more in the future to complete a job that could have been done for a

reasonable price last year or this year or even a couple of years ago.

I believe it is obvious to see why it has not been done, I

mean the road happens to fall in a Progressive Conservative district and even

though we had $25.5 million expended on provincial roads this year, I believe,

we have sixty-eight projects and of that sixty-eight, I believe all, except five

or six I believe it was, went to Liberal districts, so it is not unusual to see

that the people in the Harry's Harbour - Jackson's Arm area would be petitioning

this House of Assembly, as I would imagine they have done in the past year or

two since they have the new Member, and I guess we will see it in the next year

or so before they will get a chance to see their dreams fulfilled in getting a

reasonably upgraded standard of road in their area.

Mr. Speaker, the old excuse that the Minister is using, that

the reason all of the projects this year went to Liberal districts is because

they were ignored for so long in the past, does not hold water, when you see

that forty-nine out of the sixty-eight projects are done in districts that were

formerly Conservative districts and are now newly held Liberal districts, so,

forty-nine out of the sixty-eight, some time over the past seventeen years were

included.

Now I wonder did the Bonavista South area get any money this

year? That area, I am sure, over the past seventeen years had its fair share,

because I know they had a very vocal Member at one time, they had a Member at

one time who happened to be Minister of Transportation, and I am sure that area

has had everything possible that it needed over that time and they have no need

this year for any money, but just looking at the hon. Member and looking at the

guilty look on his face, I am sure that they have received money this year, so,

Mr. Speaker, the excuse that the Minister uses that these districts which

received money this year, part of the $25.5 million provincial money, were

neglected over the past seventeen years, just does not hold water.

It does not hold water and obviously it points out that

forty-nine of the sixty-eight projects which we have here, and if we take out

the five or six which are now still Progressive Conservative districts, you will

have quite a percentage of those districts, probably almost fifty out of sixty,

five- sixth of the whole Budget was spent in districts that were at least one

time over the past seventeen years, represented by a Government Member and

obviously if the Liberal philosophy holds true that Government Member did

wonders in his district and he got a lot of work there by completely ignoring

the Liberal districts, but Mr. Speaker, obviously we find that is not so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The gentleman for Green Bay has raised the concerns of the

people of Jackson's Cove and the fact that they have not had their road paved

for some three years now, but I would point out that they waited some seventeen

years while the previous Government were in. I will point out again that we on

this side of the House do not pave according to political stripe we pay for it

according to the need and the priority basis. I guess when we look and realize

that there are 2600 kilometres of gravel road in this Province yet that still

have not been paved, you can see when we had the Budget conditions we had this

year, we had to look at the needs on a priority basis. The gentleman for Green

Bay said the Liberal Association sent in a petition last year asking to have it

done. Yes, that is right, but when it was looked at the people in my Department

came up and said it was not a priority, and it was not one at that time. You see

the previous Government did some strange things in their paving and stuff like

that. One of the things that comes to mind when I think about Green Bay, and why

I suppose I mentioned to the gentleman for Green Bay that I did not know there

was anything left there to pave is: I can remember a causeway that was

constructed to Sunday Cove Island and for some reason or other a couple of years

ago that causeway was taken out and a bridge put in. Now, there were rumours

going around at the time that the Premier's buddies had Summer cabins out there

and they wanted to bring their boats out through. Now, that is the sort of stuff

that I see, and I suppose that is why when Members get up over there, when I

hear the Member for Kilbride and hear the gentleman for Green Bay get up, they

must make those statements even though there is no truth to them at all. The

thing is there is a new regime in and we are paving, not according to the way

you vote, but according to needs. Now, when I announced the Roads Program the

gentleman for Kilbride got up and said there were four projects in Tory

districts, and honestly, Mr. Speaker, I did not know because we do it on a needs

and priority basis. I did not know how many Liberal districts got funding, or

how many Tory districts, because I said to the officials in my Department, look,

we have this much money so make up a list as the need should be. So, when I went

through it I found out that out of the total districts there were twenty-four

Liberal districts that received projects. There were twenty-three really because

the Member for Grand Falls announced the one for Exploits. Even though they vote

in Exploits the Member for Grand Falls thinks they are in his district. It was

because of the fact that the town council for Grand Falls - Windsor was in and

asked to have this road done. Just to outline the Tory districts who got

funding: Fogo, Green Bay, Harbour Main, Humber East, Humber Valley, Menihek,

Port au Port, Terra Nova, so, Mr. Speaker, there were twelve Tory districts out

of a total of eighteen who got money, and there were twenty-four Liberal

districts out of a total of thirty-two or thirty-three. Now, I went back and

found out some of the Tory districts who did not get it. Grand Bank did not get

it because there are no gravel roads in the district, except for two very short

local roads. Grand Falls has none, except for the Trans-Canada. We even counted

Grand Falls but in actual fact we did some paving, The gentleman for Grand Falls

announced it, even though in was in the district of my colleague for Exploits. I

heard the Member for Port au Port present a petition from some people in his

district saying the roads were washed out and he was claiming it was because of

the fact that it was an Opposition district.

Lo and behold I read the paper over the weekend, and my

colleague for Exploits was saying that the roads in his District were in the

worse shape they were ever in. So just to show you how fair and balanced we are,

Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Port au Port is going to be upset I must have one

Member on our side upset. So there it is. I cannot be any more fairer than that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the honour of

presenting a petition from fifty-five constituents from St. John's, not only my

District, but other Districts whose prayer reads as fellows: The petition of the

undersigned, representing the students and the workers of the Avalon

Consolidated School Board, St. John's. We are concerned about the cutbacks in

the educational system, our children need a good quality education in order to

help them to become strong and productive leaders of our future society.

Wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate sufficient funding to maintain the level

of staffing required to maintain the facilities of the school board in a clean

safe condition and to eliminate the necessity of lay offs of maintenance staff.

A further reduction in the level of education will only serve to reduce our

children's hope of becoming strong and productive adults.

Mr. Speaker, I met with a couple of individuals representing

these individuals on Friday. Principally they are the members of the Canadian

Union of Public Employees, Local 2172, which represents some 132 staff, I think,

Mr. Speaker, of the Avalon Consolidated School Board. Mr. Speaker, this Board

has a budget coming up next week for approval, and they are predicting a

deficit. They are cut already to the bone, Mr. Speaker, and these individuals

recognize that there is no fat to trim. However, the current situation is that

the school board is proposing a layoff of some seventy maintenance staff for six

weeks during the summer in order to attempt to save $100,000. Mr. Speaker, their

operating increase cost for this year is $63,000, and the Department of

Education and the Minister of Finance in his Budget are giving them some

$200,000 less than they did last year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is some

seventy maintenance workers whose job it is to keep these schools clean and in

tiptop shape. And over the summer months, Mr. Speaker, was a time when a major

cleaning job was done in these schools so that when the children went back to

school in September the schools were spic and span and a major overhaul was done

which could not be done during the school year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the plan apparently is to take all the

maintenance staff and the caretakers and lay them off for six weeks in the

summer. This is a staff, Mr. Speaker, whose average years of service with the

school board is fifteen years, some of them are there longer. But these are long

term, full-time, year round staff who have done these jobs and performed these

jobs for an average of fifteen years. Mr. Speaker, this is essentially turning

them into items on the Budget, as it were, in the school board if this plan goes

through.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the individuals admit that there is no fat

in that school board system, that they have cut back everywhere they can. And so

the answer has to be, Mr. Speaker, from this Government. This Government ought

to re-examine its allocation to the Avalon Consolidated School Board. If the

Board literally cannot afford to clean the schools and maintain the schools

then, Mr. Speaker, this Government ought to find money to assist them in that

regard.

I know the Member for St. John's West, the Minister of Mines

and Energy, as a former Chairman of the Avalon Consolidated School Board, is

well aware of the problems that Board faces in terms of its funding needs and I

know he was also to speak to the individuals involved, the representatives of

Local 2172. And I understand that these individuals have also spoken to several

other members, including the Member for St. John's South and the Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes, concerning this issue. I believe members have been urged to

write to the board to encourage them not to lay off these individuals as a

method of cost-saving, and I would urge the members of the Government opposite

and the Government back benches to urge the Minister of Education to do

something to prevent this serious situation of the Avalon Consolidated School

Board to find some money to help them avoid these layoffs of maintenance staff,

to make sure the schools are cleaned properly, and that long-term workers with,

as I said, an average of fifteen years, are not treated as seasonal workers by

depriving them of the summer's work. They want to work, Mr. Speaker. They are

prepared to do the work. The work needs to be done. What is needed is that this

Government ensure that the school board has adequate funds to allow the work to

be done and to keep the schools properly maintained. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was trying to give the Minister a chance to reply. I

presume he will, afterwards, so that nothing will come back on him, as he skates

around answering the questions raised by the petition.

I stand in support of the petition presented by the Member

for St. John's East, on the topic we have raised in the House in Question

Periods over the last few weeks. There are a number of concerns being expressed

by all boards. The one here today is just a typical example of concerns

expressed by others except, of course, the St. John's boards are much larger

than the others and will, consequently, have more people affected.

When the Budget was brought down, Mr. Speaker, we made it

quite clear that the cut in funding to school boards would have a detrimental

effect on employees. School boards today have very little flexibility with the

few dollars they have in order to maintain the plants. When they get their

funding from Government this year, they find it is reduced considerably, reduced

because there are fewer students and then, of course, on top of that, they have

the inflation rate which is not accounted for at all. Consequently, they are

operating with anywhere from 8 per cent to 10 per cent fewer dollars than they

did last year. That is significant. The only way they can adjust is to lay off

people. That is having the effect of taking people, as the member mentioned, who

have been in the work force for several years, some from fifteen-to-twenty-year

employees, and tell them that they have to take a reduction in the amount of

work they get this year. Most people who work in these areas need every bit of

work they can get and it is going to have a detrimental effect on the lives and

the income of the people involved.

The Minister, when he spoke a few days ago, and as he will

undoubtedly today if he speaks, will say that the boards will have just as much

money because school taxes have gone up. That is an extremely hypocritical

reply, because the Minister should not have the gall to mention school taxes at

all, when his own members, the President of Treasury of Board, the Minister of

Transportation, the Premier, indirectly, and several others, were going around

during the election campaign promising, `If we get elected, we will abolish

school taxes.'

Many of the members who were here, before the last election,

in the House, were saying: If we get elected, we will abolish the school tax

system. They got elected. Now, what are they doing? They are looking to the

school tax system to find excuses for their lack of funding for the educational

system. And it is uncertain, despite the fact that the Minister had to put down

his head and approve large increases for school tax authorities to offset his

own inability to provide funds for them, despite the fact he did that, they may

not get the money, because many people are saying, `We are not going to pay our

school taxes. The Premier is on every day saying he is going to get rid of them

or change them significantly. We are not going to pay our taxes', And school tax

authorities are having all kinds of problems collecting the money.

So, it is about time the Minister of Education faced up to

the realities of funding education, faced up to the commitments made by the

Premier, in particular, all around the Province, when education was the big

issue leading up to the election. There were many promises made about education.

Live up to the requests made by the Minister of Labour, who went around always

talking about education not getting its fair share. Now that they are getting

less than before, and all the initiatives that were taken are being scrapped,

there is not a word. Where is all the concern now, for education? Some day, Mr.

Speaker, hopefully the Government will wake up, hopefully they will provide

needed funding, and hopefully people who have jobs in the Education system can

hold onto them.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, just a few brief comments in

response to my hon. friends across the floor. These are difficult times, Mr.

Speaker, and this Government, the Federal Government, and all the provinces of

Canada have had to do the same thing as school boards are doing. I am delighted,

Mr. Speaker, that school boards are facing up to the critical problems they have

by looking at ways of utilizing their dollars more efficiently. They are working

with us all the time in finding the best use they can for the monies that are

available. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is right when he says

that school boards will have at least the same amount of money, if not more next

year. Now, they got a little less for school operation and maintenance because

we froze the student grant and the number of students is going down, so they do

have a little less cash, but, Mr. Speaker, they are also going to get more from

the school taxes. We are pleased that people are paying their school taxes.

MR. SIMMS: We thought you were going to abolish it.

DR. WARREN: The Opposition House Leader is getting very

excited about this. I wonder what he is getting excited about. Is he afraid we

are going to abolish it or afraid we are going to reform it? What would

he do? We are going to do what we promised in the election, either abolish or

reform. I am pleased to say that this year school boards are dealing with the

financial crisis they have, they are looking at all possible savings, they are

looking at school reorganization, they are looking at co-ordinating school

operations, and they are doing a lot of things to make the system more

efficient, and we are pleased that they are working with us in those difficult

times. In the future education is a priority for this Government, Mr. Speaker.

We have just begun to build for the twenty-first century. Education is a

priority.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, there is another petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further petitions? I said Orders

of the Day and nobody stood. Will we revert back to Petitions?

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition from 223 residents of Pilley's Island. The

prayer of the petition is that this House reconsider the grant structure as it

applies to the municipality of Pilley's Island. Mr. Speaker, Pilley's Island,

for the information of Members of this House, was a mining community of several

thousand people in the late 1800s but today there is no mine. It is a small

rural community with a very limited tax base depending for the most part on a

rural seasonal economy with the only full time jobs in town being the

postmaster, a teacher or two, or whatever civil servant may be left in that area

who was not laid off.

Mr. Speaker, the little community of Pilley's Island is

completely serviced with water and sewer. It received its services a number of

years ago under a system where it had to set aside 20 per cent of its fixed

revenues to service the debt on the water and sewer pipes in the ground. As it

happens, Mr. Speaker, not only was Pilley's Island a mining town but it is

pretty much a bald rock in many areas and as a result the installation of that

particular water and sewer system was relatively expensive for the number of

people involved. Now, what we find is that the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs in coming up with this new financing scheme has changed the

rules in the middle of the game. The citizens of Pilley's Island cannot dig up

the water and sewer pipes and give them back to the contracting companies and

say, we are finished with it. They have a functional water and sewer system and

they need machinery and maintenance personnel to maintain it but unfortunately

all of a sudden their mortgage payment on the pipes in the ground, their debt

repayment on the system already in place has jumped tremendously, and

Government's assistance to the community over the next three years is dropping

each year as well. So, what we have is a rural community that is fully serviced

in the matter of water and sewer, but unfortunately, under the new grant system

brought down by this Government, it is completely unable to run a municipality,

and maintain, look after, and uphold the system they already have.

The fiscal capacity of this particular town is very limited

as to raising new revenues, Mr. Speaker. They have looked at selling their

municipal equipment, their dump truck, their loader, laying off their municipal

employee, but what will that mean, deterioration of the system in the ground

itself and that will lead to no good whatsoever, so what we need, Mr. Speaker,

is more sensitivity on the part of this Government to small rural communities,

which are looking for water and sewer and especially in the case of a

municipality that is already fully serviced and now the rules have been changed

in the middle of the game, and their mortgage payments on the pipes that are in

the ground, have risen tremendously and under the current financing system,

there is no way this municipality can function.

So far, from the Gander Regional Office, they have had three

separate estimates of exactly what kind of assistance would be forthcoming from

the Crown, each estimate being somewhat better, the louder the community

complains, so, Mr. Speaker, the community decided to send a petition to their

Member to be presented in this particular Assembly and hopefully, another

estimate would come out from the Gander Regional Office, which would be more

favourable and allow the municipality to bring down a balanced budget, keep its

municipal machinery, its front-end loader, backhoe, its dump truck and its

municipal maintenance man, so that the system in place can be kept in place and

the municipality as a functioning corporate entity can continue into the future

as it has in the past.

In the 1890s, Pilley's Island contributed tremendous amounts

of money to the economy of this Province with the large copper mine, Mr.

Speaker; that mine is played out and now it is time for the Province to pay back

Pilley's Island for what it gave the Dominion of Newfoundland nearly 100 years

ago, and the current grant structure and the financing system brought down by

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, makes it virtually impossible for Pilley's

Island and others like it to continue on under current circumstances. I

therefore support their prayer to this Assembly and to this Government, that

they be given special consideration and that the grant structure as currently

brought down by the Minister be changed to accommodate their needs. I thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in

support of the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member for Green

Bay, who never ceases to amaze me with his dogged efforts, his dogged

determination on behalf of the constituents whom he represents in the Green Bay

district, and I hear and run into his constituents time and time again, time and

time again; in fact I ran into some over the weekend, who sang his praises

because he is dogged and determined; he raises their concerns in the Legislature

day after day after day; of course they also recognize and acknowledge the fact

that they get no response from Members opposite or Ministers opposite and that

is unfortunate.

But I rise in support of the petition for another reason too,

Mr. Speaker, because my own roots are from the community of Pilley's Island out

in Notre Dame Bay, Pilley's Island and Triton; my mother is from Pilley's

Island, my father is from Triton, so I am quite familiar with the area and the

territory, having spent many, many weekends and weeks at a time when I was a

young lad, a young boy out in Notre Dame Bay, picking mussels and boiling up a

little -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, not from Pilley's Island though.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Springdale is - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Long Island. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, even my own

colleagues will not leave me alone. There are at least five delegates from that

area too possibly, he says, for the Leadership.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with

that. It is because of my own roots, my family's roots from that area. I have

also visited and been in the area of course quite regularly, fairly regularly

over the last twelve or thirteen years or so since I have been in politics, and

I know what wonderful progress that community of Pilley's Island made over the

last decade or so, particularly with their previous Member I suppose, or

Members, to give credit to all Members who represented the area, they have made

a tremendous amount of progress in the small community of Pilley's Island.

But here, today, we have a petition with two hundred and

twenty odd names, I think it is, two hundred and twenty odd signatures, crying

out, crying out in desperation to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is not

here, not even here in the House, crying out to the Minister, asking the

Minister to give consideration to this small, tiny community which has a

relatively small tax base, very little tax base, to help in their efforts to

provide good services and reasonable services to their people. To avoid

resettlement, once again, to avoid resettlement is what they are saying, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) brand new water and sewer

system.

MR. SIMMS: - in a round about way, save us from

resettlement. Now, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour is fully aware of the importance of

municipal funding to small communities because Your Honour represents a number

of small communities, and many people in those small communities I have no

doubt, I would not want to put words in Your Honour's mouth, but I have no doubt

there are many people in the small communities that he represents who are

beginning to feel the same way as the people from Pilley's Island are beginning

to feel. And it is ironic, you know, if you read the newspapers the weekend, how

often you see these stories coming forth, Tom Cahill a well known author and a

well known and respected Newfoundlander talked about it in the Weekend Edition

of The Evening Telegram, I think a very good

article about resettlement. And

that what we are seing by this Government these days with everything that they

are doing, Mun Extension eliminated, cut back in municipal grants, cutbacks in

health care, and everything being focused on regional services, large urban

centres only, I mean it is pretty evident, Mr. Speaker, what is happening in

this Province today.

And there was another

article in the weekend paper as well, I

thought I had a copy of with me here today, but it must be up in my office, but

there was another

article on the Minister of Education who is a fan of

resettlement. I remember talking to some friends of his who were around in the

days of the early 1970s, the late 1960s when the Minister of Finance, I believe,

sought the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party, if I am not - he

did not, did he? Yes, he did, sought the leadership of the Progressive

Conservative Party back in the 1968-69 era somewhere around there when Frank

Moores I think was elected leader, if I am not mistaken. So back in those days

the Minister of Finance, as I recollect, was not a fan of resettlement in those

days.

DR. KITCHEN: I am not now either.

MR. SIMMS: I am not now either, he says. Well then, Mr.

Speaker, I say to the Minister of Finance I do not think he is speaking clearly

enough -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, by leave, Mr. Speaker. I do not think he

is speaking clearly enough, certainly the people of Pilley's Island -

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

MR. SIMMS: - would never understand or believe what he is

having to say today.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Bill No. 15.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased again

to have the opportunity to speak on Bill No. 15, which is

an Act To Amend The

Gasoline Tax Act in this Province,

an Act, Mr. Chairman, on which most of the

people on this side of the House have spoken,

whereas very few people on the

other side of the House have debated this bill or the merits of it. While most

of the people in discussing this bill have talked about the change of taxation

going from ad valorem to a fixed rate in taxation, Mr. Chairman and I have dealt

with it, I am more specifically concerned with the amendment that I have

proposed which is to basically recognize Western Labrador as this Government

recognizes Southern Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment proposes that the Minister be

given authority to amend the taxes collected in Newfoundland in a portion of

Newfoundland adjacent to the Quebec Border in Western Labrador as he now has the

authority and the request in this Act to adjust the tax rate in Southern

Labrador. That is all I am asking, Mr. Chairman. I am asking that this

Government, that this House recognize the similarities between Western Labrador

and Southern Labrador that these are the only areas where we have people living

adjacent to the border of another province, Mr. Speaker, and while this

Government recognizes that they can and will adjust taxes in Southern Labrador,

they will not recognize that they can or will adjust taxes in Western Labrador.

I find this tremendously unfair. I know that the people in Western Labrador find

it unfair and, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people of this Province will find

it tremendously unfair.

The difference in tax structure, I believe, has given the

people selling gasoline in the Province of Quebec a tremendous advantage over

those selling gasoline in Western Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of figures have been thrown back and forth

on the selling price of gasoline in Fermont, Quebec and in Western Labrador,

Labrador City and Wabush. Several people have made phone calls on that side of

the House, suggesting that my figures are wrong. I have confirmed my figures and

now, Mr. Speaker, I want to elaborate a bit more on these figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of gas do you buy? - regular

unleaded, right?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes. Now, just for uniformity, that is what

we - I was going to suggest that I would use regular unleaded gasoline. Now, Mr.

Speaker, in the Province of Quebec, in Fermont, they remit a sales tax - the

adjusted tax on gasoline, by the way, in Fermont, is not 10 cents, it is 5.5

cents.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much is the gas?

MR. A. SNOW: Now, the gasoline in Fermont, Mr. Speaker,

regular gas, is 62.3 cents.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, Mr. Speaker. We are going to compare

apples and apples. Now, I know the Minister of Finance is going to want to try

to compare apples and oranges, but I want to compare apples and apples. Now, the

apples up in Fermont, Mr. Speaker, the regular apples in Fermont, 62.3 cents.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in Labrador City, the apples at the Esso

station, the regular apples now, are 66.5 cents; at Shell, the regular apples

are 66.5 cents; at Ultramar, $66.2, that is all the regular apples.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Shell, regular, 66.5 cents.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, Mr. Speaker. Well, I have checked it

three times, so far, and those are the prices. I am told that the Minister of

Finance has also checked and he has the same figures I have, when we compare the

regular apples with the regular apples in both provinces and different stations.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is an approximate difference of 4.2 -

4.3 cents. Now, where the difference, before, came in, was we were talking of

the super unleaded, the high range, high octane gasoline being sold in Quebec at

one station and the high octane being sold at Labrador City stations. Some

people might argue that we are comparing apples and oranges, there, but that is

where they came from, Mr. Speaker.

We have establish now, and there is an agreement, that there

is a difference. The hon. the Minister responsible for Treasury Board has

suggested that he agrees there is a 4.2 cent difference per litre, Mr. Speaker,

in the price of gasoline in Western Labrador and the Province of Quebec. Now,

while he agrees with that he suggested my figures are accurate and he suggested

also that the suggested adjustment in taxes in Southern Labrador is going to be

done to make them compatible. What I am suggesting this Government should do,

this House should do, Mr. Chairman, is they should support my amendment so that

this Government would be able to adjust the tax structure so that the people in

Western Labrador would have a similar tax rate, if you will, as the people in

Fermont. That then, Mr. Chairman, would allow the vendors of the gasoline to be

on a level playing field, because the taxes are greater in the Province of

Newfoundland than they are in the province of Quebec. You must remember now that

they have the adjusted tax rate and that is what I am suggesting we should do in

Western Labrador, because I still firmly believe that people will be going from

Western Labrador up to Fermont to purchase their gasoline and we are going to

lose actual tax dollars because the volume is going to slip in Western Labrador.

They will probably end up purchasing alcholic beverages because they are at a

lower tax rate over there. I am not suggesting that you lower the taxes on that,

not yet, but we have a history of accepting a differential in taxes in this

Province. There is no doubt that we all recognize that we have a difference in

tax structures throughout the Province. There is a difference in sales tax being

charged in hotel accommodations in Southern Labrador. I do not for the world

understand why this Government does not want to treat the people of Western

Labrador equal with the people of Southern Labrador. I cannot understand why we

have to be treated differently. The hon. Minister of Finance says we in Western

Labrador are going to be treated exactly the same as people in St. John's

Centre. Well, in that case, Mr. Chairman, he is going to have to give us back

our motor registration office, our additional health care money, and all those

things they have taken away from us. When we were in Labrador he took it away

but now that the taxes are there he does not mind treating us equal with

taxation but not with services. I ask this Government to reconsider what they

are suggesting in this bill because it is definitely not fair. We should be

treating our citizens equally. We should treat the people that live in Western

Labrador as well as we treat the people in Southern Labrador. That is all I

request, Mr. Chairman, and that is all I want, to treat the people in Western

Labrador exactly the way we treat the people in Southern Labrador. Mr. Chairman,

there is nothing complicated about it. If you look at the length of this bill,

my goodness, it is only one page, there is absolutely nothing to it in a sense,

but do you realize how much discrimination is in it. How much discrimination is

in it when you say that the people in Western Labrador are not going to be

treated like the people in Southern Labrador. While it is only one page I am

sure that the amount of discrimination that is there will cause books to be

written about it, Mr. Chairman, thousands of pages will be written about it.

There is only one reason that I can understand why they are discriminating, Mr.

Chairman, the only difference that I know of is that one district is Liberal and

the other district is Tory. That is the only difference that I know of, the fact

that Western Labrador is a Tory district and Southern Labrador is a Liberal

district. Mr. Chairman, why would they want to do that? Why would they want to

punish the people of Western Labrador? Is it because they just want more money?

Is that the only reason? I have said here a thousand times, if I have said it

once, that we as an electoral district in Western Labrador contribute more for

an electoral district than any other district in the Province, and we are proud

of that, Mr. Chairman. We are proud that we are able to contribute more, but I

tell you what we do not want, we do not want to be discriminated against in that

sense. We are proud that we do contribute the most because we also probably earn

the most, Mr. Chairman, but in the terms of gasoline tax, what we should be

doing is, giving the same benefit as the other border residents in this

Province, because you cannot be treating people differently just because of how

they vote, Mr. Chairman, that is not fair, that is not fairness and balance.

MS. VERGE: I think that violates the Charter of Rights

(inaudible) another Charter challenge.

MR. A. SNOW: Another charter challenge. Well, I guess

they are going to have to change the Charter again. Now, Mr. Chairman, this

could be easily adjusted, all that is necessary is for the hon. Minister of

Finance to stand and suggest: yes, the hon. Member for Menihek is right, he is

right again -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. My colleague for

Menihek has demonstrated that this bill is flawed because it discriminates

between residents of Labrador bordering Quebec, who are, on the one hand on the

Strait's Coast with a Liberal representative and on the other hand, are in the

Western interior mining area of Menihek, represented by a PC.

Now, Chairperson, the Constitution of Canada, for the last

few years, has included a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, Chairperson, just

a few days ago, on April 20, we marked the anniversary of a coming into force of

perhaps the most important part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

Section

15, which guarantees equality rights without discrimination.

Now, Chairperson, I heard the Premier make an eloquent speech

on that anniversary, on Law Day at a Canadian Bar Association Luncheon at Hotel

Newfoundland, and the Premier held himself out as respecting the Constitution of

Canada, yet he is leading his Government in a series of legislative measures

which flagrantly violate the Charter, at least in my opinion.

The legislation with which we have been dealing in this

sitting of the House, the notorious roll back legislation, Bill 16, and now this

gasoline tax amendment, involve discrimination. In the first case, in the case

of the roll back legislation, blatant discrimination against women in the public

service, and in this case, blatant discrimination against residents in two parts

of Labrador bordering Quebec, one group represented by a Liberal, the other

group represented by a PC.

Now, Chairperson, I have not heard any Member of the

Government attempt to justify the discrimination involved in this Gasoline Tax

Act Amendment. The Member for Carbonear just suggested that he did not think the

Members of the Government were bright enough to discriminate on the basis of

politics; well, that certainly is not reflected in their recent actions in

awarding contracts and approving various construction projects. But,

Chairperson, obviously the residents of the Strait of Belle Isle district, the

people who live in Southern Labrador in the Eagle River district on the Strait

of Belle Isle bordering Quebec, are being given a concession, to entice them to

buy gasoline in our own Province

whereas, the residents of Labrador City in

Wabush in Western Labrador, bordering Quebec, are being charged the higher tax

rate or would be charged the higher tax rate, the same as residents of other

parts of the Province, providing for them, a disincentive to buy their gas

within our own Province and enticing them to cross the border and get their gas

in Fermont.

If they continue to buy their gas at home, they are going to

have to pay a premium for it, they are going to have to pay more than their

fellow-Labradorians who live in Red Bay or who live in L'Anse- au- Clair or

Forteau, and how can the Government rationalize that discrimination; there is no

justification for it.

The Member for Carbonear was being facetious, he allowed that

he supports patronage, that he supports discriminating among citizens based on

the political stripe of their District. But surely that is not good enough

Chairperson, surely when it comes to taxation there has to be fairness. There is

a justification for treating residents of the Province bordering Quebec

differently from others for purposes of gasoline tax. But there is no defence

for discriminating between citizens along the Quebec Border in different parts

of Labrador. Why are people in Red Bay being given a gasoline tax break when

that is being withheld from residents of Labrador City and Wabush? I say to the

President of Treasury Board he should get up and explain this.

Now perhaps there is some excuse that I am just not seeing.

Would the President of Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance who is

sponsoring the bill do us the courtesy of explaining this discrimination.

Chairperson, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would turn around and face me.

I am trying to find out if there is any excuse for discriminating in the levying

of gasoline tax between residents of Southern Labrador and residents of Western

Labrador who are bordering Quebec? Why is the Government proposing to charge

less gasoline tax to the people in Red Bay, for example, than people in Labrador

City? Why is that? And Chairperson would the Minister of Finance tell the House

whether he has a legal opinion from the Department of Justice on the

constitutional validity of this aspect of the bill? Has the Minister sought and

obtained a legal opinion on whether this discrimination violates

Section 15,

Charter, Equality rights guarantee without discrimination?

Chairperson, I am going to take my seat now and wait for the

Minister of Finance to answer those probing questions.

MR. SIMMS: Is the Minister going to respond or comment?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) close the debate.

MR. SIMMS: Well I would like to hear what the Minister

has to say first. I did have a few comments to make, but if he has something

that will clear it up I will not even bother.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the

noble gesture by the Member for Grand Falls, the Opposition House Leader. Well

there are a couple of points that I would like to make concerning the

differential. The figures that were being quoted last week by the Member dealt

with premium gas. And I want to deal with premium gas for a minute, then I will

come back to the unleaded, the regular unleaded.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: No, I want to deal with them in consecutive

order.

On Friday we were talking about a price differential of seven

cents, over seven cents between the price of gas in Fermont and Labrador City,

being the price of premium and unleaded gas. And that is true. The price

differential according to our figures is about 7.3 cents in favour of Fermont.

But it was not caused by the difference in the Province's sales tax because in

Quebec people were paying $10.41 tax that included $5.58 for their gasoline tax.

They have a special gasoline tax in remote areas, and for some reason or other

they call Fermont a remote area, as they do for the Straits area as well. So

they charge a gasoline tax of $5.58. But unlike Newfoundland, Quebec charges

retail sales tax as well. So when you add the retail sales tax on top of the

gasoline tax in Quebec the price for a litre of premium unleaded gas, the

Provincial tax in Quebec was $10.41 as opposed to our fixed tax of $13.70, the

difference there is 3.29 cents. Now the difference in the regular is 3.52 cents,

in other words with premium gas the differential is less than for regular gas.

The big reason for the difference between Fermont and

Labrador City on premium gas is partly due to the 3.29 cents difference between

the provincial taxes, but the bulk of it, the seventy-nine cents GST difference

that the Federal Government charges and the 3.22 which was there before any of

the taxes went on, this was the wholesale price, the mark up, the Federal excise

taxes, that sort of thing, had nothing whatsoever to do with this Province. Our

share of that 7.3 differential was 3.29 and the rest was somebody elses, either

mark up or something else, and that should be addressed in that fashion. Now,

let us come back to the Member's point about the difference on the regular

unleaded which, I think, is the proper one to compare.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

DR. KITCHEN: The 3.29 on premium unleaded, that is the

difference in taxes. The difference in price at the pump is 7.3. Now, when you

come to the regular unleaded the difference in pump price is about 4.7. I am

taking a 61.8 Fermont and a 66.5 Lab City. Those are the figures that were

supplied by officials for regular unleaded gas. Both these things are unleaded

because that is all that is legal now, unleaded. The taxes on the regular

unleaded in Newfoundland, or in Labrador, of course, the gasoline tax is 13.7

and in Fermont the gasoline tax is 5.58 but again they pay retail sales tax and

that comes to be 4.6 cents, or a total of 10.18 in Quebec taxes, the retail

sales tax at 8 per cent now, plus gasoline tax of 5.58 cents, so the total taxes

that a Quebecer would pay in Fermont, or anyone would pay in Fermont would be

10.18 cents, that is provincial sales and gasoline tax. In Labrador City we have

no retail sales tax on gasoline but our gasoline tax is 13.7 cents so the

difference is 3.52 cents. So, of the 4.7 cents difference in price at the pump

our taxes are 3.52 higher, so most of the difference is caused by our tax. There

is a GST of sixty-one cents and a differential in price of fifty-seven cents

that would be caused by differences in mark up, whatever, or the excise tax at

the wholesale level. Basically there is a small difference.

Now, in L'Anse-au-Clair which is just a couple of miles from

Blanc Sablon, there is an encouragement to drive from one town to the other to

save a few bucks to fill up your tank at Blanc Sablon, and why not do it? It is

only a couple of miles.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Red Bay?

DR. KITCHEN: I will come to Red Bay in a minute. In

Fermont the round trip is about fifty-five kilometres. Now nobody is going to

drive fifty-five kilometres and burn up nine or ten litres of gasoline to save

four cents a litre. It will cost you more in gas to make the trip than you would

save, so there is nobody foolish enough, unless it is the Member opposite, who

would make that trip to save gas, so there is really no point. Similarly, I

suppose it is possible for a person living in St. Barbe to get on the ferry and

go across to Blanc Sablon and pick up his gas over there. But he would be

foolish to get on a ferry to go to Blanc Sablon and come back with a tank load

unless he had a big tank, a very large tank, so the same case he makes for

Fermont we could also make for St. Barbe, and if you were from St. Barbe I

suppose you would have to make it for all the communities along the Northern

Peninsula, St. Anthony, and perhaps, even down as far as Corner Brook; and maybe

you would have to make it for Port aux Basques, because a fellow could put his

car on the ferry and go over to North Sydney and take advantage of the lower

Nova Scotia prices and then, bring it back, and save that way.

So, the whole thing, Mr. Chairman, is foolishness. There is

nobody going to drive from Labrador City to Fermont, any more than they are

going to go from St. Barbe to Blanc Sablon or from St. John's to North Sydney,

to save the difference in price on a drop of gas.

Now, there is a different case in L'Anse-au-Clair, because it

is so close, it is to people's advantage to avoid tax by driving over, and that

is why we have brought it in, and we have lowered it by a- cent-and-a-half.

Now, the problem comes up with respect to Red Bay. You know,

there are seven or eight communities all in a line, and where do you make the

cut-off? If you cut off at L'Anse-au-Clair, what about the persons living almost

between L'Anse-au-Clair and L'Anse-au-Loup? Are you going to cut him out? That

is where the problem lies, and similarly, right along that small stretch of road

that goes from L'Anse-au-Clair to Red Bay. I do not know how you would handle

it, unless you eliminate the subsidy completely for L'Anse-au-Clair residents.

Basically, it is put in for the people in L'Anse-au-Clair and vicinity, and Red

Bay is in it. Perhaps Red Bay should not be in it, but I cannot see how you can

cut them out. It is difficult to cut them out.

AN HON. MEMBER: How far is Red Bay from (inaudible)?

DR. KITCHEN: Red Bay is about eighty or ninety

kilometers, is it not? So that is even further.

Now, I agree with the problem, but it is the fact of the

almost contiguous settlement that is causing the problems there and, for that

reason, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to do it.

The member says: let us have the same taxation as Quebec.

Now, we do not have the same taxation as Quebec, because Quebec has higher

income taxes. Does he want the same income tax in Labrador City as they have in

Quebec? If so, you will have to pay a lot higher income taxes than you do now.

Are you going to pay the same payroll tax as in Quebec? If you do, you are going

to have to pay more payroll tax, and therefore, your price of gasoline will go

up there, too.

So, the point is, do we make all taxes equal? And I have said

before giving the House this undertaking, that in our review of taxation this

spring and summer - hopefully, we will be finishing up this fall - we will take

a look at all those border taxes, including residential accommodation, and if

there is need for further adjustments, we will make them; but, Mr. Chairman, I

have no intention of recommending to members on this side of the House that they

support the member's amendment. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the

Minister of Finance has not seen fit to treat the people of Western Labrador as

equals of the people of Southern Labrador. I am disappointed, but not

necessarily surprised, when I see the type of arrogance with which he treats all

people in Labrador, anyway. That was the same Minister, Mr. Chairman, who

disagreed with the Federal Government's tax exemption on Northern benefits; and

he was upset that he could not gouge more revenue from the people living in the

North, Mr. Chairmnan. Who, by the way, treat the people in Southern Labrador

similarly to the way they treat the people in Western Labrador.

Now, Mr. Chairman, he mentions that the reason he did not cut

off Red Bay from the tax exemption was the fact that it was a contiguous

community development all the way along from L'Anse-au-Clair to Red Bay. I do

not know what has happened to Red Bay. There must have been a tremendous amount

of growth in Southern Labrador over the last couple of months, Mr. Chairman, but

it is not a contiguous community, that I am aware of. But, Mr. Chairman, yes, I

will readily admit that it is twenty kilometers between Western Labrador and

Fermont.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is more than that.

MR. A. SNOW: Twenty-three kilometers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well, it is twenty-three from Labrador City,

at least, that is my understanding. So, it is twenty-three kilometers from the

boundary in Labrador City over to Fermont.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the reason I suggested that the Minister

be permitted to allow the people of Western Labrador to have a level playing

field, as the people of Southern Labrador have, is that I know there are people

driving to Fermont and they are purchasing gasoline, tobaccos and alcoholic

beverages, and they are probably doing other shopping up there, also.

So, Mr. Chairman, that will go right back to when I

originally raised this or stood in discussion on this bill, Mr. Chairman, I said

how we are going to lose revenues. Mr. Chairman, I believe we will lose revenues

because the volume in gasoline sales will go down - the sales of volume will

drop in Western Labrador now, Mr. Chairman, because of this. But the Minister

could have corrected that if he had permitted my amendment to stand. Mr.

Chairman, I still believe it is unfair to treat people unequally, to make a

difference between the people of Western Labrador and Southern Labrador, when we

know that the only difference is how they voted in the last election. That is

the only difference, Mr. Chairman. It is tremendously unfair that the Minister

of Finance is not going to correct the inequity or the uphill battle that the

business community has to fight against the taxation structure in Quebec.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that we have the same

income tax structure as the Province of Quebec, but I am suggesting that what we

are discussing when we get to this bill, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about

gasoline tax. I firmly believe that there should be a graduated gasoline tax in

this Province. I really believe in that. I also think that you are going to have

to reconsider your sales tax on hotel rooms, that type of thing, when you are

reforming your tax structure in this Province. But, Mr. Chairman, I am

disappointed that the Minister of Finance has continued his attack on the people

of Western Labrador, continued to gouge the people of Western Labrador for more

dollars to pay for his mistakes, Mr. Chairman. I am disappointed, but I am not

surprised. I am not surprised with what he is doing because that has been his

history of gouging the people of Western Labrador, of not defending the people

of Western Labrador when it came time and we had to argue and fight with the

Government in Ottawa to get our northern tax benefit package approved so that we

would not have to pay taxes on benefits to the North that makes us equal with

Southern residents, Mr. Chairman. That same Minister would not agree with us in

Labrador then and we know why, because all he wants to do is slip his greasy

little fingers in our pockets, take the money back to St. John's, spend it out

here, do not spend any back there, Mr. Chairman. That is what he is up to.

I am sure that the $2 million, his estimated payroll tax that

is coming out of Western Labrador, is a heck of a lot more than is being

contributed by any other electoral district, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Chairman, he stood and suggested

that he could do it if he wanted to do it. He knows that he could change this

tax structure so that it would make it more equal for the people of Western

Labrador. But, Mr. Chairman, he decided not to. Now I do not know why he has

decided to treat us in this arrogant manner, Mr. Chairman. But it is

discrimination. A lot of people are going to suggest that it is because of the

political way we voted and I think that probably has something to do with it. It

is also because, I suppose, the lack of understanding of the Minister of any

financial matters. He does not understand anything. I mean anybody who would

bring in a Budget last year and suggest that we were going to have a $10 million

surplus and we come in with a $120 million deficit, I mean that type of economic

forecasting, Mr. Chairman, gives astrology credibility. That type of economic

forecasting, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely bizarre. But it is the lack of his

understanding of economics and the economy of this Province that is also

dictated -

MR. SIMMS: It took four days of pressure from the Member

for Menihek to bring out all of these important issues. And before the Minister

came back to the House he finally agreed there is a difference, 4.7 cents.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: If the Member keeps it up long enough, he

might change it.

MR. SIMMS: He has gotten up publicly now and said he is

not going to -

MR. A. SNOW: Well, I do not know why he will not change

it, he has suggested that the only reason why he will not change it is because

they have a different tax structure in Quebec, Mr. Chairman. They have a better

tax structure in the province of Quebec with regard to gasoline tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, Mr. Chairman, they do, and they do have

a different tax structure in other areas of the province of Quebec; it is not

just in Fermont, we heard about his saying: can you imagine, he said, and he

said it sarcastically, about Fermont being remote? Can you imagine somebody from

St. John's Centre, questioning whether or not Fermont is remote, can you imagine

that? The arrogance of it, the arrogance of somebody from St. John's Centre

suggesting that Fermont is remote; well, my goodness. I wonder if he was ever

there, do you think he has ever visited the North, do you think he has ever been

in Western Labrador?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, when he ran for the Leadership of the

Tory Party he was up there campaigning for delegates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He was never in Labrador in his life.

MR. A. SNOW: All he does, Mr. Chairman, all he does in

Western Labrador is, slip his hands in and take the money out and run, that is

all he does and that is all he knows about it, but at least the province of

Quebec recognizes that rural and northern areas should have a different tax

structure, should have a different tax structure, Mr. Chairman, with regard to

the taxes on gasoline and income tax structures. To the best of my knowledge,

they did not fight against the Northern Tax Benefit package, they did not go

after their friends in Ottawa and suggest not to do it because it may affect

some loss of revenues.

Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that other people on the other side

of the House, his colleagues, will stand and speak because of how sensible my

amendment is; how it helps. Yes, it may help the residents of Western Labrador

pay a lower price for gasoline, but more importantly than that, it recognizes

that Labradorians should be treated equally; they should be treated equally.

I recognize that there is a four and a half cents difference,

it cannot be totally corrected by this tax, maybe it should not, but we could

still put it down to three cents or three and a half cents, and I still firmly

believe that if we were to lower the taxes, the amount of revenue would go up

because I think the volume of sales will increase.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the people of Western Labrador are

disgusted with the amount of taxes which have been taken out of them by this

Government since they have been elected. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is going to

compound it, so, I would hope that he would see the folly of his ways. My hon.

colleague for Grand Falls has suggested that I have been speaking for four days

about this particular bill and, I just want to suggest again that I am not

against charging the taxes in Red Bay or giving the people of Red Bay a tax

rebate. I can understand why they should have -

MR. SIMMS: Are we (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: - I could understand why they should have,

but I would just hope that this Government would recognize that the people of

Western Labrador also deserve a tax break with regard to gasoline taxes. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the amendment carry?

MR. SPEAKER: We have a division on the amendment.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment please

stand.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Simms, Ms Verge,

Mr. Doyle, Mr. R. Aylward, Mr. Hearn, Mr. N. Windsor, Mr. A. Snow, Mr. Hewlett,

Mr. Parsons, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment please rise.

The hon. the President of the Council, the hon. the Minister

of Health, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the hon.

the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, the hon.

the Minister of Social Services, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, Mr. L. Snow, Mr. Grimes, the hon. the Minister of Justice, the

hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Ramsay,

Mr Crane, Mr. K. Aylward, Mr. Gover, Mr. Noel, Mr. Penney, Mr. Murphy, Mr.

Dumaresque, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Short, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford.

CLERK (Miss Duff): Mr. Chairman, 'Ayes' twelve, 'Nays'

twenty-seven.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment defeated.

A Bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act, 1978."

On motion Clauses 2 through 5 carried.

MR. BAKER: I move that the Committee rise and report

progress.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole

have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that it

has adopted a certain resolution and recommends that a bill be introduced to

give effect to the same.

Resolution

That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the

Gasoline Tax Act, 1978.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act,

1978", read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as

on the Order Paper.

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

MR. BAKER: Order 11, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a Bill, entitled "An Act To Amend

The Newfoundland Law Reform Commission Act, 1971," (Bill No. 13).

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill 13, is a fairly

straightforward piece of legislation; it amends the Newfoundland Law Reform

Commission Act, to allow that body to receive funds from any source other than

Government, it essentially give it corporate authority; it also allows it to

enter into contracts with individuals who are not employees of the Commission

for the purpose of conducting research.

I think it is fairly clear and straightforward, Mr. Speaker

and I have nothing to add by way of explanation. Thank you.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will see if I can provide a

little more information on the legislation than the Minister. I am a bit

surprised that he did not elaborate, it is a significant piece of legislation

from him, I am not sure if he brought it in - I have to apologise for the use of

my glasses, the handles of my glasses are broken off. Anyway -

AN HON. MEMBER: It would not be in your pocket -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ever since you gave up smoking.

MR. SIMMS: Ever since I gave up smoking, yes, I have been

ripping them off, ripping them off. Anyway, as I understand it from consulting

with our Justice critic, who, unfortunately is unable to be here at this point

in time in the afternoon, she briefed me thoroughly on the bill and she asked me

to mention two or three matters if the Minister ignored them, and I understand

he did, so I will put them to him in the form of a question, so that when he

rises to close the debate, he might be able to attack me, chastise me, tell me I

am wrong or, perhaps say yes, they are very good points my colleague and friend

from Grand Falls has raised and I can confirm that it is a fact, what he has

said.

For example, the amendments of course are housekeeping in

nature as he rightly pointed out; I am not sure if he used the word housekeeping

but I think that is what it is really, housekeeping.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You were not that original. It permits the

Commission and, by the way, I should say at the outset, that the Members on this

side of the House have the utmost respect for the Law Reform Commission,

certainly our Justice critic does as do many of us. I knew some Members of the

Commission in the past and I know they performed some very good work. In fact, I

am not sure who are on the Commission any more these days; I suspect the

Minister has probably changed them from whom they were in 1989, although, I am

sure that was not a reflection of their work, but more an opportunity to be

given to other people around the Province, who might want to participate. I

doubt very much if they have any particular political ties or tags, the members

of the Law Reform Commission.

But anyway, this will permit the Law Reform Commission, as I

understand it, to receive from sources other than the Government some funding,

money; it will permit them to receive money from other sources other than

Government and I understand that, that includes the Law Foundation. And they

will collect money from Trusts held by lawyers and so on, so they could receive

funding from that source, and I want to ask the Minister, when he closes the

debate, what has happened up until now. Do we understand then, that the

Commission has not been able to accept funding, is that what has happened?

It has not been able to accept funding, so this will allow

them the right - well, it is surprising that the previous administration did not

have the foresight to amend this back two, three years ago, being the astute

Government that it was. It was one of those minor items, I guess, that we

happened to overlook and I deeply apologise o