December

21, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 88

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I received today a copy of the

Memorandum of Understanding reached between Canada and the European Community on

Fisheries in the area regulated by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries

Organization.

Prior to this agreement being reached, the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador on several occasions expressed to the federal

government our strong concerns about some issues being negotiated, as well as

our objections to certain arrangements that were being proposed for an

agreement.

More specifically, Mr. Speaker, this government had, and

still has, concerns about the lack of enforcement and surveillance measures that

would guarantee that the European Community would comply with obligations

committed to in the Agreement. The Memorandum of Understanding announced today

by the federal government does not address these concerns. We, therefore, do not

have any confidence that the European Community will implement any new effective

surveillance and enforcement arrangements.

Furthermore, in discussions preceding the signing of the

Memorandum of Understanding, we repeatedly conveyed to the federal government

the message that in the absence of full compliance with the NAFO conservation

framework, European Community vessels will continue to frustrate rebuilding

initiatives by NAFO and Canada.

The federal government's announcement today states that the

European Community has agreed to comply with all NAFO decisions, including

quotas. If this is in fact what the agreement means, then that is good. However,

we have a concern that the agreement in

Part 1(

j) says that the Community shall

exercise measures "to ensure that their catches do not exceed quotas." This

reference does not appear to be specific to NAFO quotas. It could therefore have

the effect of allowing the Community to set its own quotas, in excess of NAFO

quotas, as it has done in the past. It could then exceed these quotas and claim

it is complying with the agreement. It should be made clear by Canada at the

outset that if the European Community exceeds NAFO quotas, that this will be

sufficient reason for Canada to regard the European Community as having

abrogated the agreement.

We have other concerns as well, Mr. Speaker, but they all add

up to one thing: The long-term interests of Newfoundland and Labrador will not

be served well by the agreement announced today by Mr. Crosbie.

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

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

I just want to have a few words to respond to the minister's

statement.

It is my understanding that the Province has been briefed on

two or three occasions in the last couple of weeks. I see the minister shaking

his head, no. Well on the 7th, 8th and 9th of December, I believe, officials of

the government, and I do not know if there were any ministers or not, but I

understand there was a briefing here in the Province and there was another

briefing in Ottawa, I understand the Premier himself on occasion had a chance to

talk to Ambassador Gherson, I believe, I do not if that was a prearranged

meeting or not -

AN HON. MEMBER: Just a courtesy call.

MR. MATTHEWS: - whatever, but the Province was briefed on

this situation prior to the agreement being announced and leading up to today's

announcement, I believe it is on three occasions. I am sure the Minister of

Fisheries is very much aware of that, that the Province was not debriefed.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I guess my reaction to it, having listened to the

news media this morning while driving the highway, a press conference held by

Mr. Crosbie and some reaction to it, and then only within the last thirty

minutes or so having received the press kit with a memorandum of understanding

in it, I guess my first reaction is that it is a significant improvement. I

would have to say that, that this memorandum of understanding will lead to an

improvement of the situation. It probably does not go far enough and I am sure

that will be the prevalent criticism of it, that it does not go far enough. But

anytime you have an agreement whereby the European community is going to abide

by NAFA quotas and it has always been our harsh criticism that they did not,

then certainly that has to be an improvement, I say to members opposite and of

course what you have to remember is for the first time they are going to

recognize the moratorium. They are now going to recognize the moratorium. They

will not get any northern cod while the moratorium applies which of course is

very, very logical and sensible and once the moratorium - hopefully it will not

be too long before the moratorium is eliminated and our boats can fish northern

cod again. That they then will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you suppose the fish will come

from?

MR. MATTHEWS: I suppose the fish will come when the

stocks regenerate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: When the stocks regenerate, I suppose that

is where the fish are going to come from. At least that is what I hope, I do not

know what the hon. member hopes, unless he hopes there will never be any more

fish. It is not my wish.

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

asking for leave of the House to respond.

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to address

this statement in the absence of reading and having available a copy of the

agreement itself. I believe it confirms that the concerns raised on Friday by

the interchurch coalition have been well-founded, Mr. Speaker, that the

agreement that is reached does not go far enough to protect the fish stocks. The

major concern of course is that while we are going ahead and suffering the

losses of fish quotas and losses of catch to our people, that the international

community is not required to abide by that, and even though they may have

acknowledged acceptance of quotas, they have not agreed sufficiently yet to

provide adequate surveillance by Canadian enforcement procedures, and until that

happens we will not have any confidence that whatever quotas are in existence

are being abided by.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform this hon. House of

Assembly that Newfoundland and Labrador has started exporting significant

quantities of lumber this year for the first time since the early 1920s. These

exports are not from one operation, but represent three separate initiatives.

These initiatives, Mr. Speaker, are as follows:

Forest Products Limited of Harbour Grace which has made two

small shipments of specialty lumber products to Great Britain. It has met with

very favourable acceptance in terms of its quality.

Glenwood Forest Products has shipped over two million board

feet of lumber to markets in mainland Canada and the United States. Again, this

has received good response.

The Canada Bay Lumber Company in Roddickton reopened under

new ownership this past summer. Its first shipment was loaded for Europe last

week, and I understand now is enroute. This shipment of approximately 600,000

board feet of high quality lumber is destined for Rotterdam enroute to Austria.

Obviously other shipments will follow.

It is indeed good to see forest products from this Province

commanding premium prices and acceptance of quality in the world market place.

The better prices and more diverse markets can only enhance the viability of our

sawmill industry.

Mr. Speaker, lumber exports from Newfoundland peaked between

1900 and 1910, but after the harvest of the pine forests, the exports dwindled

to minimal quantity by 1920 and then closed in the early 1920s. Since then, with

the exception of some dunnage for exporting newsprint, no regular export of

lumber took place. I am therefore very pleased that Newfoundland sawmillers are

again venturing to export the higher quality lumber.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express

my appreciation to the owners and operators of these mills for their

entrepreneurial initiative and encourage other businesses to follow this

example.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an

advance copy of his statement. We, too, on the Opposition side are pleased to

see some reactivation of life in the lumber export business. I guess, to anyone

not really familiar with our Province and having wondered about the line of the

'pine-clad hills' in the Ode to Newfoundland know where the pine-clad hills

ended up. But this is good news, Mr. Speaker. I have a particular secondary

forest products mill in my district, Superior Wood Products, and I am

disappointed they are not among the list of exporters because they are into a

type of stuff that could be exported, especially to Europe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the operator?

MR. HEWLETT: It is Max Goudie.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic, I guess, having cut out all

our pine trees at the turn of this century that we see pine trees from Nova

Scotia entering the Province of late, as Christmas trees. There is a lot that

can be done with regard to the forest products in this Province, especially

creating new jobs and new export markets. We are pleased with this, as it has

come so far, and we do hope it continues well into the future.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, we, in the NDP, are also

delighted to -

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave, on a

point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was understood that

the hon. the Member for St. John's East would have to ask leave. I already said

no leave the first time and the hon. Speaker did not hear me.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member withdrawing leave?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Premier. We have before us in third reading, a bill which is going to reduce

benefits to disabled workers, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act,"

Bill 48. I want to ask the Premier, Is he aware that the Workers' Compensation

Commission has already written disabled workers in this Province, telling them

that as soon as this legislation is passed, Workers' Compensation will deduct

the full amount of dependants' benefits - not benefits that the workers,

themselves will receive, but benefits that the dependants' of disabled workers

will receive from Canada Pension? Is he aware of that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, to deal first with the

initial comment. This is not a bill to reduce compensation to workers, this is a

bill to save the workers' compensation fund and to provide security for future

compensation. Because if this isn't done, nobody will get anything three years

from now when the fund goes bankrupt. So this kind of step has to be taken to

protect the future of the fund.

Secondly, I'm not aware that the Workers' Compensation

Commission has sent out any such letters. I did have a telephone call over the

weekend, at my home, from a person who is in receipt of workers' compensation,

and he had a particular concern about having received advice. I have started a

process to cause an inquiry. I don't know whether the individual has called back

again to my office this morning or not, but I asked him to do that and told him

whom to call.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the Premier that, as well, we had several calls,

including the same one he got, no doubt, to our office this morning. So I

presume the allegation is accurate, that the letters have gone out.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is important to put this in perspective,

to make sure the Premier understands it. It is one thing to take away disability

pensions that injured workers receive from Canada Pension, but it is quite

another to rob the disabled workers' children of the benefits they are going to

receive from Canada Pension. That is the difference here. I want to ask the

Premier: Is he aware that that is occurring and about to occur? If so, how can

his government justify robbing children of their own benefits, not the workers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what the

Workers' Compensation Commission has done in that respect but, as I told the

hon. member, the process is started to determine what has been done and whether

or not it is appropriate to do it. Once that has been completed, then I will

advise the House further.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, just to make sure that nobody

accepts the characterization made by the Leader of the Opposition - this is not

taking away benefits from workers, this is salvaging the right of workers to

receive it in the future. Because the former government was so grossly

irresponsible that they allowed the fund to go into a situation where, in three

years, it will be bankrupt unless this matter is dealt with.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier can try to

play politics with it all he wants. The fact of the matter is that this is an

action by his government. I want to ask him again: Isn't he aware that Canada

Pension pays the dependant benefits directly to children who are over eighteen

years of age? As an example of one call we received - I think it was from the

Premier's district - one injured worker has two children attending university.

Each one of those individuals personally receives a separate cheque each month

from Canada Pension for $154 a month for educational purposes. Now, the act that

his minister and his government are bringing in is now requiring the Workers'

Compensation Commission to deduct that amount of money, $308.00, from the

father's compensation cheque. Now, wouldn't the Premier agree that this is an

infringement of rights? How can the Premier possibly justify it? The money

doesn't even go to the injured worker, it goes to the worker's dependants.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not playing politics

with it, I am responding to the political comments of the Leader of the

Opposition. I must do that to set the record straight.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say again: I do not know at this

moment what the Workers' Compensation Commission has done. Let me repeat, in

case he didn't hear: I do not know at this moment what the Workers' Compensation

Commission has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: But I have started a process in an effort

to determine what has happened and, if it is inappropriate, steps will be taken.

If it isn't inappropriate we will allow the Workers' Compensation Commission -

we won't interfer with it - to carry on its normal activity, if its actions are

appropriate. But if the actions are inappropriate we will do whatever is

necessary to ensure that the Workers' Compensation Commission does not carry on

any inappropriate activities.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is so surprising. It has me

taken aback. This is exactly what we have been telling the people of the

Province for the last week in this House, that the government is ramming things

through this House and the Premier doesn't even know what is in half the

legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now, I want to ask him this. I don't know if

the Premier is aware of this. We have checked with Health and Welfare Canada and

they tell us that the money paid to dependants is not considered part of the

disabled worker's income. It is not considered part of the income of the

disabled worker, but it is exclusively to support dependent children for

educational purposes.

Now, I want to ask the Premier: In view of what he said - he

is not aware of it, he is going to check into it, etc., etc., etc. - will he at

least give a commitment to this House that he will check into this and that he

will hold further debate on this legislation? If my allegations are accurate,

would he be prepared to remove the offensive provisions in that legislation in

order to correct this outrageous problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the

Opposition has it all bottom up, as usual.

Mr. Speaker, what I said I did not know, was what the

Workers' Compensation Commission has done. The minister will attempt to find out

forthwith, and the House will be advised as to what they have done or what

action they have taken.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to have any concern with

any aspect of the legislation that has been brought forward. The legislation is

proper legislation, absolutely essential, to salvage the future of those

dependent on workers' compensation in this Province, because the former

government allowed a situation to develop where the fund will be bankrupt in

three years unless action is taken.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we intend to carry on with the approach

that has been taken in that legislation, to protect the future of injured

workers in this Province, not to destroy it. Now, no matter how much political

grandstanding the Opposition does, they cannot possibly alter that course or

they cannot possibly cover up the fact that, that course is necessary because of

their grossly incompetent handling in the past.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is outright thievery on the

part of the government led by the Premier of this Province, that's what is

happening here with this legislation, outright thievery, and the Premier doesn't

have the guts to stand up and face the people of the Province and tell then

that. He has to somehow, blame everything on the previous administration or,

blame it on the Federal Government or blame it on the media for misquoting them

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - or blame it on somebody else. Why does he

not say here in the House today, that he will check into this; if the

allegations are accurate, that his legislation is taking away this money from

dependants, that he will make sure the legislation does not pass without the

provision being brought in?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. I will not say any such

thing for good reason. Our responsibility is to protect the interest of injured

workers for the long-term future. We are not going to be railroaded into doing

something that will bankrupt the fund in the future, as the former members did,

because they don't care what happens, as long as they look after their immediate

political future. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a greater sense of responsibility

to the people and to the future of this Province and we will act in a manner

that will ensure fair and balanced treatment for everybody, the students, the

children of injured workers and others.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is or is not compensation for purposes

of the Workers' Compensation Act, is not for the federal Ministry of Health and

Welfare to determine. It is for this Province to determine, because we set the

standards and we require industry and others to contribute the premiums to pay

for this and we do not want to either bankrupt the fund or drive businesses out

of the Province and so destroy the opportunity for work because of the way in

which the former government, Mr. Speaker, abused the workers' compensation fund

and failed to responsibly provide for it.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries.

The minister today gave a statement pertaining to the

Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the European community and the

time, the minister said that the provincial government had concerns about lack

of enforcement and surveillance measures and compliance with NAFL conservation

framework, EC vessels and so on.

The minister went on to say as well, that there were other

concerns that the Province had. I am wondering if the minister could inform the

House and the people of the Province, what other concerns the Province has about

this Memorandum of Understanding and what concerns have they notified the

Federal Government that they had? What notice did they give to the Federal

Government of the concerns they had? Could he outline that for the House,

please?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I should answer the last part of

the hon. member's question first, in that, since October 30, I believe it is, we

have written the Federal Government - yes, October 30th; the Premier has written

the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and others in Ottawa, four letters; two and

three-page letters each, outlining the Province's objections to some of the

things that we knew were being proposed in the Memorandum of Understanding.

Now, with respect to the statement I made in the House today,

I made reference to the fact that the business of surveillance, of any

enforcement, for example, that, in the Province's view, is far from

satisfactory, in that we are told surveillance will be conducted on those

vessels by nationals from the country of origin of the vessel, and that they

will be reporting back to their respective countries. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is

something like giving Dracula the keys to the blood bank.

Mr. Speaker, the entire agreement has very few obligations in

it except those that oblige Canada, for example, to provide European Community

vessels with access to Canadian ports, and to provide EC vessels with surplus

fish allocations from Canadian waters.

The objection procedure is far from satisfactory. In fact, in

terms of the objection procedure, nothing has really changed. There is nothing

here to indicate - nothing in the agreement, at least - that the EC will accept

and abide by quotas set by NAFO. Mr. Crosbie is giving the impression that that

is so, but there is nothing in the agreement that we are aware of that would

indicate that the European Community would be bound by NAFO quotas, which means,

of course, that they can exercise their objection procedure as has been the case

now for years, and if they deem it necessary, set their own quotas.

So the agreement - while we commend the minister and his

officials for having tried, and I suppose there must be some good points in it -

but certainly, the net result to the Province of Newfoundland will do very

little to help us rebuild our fish stocks; plus the fact, Mr. Speaker, at a time

when we have a moratorium in place, when we have twenty-odd thousand fishermen

and fish plant workers lying idle because of the scarcity of fish, now we are

telling the people who are, by-and-large, responsible for what happened, that

they can start to use our ports while our vessels are tied up, not allowed to go

fishing. So it is totally objectionable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. ministers that in addition to the questions

being brief the answers should be brief. I realise that sometimes the questions

can be lengthy.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the

minister for the information that the Premier or the government wrote four

letters. That is very enlightening. I want to ask the minister: was the minister

not briefed on this situation? Were none of his officials briefed on this

impending Memorandum of Understanding? Is that what the minister is telling me?

Could the minister answer that? Because I understood that the Province was -

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am almost embarrassed to admit

the extent to which we were briefed. The Premier, I understand, was given a copy

of the proposed agreement by the ambassador, Mr. Gherson, but on the

understanding that it would be kept confidential.

PREMIER WELLS: Nothing would be said about it.

MR. CARTER: Nothing would be said about it.

PREMIER WELLS: And I have respected that.

MR. CARTER: Obviously, there was a very good reason for

that. I attended a meeting in Halifax on Friday, Mr. Speaker, with the Minister

of Fisheries and Oceans, and ministers from the other Atlantic Provinces. Before

the meeting concluded, I asked the minister - I made reference to some press

reports that I had been reading, to the effect that this agreement was pending.

I asked the minister would he confirm or deny. He waffled around and didn't say

yes or no, but I assumed from what he said that, in fact, the agreement would be

released sometime soon.

I asked the minister, Mr. Speaker, in fact, I pleaded with

the minister, to delay any signing until at least he had a chance to discuss it

with the Atlantic Provinces fisheries ministers. You know, we are consulted on

other things. When the minister needs some moral support to initiate quota cuts

or things of that nature he will consult with the provincial ministers. In this

case, of an action that will have far-reaching impact on the future of this

Province, the minister did not see fit to refer the matter to the Atlantic

Provinces' Fisheries Ministers Council, and so stated at that meeting.

Consequently, none of the ministers that I am aware of even saw the agreement

prior to its release this morning.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There seems to be a

lot of confusion over there. The minister admitted that the Premier wrote

letters. Why would he write letters on something he knew nothing about? Also,

the Premier just admitted across the House that he has discussed the situation

with Mr. Crosbie on a number of occasions. As well, it is my understanding that

Ambassador Gherson and some other officials briefed officials of the minister's

department and Intergovernmental Affairs officials, and then an official of

Intergovernmental Affairs went to Ottawa on another occasion, around December 8

or 9.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: On and on it goes. So there seems to be a

whole lot of confusion as to how much the Province was consulted. It is one

thing to stand up here and say you weren't consulted when now we find out there

was considerable correspondence of consultation that took place, both written

and verbal.

I want to ask the minister another supplementary on another

question. Last week the federal Minister of Fisheries announced the Atlantic

Provinces Groundfish Management Plan. I know the minister had some input into

that and I know, listening to him on the news a couple of nights ago, that he

basically supported the measures announced by Mr. Crosbie. I am wondering: Could

the minister outline for the House what he sees as the implications of that new

management plan for the Province's fishing industry? What is going to be the

fallout and so on for the industry? Could he outline that for the House, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a

number of questions in his preliminary comments.

Yes, the Province was told it was being done. We heard a

rumour that it was being done, so we wrote - I wrote - the letter to Mr. Crosbie

and Ms. McDougall and gave them our general views on it. We heard further

information as to what was being done, and we wrote again and gave them further

positions on it. None of this - no consultations - all of this was under way

without any consultation whatsoever with the Province.

Then we discovered, or we heard, that a tentative agreement

had been reached, and when we raised questions about it they agreed to brief us

on it. So they came down - after it was all done and negotiated. For the first

time, they consulted with the Province after the fact, after the agreement was

reached.

Now, I am not prepared to stand in this House and hear hon.

members opposite act as a stalking horse for Mr. Crosbie to present the idea

that somehow the Province was totally informed from the beginning and approved

of all of this. Just the very opposite is true, Mr. Speaker.

I met Mr. Gherson by accident on a plane, and he talked to me

about it and told me about it. He showed me the agreement, and I told him what I

thought was wrong with the agreement. Now, he sees it through rather rosier

coloured glasses than I wear. I tend to look at it through very clear glasses,

and the agreement does not, in my opinion, specifically state that the European

Community will abide by NAFO quotas. If it says that - if that, in fact, is what

it says, then I have told Mr. Crosbie that I would be far more supportive of the

agreement and would endorse his actions and what he has done; but it does not

say that.

Now, if Mr. Crosbie's position is this: that if the European

Community does not abide by the NAFO quotas, they will terminate the agreement

for cause; if that is his position - and I have asked him if he would write a

letter to the European Community to say just that - I told him, with great

respect, it is not in the agreement. The right to terminate is there, but what

is not in the agreement is the clear, unequivocal statement that they will abide

by NAFO quotas. That is not there. It specifically says that they will support

the NAFO conservation and management decisions, in accordance with their rights

under the NAFO convention. What rights? The right to object and set their own

quotas.

That is what concerns us, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we

have raised this question of caution. So I do not want these kinds of questions

and commentaries by the Opposition House Leader to give the implication that the

Province was consulted and knew all about this and supported it. We did not, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final

supplementary.

The problem is this: Really, the Premier only pays lip

service to the Province's fishing industry - lip service on opportune occasions

when he can get up and rant and roar in front of the people of the Province.

That is the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: That is why - yes, he ran into Ambassador

Gherson by accident.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not answer the supplementary. I

want to ask the Minister of Fisheries a supplementary again, with respect to the

Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan.

I wonder if the minister could inform the House what the

newest management plan will mean for the fishing industry of Newfoundland and

Labrador? What are the implications? What will be the fallout? Will the industry

be further downsized? Will there be more fishermen and fish plant workers

unemployed as a result of the new plan?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, talking about people giving lip

service to the fishery, let me remind the hon. gentleman, this is the first line

of questioning that has come from his side, by the way, I think in about three

weeks. You have not seen fit to ask a question on the fishery. So that is an

indication of just how interested the Opposition is.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to the 1993 management plan, yes,

it will impact on Newfoundland. It will have, in some cases, a rather serious

impact on the Province. For example, in the 3Ps area on the South Coast, the

allowable catch will be reduced there by some 12,000 metric tons, from 32,000

down to 20,000 in an area where last year I am told the fishermen found it

impossible to even harvest the quota, which indicates that the fish just are not

there. Quite possibly that is an exaggeration of what is there.

With respect to the Newfoundland side of the Gulf, the west

coast, the total allowable catch was reduced there by a mere 4000 tons. Last

year the allowable catch was 35,000 and this year they agreed to reduce it to

31,000. Again, Mr. Speaker, last year, notwithstanding extra increased effort

the fishermen in that area only caught about 27,000 tons, which means that the

TAC was established in excess of what the actual stocks could bear. That is

going to have, I believe, repercussions in that no compensation has been offered

to date. The minister did announce certain things with which we agreed. He is

going to take firmer measures with respect to putting a stop to high grading

fish, dumping small fish, catching more than their quotas will allow,

overfishing, and several other things, and we support him in that.

But, I would have preferred, Mr. Speaker, given the

circumstances had the minister announced a moratorium on the west coast of the

Province to give the fish stocks a chance to build properly. The way he is doing

it now is a hit or miss type of arrangement and I heard the same story with

respect to the northern cod a couple of years prior to when the moratorium was

imposed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier. Some ten months ago there

was a public meeting held in Davis Inlet where officials from Intergovernmental

Affairs, officials from the Federal Government, and other interested groups

attended concerning the Innu of Davis Inlet who asked to be relocated some eight

or ten miles from their present location. I understand the government has

received the consultant's report and the report recommends that the community be

relocated. I ask the Premier if his government endorses the report and will it

press for a federal/provincial agreement to move the community to the new site

as soon as possible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am not sure the hon. gentleman's

understanding is totally correct. He is quite correct that out of that meeting

arose an agreement to have a full study done of the proposal to move the

community. Some two weeks or so ago I got an executive

summary of the report.

The final report itself was provided, I think on Wednesday or Thursday of last

week. The report is now under assessment by officials in Intergovernmental

Affairs and by federal governmental officials. The government has not yet had an

opportunity to consider the recommendations of the report. From my preliminary

assessment, from my own preliminary observations of it, I am not sure that the

hon. gentleman is correct when he says the report recommends moving the

community. What the report does is analyses what happens and what the cost would

be if the community were to remain in Davis Inlet where it is now and what the

cost would be of providing adequate service as compared with the cost of

developing a new community in Sango Bay and abandoning the existing community.

My recollection is, at least from the executive

summary, which I saw a week or

ten days ago, it does not specifically recommend moving the community.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

The report does say that to keep the present site it would

cost $50 million less over the next fifty years. However, Mr. Speaker, the

Premier earlier in a question from the Leader of the Opposition complained about

the former government with the Workers' Compensation Board. Knowing that he was

part of a government in 1966, in the Cabinet at the time, which made a decision

to move Davis Inlet from its old location on the mainland to the lsland portion

where it is now, would the Premier now try to correct the mistake he was part of

twenty-five years ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon.

gentleman is right again. I think the location of Davis Inlet was done long

before I ever went into the Cabinet in September. I do not know when in 1966.

MR. ROBERTS: The decisions were taken long before then.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I became a member of the

Cabinet in September 1966. So, Mr. Speaker, if it was made in February or March

or April or June, I would know nothing about it. If it was made sometime later,

presumably I may have been at the Cabinet meeting and would have been involved

in the discussions about it, I do not know, but what it has to do with this

question, I have not the foggiest notion and I doubt very much that the hon.

member has any notion about what it has to do with it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know for

one thing, Mr. Speaker, the people of Davis Inlet do and that is one thing, Mr.

Speaker, that I am here to represent the people of Davis Inlet and I would say

to the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary not a debate.

MR. WARREN: I would ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, would

he not now move to correct the injustice that he was part of in the Smallwood

Cabinet of 1966-67.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If it were not so pathetic, Mr. Speaker,

it might just be funny.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask

a question to the Minister of Education. In the March Budget under Provincial

Tax Sources Other, $8.25 million was budgeted and the Minister of Finance

indicated a certain portion of this was school tax arrears and he also indicated

in the House that in the revised Budget, in the mini-Budget there is an extra

$10 million windfall coming into school tax. Would the Minister of Education

give the amount of the $8.25 million that was in the Budget for school tax

arrears and how much of this recent $10 million is in this current tax year?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, these are detailed questions

which I will have to take under advisement between the Department of Education

and the Department of Finance. I would hope that we can get the answers for the

hon. member as soon as we possibly can. I should point out though to members of

the House, that as a result of the abolition of school tax the Province directly

put $35 million into the school system of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, when

the Province did that we essentially, as I said many times before, bought the

ledger and said: if we realize $25 million we are out $10 million, if we realize

$40 million we are in $5 million, that is progressing, Mr. Speaker, and I

understand that tax arrears which have not been collected for years, did come in

as a result of the offer which we made in June, whereby you could get a break if

you paid by a certain date.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe this is the appropriate time to do what I am

proposing to do on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance. I would like

to table some pre-commitments. First, a pre-commitment in order to enable

certain highway projects to proceed next year under the Canada/Newfoundland

Trans-Canada Highway Agreement and the Canada/Newfoundland Regional Trunk Roads

Agreement, for the former $30 million and for the latter $20 million. Also, Mr.

Speaker, a pre-commitment for $1.5 million to allow the Department of Tourism to

commit to tourism advertising contracts for the 1993 tourist season.

Mr. Speaker, normally these pre-commitments are tabled three

days after the decision has been made. We were a bit late doing it, but I hope

you will understand.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as is required by Statute, I

want to table the 19th. Annual Report and Financial Statements for the

Newfoundland Crop Insurance Agency for the years ending March, 1991 and March,

1992. Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would also like to table the Annual

Report of the Livestock Owners Compensation Board ending again, I think, in

March, 1992.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 7,626 people of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, who have petitioned the

government on the Workers' Compensation legislation currently before the House,

which was most recently debated last week, sometime in the middle of the night.

The petition says, Mr. Speaker, that the undersigned do

verily believe that cuts in benefits to injured workers will cause undue

economic hardship to workers and their families; and further believe that cuts

to injured workers in an attempt to blame the victims for their injuries; and,

therefore, demand that the provincial government immediately reject all

recommendations by the Workers' Compensation Statutory Review Committee for cuts

in benefits to injured workers.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a number of debates in this House

on the issue of workers' compensation benefits, and we have seen various types

of excuses being given by the government for the reduction in benefits to the

recommended 75 per cent of the pre-existing income of workers which is going to

result in severe economic hardship to individuals on workers' compensation.

Mr. Speaker, the difficulties in terms of the costs of

benefits being paid out by Workers' Compensation were outlined in the 1991

Workers' Compensation Statutory Review Majority Report as involving a number of

difficulties at Workers' Compensation, including the duration of claims, health

care delivery costs, delays in obtaining assistance, increases in the cost of

rehabilitation and claims delay within the commission, as well as the indexing

of benefits. What the government has done in response to that, Mr. Speaker, is

cut the level of benefits.

Now, we were given a pretty feeble excuse the other night, in

the middle of the night, by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations in

which he said that there was some evidence to suggest, from other jurisdictions,

that if you cut the amount of benefits that it will cause some workers to go

back to work earlier. Now, Mr. Speaker, that to me is an admission that what the

government is doing is punishing all injured workers in order to get a number of

them to go back to work earlier than they ordinarily would. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that that confirms the petitioners claim here that what is happening

with this government is the blaming of the victim for their injuries and blaming

the victim for the problem.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is the costs of workers'

compensation. The reasons for those costs have been outlined by the Compensation

Review Commission. The government has a responsibility to look after the flaws

in the system before it starts clawing back workers' benefits.

We heard today, Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, another

example of the government's clawing back of benefits by taking from the parent,

Mr. Speaker, monies that are given to the students by a third party, by the

Canada Pension Plan scheme. Payments which are regarded by Revenue Canada as

income for the students are being treated by this government as income to an

injured worker and clawed back for their claim.

This is another example of this government's attempt to claw

back to a level that they think is sufficient for individuals in this Province

who are receiving benefits from other governments and other sources. It's

unfair, it's unconscionable, and it certainly ought not to form any part of a

responsible and reasonable workers' compensation system.

Once again, the petitioners call on the government and demand

that the government immediately reject all recommendations by the Workers'

Compensation statutory review committee for cuts in benefits to injured workers.

That is a very simple request and it's one that we would like to see this

government act on immediately. There is still time, Mr. Speaker. The Bill has

not yet passed through the House.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak in

support of the petition put forth by the Member for St. John's East on behalf

of, I think he said, some 7,800 injured people in this Province who are

petitioning this government to take care of the injured workers in this Province

instead of imposing hardship upon them as this minister intends to do with the

proposed changes to the workers' compensation legislation.

This Bill has been before the House. The minister has been

told many times of the undue hardships it's going to place on a number of

individuals as a result. The minister refused to change any of the provisions in

the Committee stage. This Bill has not received third reading, and the minister

would be well advised to delay the implementation of this Bill until the workers

in the Province can have a say and tell the minister what's wrong with workers'

compensation.

MS. VERGE: Till the Premier figures out what's going

(Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Premier will never figure

out what's going on with workers' compensation. He doesn't have time to figure

out what goes on with the plight of the average worker in this Province.

This Bill is a direct attack on the injured workers of this

Province. By reducing benefits to 75 per cent for the first thirty-nine weeks

it's going to impose economic hardship on thousands of injured workers. That is

not the problem with workers'. I've told the minister on numerous occasions that

workers' compensation need not be attacked this way. There are other ways to do

it. The minister has got to improve his health and safety. He's got to make

employers and employees more accountable. He's doing it by attacking their

pocketbooks. It's wrong.

I understand there were some questions in Question Period

that came out of it today with respect to CPP benefits. I've told the minister

privately, I've told him in the House of Assembly on numerous occasions, that

this - Clause 19, I think it is - of this proposed legislation, that repeals

Section 81(3) of the Act, is wrong. Because it is taking money from those who

can less afford to have it taken from them. The minister has never come up with

a satisfactory explanation as to why.

Clause 20, the top-up provision, the minister for the first

time in the House last week acknowledged as to why this provision was there. It

had nothing to do with workers' compensation. The minister said: we put Clause

20 in, the provision taking away top-up rights, because we want to speed up the

process by which injured workers went back to work. Now if that's the only

reason that that clause is there, it's wrong. Again, what the minister needs to

do is to have a sound education program in place in this Province so workers

will want to return to the workplace. Some of the problem comes now because this

administration has made the economy so flat. They've laid off so many people in

this Province I don't know if there's a job for them to go back to, as a result

of the cuts that have taken place.

Mr. Speaker, I support the prayer of this petition, because

it's a petition on behalf of thousands of people of this Province who fear what

this administration is doing with a benefit that has been there since 1949, and

more recently 1954, and even more recently some legislation that came in the

mid- to late-eighties, that gave workers certain rights again, it says, has been

the trademark of this administration, taking away the things from workers that

they have previously negotiated and agreed to; collective bargaining disappeared

and now, Mr. Speaker, another sacred right of the worker, the right to a fair

amount of compensation for an injury, has been stripped by this administration,

and I have no choice but to support the prayer of that petition.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to respond briefly to some of the comments made in

support of the petition. Certainly, I understand the thrust and the intent of

the petition from the concerned workers, but I am not at all convinced that

either one of the hon. members opposite, who spoke on behalf of those seriously

concerned petitioners, left the politics out of it and just addressed the issue

because their characterization of what has happened is totally, absolutely

wrong.

They know that and they should be more concerned about the

intent and the consideration that those serious petitioners put into that

petition, rather than to stand up and get on with the diatribe that they got on

with, which has no basis in fact, whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out for example, that the

petitioners were looking at rejecting the cuts to the benefits, and that is a

concern for injured workers. We have taken that into consideration in the act,

that long-term existing claimants who have already had a certain adaptation in

their lifestyle will be preserved at their current levels and will not be cut

back or slashed and so on as the members opposite would try to portray it. So

the members are being very deceitful in terms of how they represent what is

happening in this act.

Now, new injuries in the future will be treated differently

for one very good reason that has been explained to everybody in the Province on

every possible occasion, and that is, that if they are not treated differently,

there will be no protection for any injured workers in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and those petitioners do not want that to happen. They want protection

and that is what they are going to get from the changes in this particular bill.

Just as an example, Mr. Speaker, because again, the

petitioners had a serious complaint which we looked at in our deliberations, and

tried to make sure the change and so on accommodated their concerns as much as

possible. When I give honest answers in the House, they are misrepresented, as

when the hon. the Member for St. John's East indicated that I talked about the

reason for one of the changes being to try to get people to go back earlier. I

did not talk anything about going back earlier; I said that the change and the

literatures clearly show that people would not be tempted to stay on the system

any longer than required. A change of words to give a completely different

connotation to something that is very straightforward and acknowledged in all

the literature and the research done in the area, that this is an effect of the

change.

As well, Mr. Speaker, regrettably, in being so hasty to get

on to the politics of this instead of being serious, as were the petitioners,

both hon. members were saying that all we did was cut benefits. It has been

explained and it is clear in the bill that there is a four-pronged approach in

this bill, that we are looking at Occupational Health and Safety, improving it

and have already made commitments in that respect with six new people already

working in the area; long-term, lost-time actions already declining and have

been for a year-and-a-half now. Organizational changes are currently ongoing and

there is the entitlement issue, as to what is the definition of a compensable

injury, that is being studied, and going to be altered over the next year or so.

Those three will have just as much impact, if not more, than

the financial changes that are also in this bill. So the financial changes, Mr.

Speaker, are just one small part of an overall change

to save the workers' compensation system.

Later today or tomorrow we will give the full details of the

CPP offset, which by the way, if members are surprised by it, it has always been

in, this is not something new and wonderful and different. If you check

section

78 in the current act, it allowed and always did for offset of CPP benefits.

We are having it checked, as the Premier pointed out. If the

board of the commission and the staff are making a different

interpretation as

to the earnings, in whose hands they are and to whom they belong, than are other

agencies, we, after having that checked, will ask them to deal with that and we

will report back to the House in due time. But the idea of offsetting Canada

Pension benefits and disability from workers' compensation has always been the

case; and it is just that the commission has been told, not to use it as a

discretionary item but to definitely enforce the offset starting January 1,

1993, and to make sure that they use that provision of the act.

The petitioners were quite serious, Mr. Speaker, and had

legitimate points to make. Unfortunately, in presenting the petition on their

behalf, I think the hon. members let the petitioners down greatly by

characterizing and using the opportunity for their own political benefit and

gain, rather than dealing seriously with what the petitioners wanted to present

to this Legislature.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I shall be asking you to call

third readings, in the hope that we shall get through them relatively quickly

but that is, of course, up to the House.

Let me say - because there have been some questions from my

colleagues here and I spoke to my friend, the Opposition House Leader this

morning and told him this, but I will say it for the benefit of any members who

have not heard - that I propose the House will adjourn at 5:00 p.m. until 7:00

p.m., and when we come back at 7:00 p.m. we shall go into the discussion of the

police bill, or the closure motion, which will, in due course, lead to the

police bill.

MR. TOBIN: The muzzle act.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the muzzle act. My friend from Burin -

Placentia West needs a muzzle. We are going to give him one.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was not here.

MR. ROBERTS: He was not here that night; but anyway, be

that as it may, that is what we are going to do.

Obviously, the tone of the debate is going to be set, but if

it is we will deal with it. My friend has a question.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) at 5:00 p.m. we would be defeating

the motion to adjourn - so we automatically come back here at 7:00 p.m.?

MR. ROBERTS: There will not be a motion to adjourn at

5:00 p.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come back at 7:00 p.m., no motion.

MR. ROBERTS: The Speaker will just leave the Chair at

5:00 p.m., pursuant to the Standing Orders. There will be no need for a motion.

It is only on Thursday, I say to my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, that

we actually have a motion to adjourn before us; but if somebody -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Wednesday -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is automatic.

MR. ROBERTS: It is automatic because we do not come back;

but should somebody make a motion we adjourn at 5:00 p.m. today, I predict it

will be defeated.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I understand.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, so we will take the supper break from

5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

MR. SIMMS: The point I was trying to make is, you are not

going to make a motion that we not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.?

MR. ROBERTS: That is right.

MR. SIMMS: You are not doing that?

MR. ROBERTS: That is correct. I have spoken to my friend,

the Opposition House Leader, and I think we feel it would be in the interest of

all concerned to take a break from 5:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. When we come back

at 7:00 p.m. we will go into the police bill debate and that will carry on until

1:00 a.m., I believe. The Standing Orders actually say 2:00 a.m., but I

understand - up until 1:00 a.m. - yes, when the House is ready for the question

we shall do no further business this night, once we have dealt with that bill,

however long that takes. It will not be longer than 1:00 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that when we have dealt with the

third readings, I propose to ask you to call the one bill at second reading that

remains to be dealt with, and that is Bill No. 73, the municipal utilities

taxation bill. Again, I have told my friend that this will be called after that.

The House will obviously have to sit tomorrow, Sir. It

remains to be seen, I guess, whether we sit Wednesday or Thursday - that is in

the hands of members of the House, obviously, but we will decide that when we

come. My colleagues and I have no desire to restrict debate in any way. Whatever

the rules allow, we are obviously prepared to have a full and frank debate as

always, Sir.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: With that said - well, I say to my friend

from Burin - Placentia West, I hope there will be debate. I hope it is not just

simply prolonged for the sake of prolongation, but that is up to members and far

be it for me to interfere.

Mr. Speaker, that said, could we proceed with Order No. 1 and

carry on through with the third readings?

MR. SPEAKER: What we are doing, for hon. members, is

moving the bills under Orders No. 1 though 10, so we will just name the bills.

On motion, the following bills, read a third time, ordered

passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill No.

13).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Farm Products Corporation Act."

(Bill No. 10).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act." (Bill

No. 19).

A bill, "An Act Respecting An Avian Emblem Of The Province."

(Bill No. 21).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act."

(Bill No. 48).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act."

(Bill No. 20).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Grants Act." (Bill No.

30).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Welfare Institutions Act." (Bill

No. 33).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department of Health Act." (Bill

No. 38).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act." (Bill No. 40).

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader indicated that

after this the House would be proceeding to Order. No. 43.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The

Taxation of Utilities and Cable Television Companies," (Bill No. 73).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the minister who

is moving the bill, is just outside the door. I was told he was on his way into

the Chamber. I wonder if we could have just a moment's grace. I apologize.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which bill is it?

MR. ROBERTS: It is Bill No. 73.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It is not that bad, I say to my hon. friend.

I say to my friend, the minister, he is on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would advise the minister that all the action necessary has

been taken but for his presentation of the second reading of Bill No. 73.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize to the House for being -

AN HON. MEMBER: Late.

MR. HOGAN: - for being late and delayed. I was attending

to a matter just out in the corridor and did not realize my hon. friends were

going to be so co-operative in wanting me to come on stage. They wanted to hear

my pleasant voice that is talked about during the Christmas holidays and what

have you.

Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 73, "An Act Respecting The Taxation of

Utilities and Cable Television Companies" is a long-anticipated and long-awaited

bill and I will not spend too much time dwelling on the history of it. Suffice

it to say that there are a number of provincial acts or provincial regulations

that pertain to how the utility companies can be taxed by municipalities

throughout the Province.

As far back as my association with municipalities is

concerned - it goes back to 1969, and it goes back a long way, I guess, for some

hon. friends across the way and on both sides of the House, in dealing with this

particular subject. It was a very important matter on the agenda for both the

Province and the Federation of Municipalities back as far as 1969.

At that time, the outgoing President, Mr. Hubert Harnett,

considered it one of the most important regulations that had to be dealt with by

the government, by the federation and, indeed, by the utility companies. Now,

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will probably reiterate during their speeches this

afternoon addressing this particular tax bill, down through the years there has

been many and varied opinions by each of the three participants and, indeed, by

- the participants changed their opinions from year to year, depending on who

the individual and speaking players were.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, there were some municipalities

that were permitted through legislation, to have unusually high rates of

taxation and there were municipalities that were permitted as low as 1 per cent

at a ceiling. It was by agreement between the municipalities and by the utility

companies and by the Province, that at some point in time, and at designated

times, actually, over the years, that this would be levelled off. I believe the

first rate that I ever heard of was a rate of 2 per cent. Today in this

legislation we are asking for a ceiling of 2.5 per cent that could be set by the

legislation on either the Newfoundland Tel, Newfoundland Hydro, Newfoundland

Light and the various cable companies.

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of these rates will have an

adverse financial effect on a great many municipalities. Not all that we may be

led to believe by the so called furor that has been created in the press but by,

I believe under the telephone company probably 60 out of 190 or something like

that and about 50 per cent in the case of the telephone company, about 50 per

cent to the communities in Newfoundland, the incorporated communities in

Newfoundland would be adversely affected by this in various degrees of severity.

This is, indeed, unfortunate but it is something that had to be faced sooner or

later. I guess, this is a poor time with so much restraint and recession on the

go, that we have to face it today; nevertheless, it is now being faced.

As a result of representations from members on both sides of

the House, I might mention, my hon. critic from Fogo played a role in this, as

did other members of the House of Assembly, in that probably the amendment which

carries with this bill, to permit the decrease in the applied taxation, whether

it be on property or on gross revenue, it will be brought in, in three phases;

that is to say, for example, if a community were to lose in gross revenue

$30,000 overall by the introduction of 2.5 per cent, then next year, in effect,

instead of losing the $30,000 in 1993, it would lose $10,000 and another $10,000

at the beginning of 1994 and then another $10,000 at the beginning of 1995. So

there is a three-period phase-in for loss of revenue. Now, this is an

oversimplification, Mr. Speaker, as the way one would read the bill, but as the

hon. the Member for Fogo and I have discussed, that is the nuts and bolts of it,

in that the adverse effect on communities will be phased in and, in this way, we

hope it will not be as bad for them as was originally thought.

On the other hand, the introduction to the 2.5 for 50 per

cent of the communities addressed in the telephone company and the other 60-70

per cent that will be affecting Hydro and Newfoundland Light; that will be

introduced, well, at the wisdom of the municipalities in it applying the 2.5 if

that is what they so wish.

The bill will also, for the first time, Mr. Speaker, allow

2.5 per cent to be applied to Newfoundland Hydro. In this way, it is a gain to

the communities and, indeed, to most of the far northern communities that are

under the PDD system and other remote communities. It will be a windfall for

these particular communities.

There is not much else to say about the bill, Mr. Speaker;

these are the highlights of it. I look forward to the debate on this bill and

look forward also to the eventual support and passing of the bill. We have tried

to address the concerns of the various affected partners in it and we leave it

to hon. members to bring forward any other points they wish to make. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing that needs to be asked about

this bill is: Why, in the eleventh hour, almost the twelfth hour for

municipalities, would the minister bring this legislation forward? This bill

didn't come to the House until December, at which time, municipalities had

already started the act of preparation for budgets, only to find in December,

that the revenues they thought would accrue to them from the utility and cable

companies of this Province, just weren't there, Mr. Speaker. The bill, as the

minister said, has been talked about for a long, long time. As the minister

indicated, there have been discussions since back in 1969 to look at a uniform

utility tax throughout the Province, but I think at that point in time, the

focus of the debate was not for the communities who were charging the utility

companies extra. That debate centered around the Rattling Brook agreement and a

number of others that might have been in place, where municipalities were

allowed under legislation to charge only 1 per cent. I think the towns of Grand

Falls, Gander, Bishop's Falls, and a number of communities along the

Trans-Canada Highway that used to serviced by the Rattling Brook power supply,

that is where the problem started and that is why municipalities wanted to up

the amount, because of that legislation. I think it was in 1957 or 1959. I am

not sure of the year but the minister probably knows. That was the reason why a

number of the municipalities in this Province wanted to have a tax rate or a

uniform rate. It wasn't that somebody was charging 4 per cent instead of 2.5 per

cent. They were not begging the minister to impose a uniform taxation across the

board. It was not these groups. It was a number of municipalities who were only

allowed, under legislation, to charge, particularly Newfoundland Light and

Power, and then there was a old whole group of communities in the Province, some

of which were in my district, that were not allowed to charge Newfoundland Hydro

anything at all because of its being a Crown Corporation. That is the reason why

this bill has been talked about so much.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) know what you are talking

about.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows perfectly

well that I know what I am talking about.

One of the other problems with this bill - the minister has

tried to say he has talked to the Federation of Municipalities since June. I

think the minister said in June they initiated discussions with them and they

indicated at that point in time they had to have greater input from the

membership, and rightly so, because of, as the minister said, the number of

communities that would be adversely affected. The federation wanted more input

from its membership before it agreed.

In the interim period, Mr. Speaker, the minister went ahead

and struck a deal with Newfoundland Tel and Newfoundland Light and Power. I

don't think Newfoundland Hydro had very much to do with it. I think this came as

much of a surprise to most of the people at Newfoundland Hydro as it did to the

municipalities of this Province. It was just as big a surprise because they are

nowhere close to being able to tell the municipalities who are affected by Hydro

what their 1992 billing is because they do not know. They do not know what their

1991 is either, Mr. Speaker, because that information is not readily available

and will not be for quite some time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. WINSOR: Newfoundland Hydro does not have that kind of

system. Their billing is done, they tell me, by an outside agency. They do not

bill directly and it is going to take quite some time. They can only give a

guess based on a monthly thing and their communities are all broken up, Mr.

Speaker. Anyway those are problems they are going to have to deal with on a

local basis. Taxing on Newfoundland Light and Power, for the most part on gross

sales at 2.5 per cent, will not affect most municipalities too harshly. It is

where Newfoundland Tel or Newfoundland Power own equipment, where they own

infrastructure, generating stations, and so on. Mr. Speaker, that is where the

problem originates, and this Bill in unusual in that it singles out a group of

utility companies who are only going to be assessed on the actual shuck, the

building as a structure, and not anything that goes inside.

Mr. Speaker, that's pretty unusual. That doesn't happen in

many other places. Where you're only going to tax on the shuck that's there. For

the most part, in small rural communities - in my community that I live in -

Newfoundland Tel's got a piece of equipment, a telephone exchange, that measures

probably thirty by twenty. They've got a microwave system that covers the entire

northeast coast. They have $1 million worth of equipment, according to the

assessment that was done. But now that property will be valued probably in the

range of $20,000 or $25,000. That's what it'll be valued at. Probably in the

range of $20,000 to $25,000.

That will devastate a number of communities. They already

know they're going to be devastated by it. Now I see that the minister in Clause

10 - I assume that amendment he's talked about is going to come in Committee.

You're proposing in Committee stage to have some amendments to Clause 10. Is

that what the minister said?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: I can't hear the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Yes, I'll believe the minister. In fact, I've

worked with the minister closely on this one because of the number of

communities that were concerned by it, Mr. Speaker. Because the way the present

Bill reads it fails to take into account - and whoever drafted it didn't have a

very good knowledge of the way Newfoundland Tel or the telephone companies were

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, he gave them poor advice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: He gave them poor advice, Mr. Speaker,

because the real problem with doing what the minister proposes to do in Clause

10(

a) and (

b) is that he says that for those people who charge more than 2.5 per

cent it's going to be a graduated phase-in of taxes.

I understand what he's going to do in the amendment is to

also include any taxes that were paid, regardless of whether it was on gross

sales. Is that the intent of the amendment? The intent of the amendment then, if

the minister is going to do that, that's a pleasant change. It's a pleasant

change - at least municipalities will have their amounts of money decreased by

only a third for the first year and a third for the second year, until we get

complete phase-in in January of 1995.

Another provision of this Bill allows for utility companies

to be charged more than 2.5 per cent, and then the utility company will charge

it back to the consumer. This has already been tried in Supreme Court, I think,

in Newfoundland, in case my friend for Burin - Placentia West is, one of his

municipalities. The town of Burin, I think, in CBS. Took the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: - Newfoundland Power to court, Mr. Speaker,

over their charging back to consumers. This tax is an unfair tax because it's a

consumption tax. Certainly not uniform in its application. For example, somebody

who can not afford to, because it flies in the face of everything that we say in

property tax and everything else in municipalities, as the value of your

property goes up then so do your taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: No, Mr. Speaker. It's a different type of

tax. Because in this case you could have some senior citizen who is having to

constantly get medical intervention and that kind of thing, requiring frequent

telephone calls, if you live in rural Newfoundland where I do. Calling doctors,

this, that and the other thing for medical opinions. They're going to now have

to pay tax if the town so decides. The towns will have to decide to do it

because of two things. The restraint measures that have been imposed on MOGs,

that they've reduced the amount from $47 million to $41 million. It's taken $6

million out of municipal operating grants in the last two years. Yet at the same

time the cost of running the municipalities is steadily escalating.

The restraint measures that have been imposed and now the

taking away of the municipality's right to impose taxation as it sees fit,

without having to charge back, because this is just another way of

municipalities saying to them: we're forcing you to raise your taxes.

That's the gist of this Bill, to force municipalities to

raise their taxes in communities where they Mr. Speaker, the municipality will

be forced now to raise its taxes or impose this consumption tax. One or the

other, Mr. Speaker, if they are to at least break even.

Mr. Speaker, Clause 11 - and I wish the minister were there

to address it - "A consumer who fails to comply with this Act commits an offence

and is liable on

summary conviction,"... who has to levy the charges? The way I

understand this legislation now is that this is going to be: A municipality

charges 4 per cent, the 2.5 per cent just comes out of the general revenues of

the company, and the 1.5 per cent would be added on to the individual's light,

phone or cable bill, or whatever they decide to do.

MR. ROBERTS: That is 2.5 per cent.

MR. WINSOR: No, it is 4 per cent. The 2.5 per cent is

already built in.

MR. ROBERTS: They phased it down.

MR. WINSOR: You don't see the 2.5 per cent. That comes

out of the revenues, just as it comes out now. If you charge 4 per cent -

MR. ROBERTS: It is built into the operating costs.

MR. WINSOR: Yes. If you charge 4 per cent, the extra 1.5

per cent will be tacked on to your light bill if St. John's imposes the 4 per

cent.

Now, if a consumer - because that is going to be there, a

surcharge - fails to pay, you go to the telephone company and say: I am not

paying that 1.5 per cent. Does the municipality have to take the consumer to

court for conviction or will the utility company? Who does it, Mr. Speaker? I

don't see it in the -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible)

Summary Proceedings Act.

MR. WINSOR: Who does it, still? Who is responsible?

MR. TOBIN: The council does it.

MR. WINSOR: The council has to, Mr. Speaker. What is

that?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) where the individual shop owner

is the agent of the Crown to collect the RST. If an individual does not pay the

RST, assuming the shop owner is not at fault in some way, then the Crown takes

the prosecution if there is one. That is if. The shop owner doesn't have to take

the prosecution. The

Summary Proceedings Act deals with all these things.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not the point Sam was making. The

point Sam was making is: Will it be the council or the utilities depot through

the council.

MR. ROBERTS: The 2.5 is collected -

MR. WINSOR: No, no! Not the 2.5 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no! The consumer tax.

MR. WINSOR: Anyone who fails to pay. So, the minister is

saying council will have to initiate a court action. Is that what the minister

is saying? The utility company at some point in time - because this is going to

be a very cumbersome thing now - will have to send to council: John Smith

refused to pay his extra 1.5 per cent and you will have to initiate action.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is going to be the case with our

record, for municipalities going to court and recovering money in this Province,

then I say it is a sad day for municipalities. Having been involved in one for

four years, Mr. Speaker, the process of getting someone to court takes your town

clerk or your town manager days. Then getting them there, the individual pleads

not guilty and we have to go back to court on about four occasions. That is

fine, if you happen to be in St. John's and it doesn't cost you anything. But if

you live in Carmanville where I live and it is sixty miles to the nearest court

and you make four trips and you are only recovering fifteen or twenty dollars,

it does not become very cost effective.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. member's comment is well taken. In

a different sense, not in effect of this tax, we are addressing it in another

(inaudible) on the Order Paper, The Ticket Act.

MR. WINSOR: Yes, The Ticket Act, the same type of thing.

MR. ROBERTS: The comment is well taken.

MR. WINSOR: If that is the case, and I can -

MR. ROBERTS: I doubt if there are going to be very many

offenses under this. Let's wait and see.

MR. WINSOR: The minister doubts very much, Mr. Speaker. I

doubt very much if the minister will not be proven to be wrong. I am pretty

certain that he will, Mr. Speaker. If municipalities have to apply an additional

tax.

MR. ROBERTS: We can also sue civilly which is far more

effective.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice might be

well versed in law, but unfortunately the number of municipalities out there

that are small don't have access to legal staff, to legal expertise, without

paying enormous sums of money. Mr. Speaker, they are not aware of some of the

things -

MR. A. SNOW: This is supposed to assist the

municipalities, not the legal profession.

MR. WINSOR: No, Mr. Speaker, this is never going to

assist the municipalities of this Province.

I just want to have a few more remarks on this Bill. The

Bill, which the minister might think was fine in intent, is going to deal a

terrific blow to the municipalities of this Province. It was ill-conceived to

come with it at the time when he did, especially when such a reduction was

occurring in MOGs throughout this Province. It's only now the minister has had a

chance to do a thorough analysis. Because initially they thought there wouldn't

be many people affected adversely by this tax. Now they've discovered that a

whole group of communities -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: No. The minister said sixty when he spoke.

Sixty of the communities in this Province, sixty out of 190, I think he said.

About one-third of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: One-third of the communities, Mr. Speaker,

will be adversely affected because of the changing of the system to a 2.5 per

cent of gross sales, as opposed to a tax levied on a value of a property.

This marks a difference now. It's the first time. A question.

Are there other surprises coming for municipalities? That the Province is now

going to start to legislate what kind of taxes different commercial groups can

be assessed in this Province. You've done it for the first one, by saying

utility taxes are to be assessed at 2.5 per cent. Are you going to do the same

thing if it's an electronics repair centre, or a computer centre? If an

individual, if somebody out in Gander or in Corner Brook, decides to set up a

computer bank. A huge computer system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, if he sets it up and supplies a

service to the entire Province is the equipment going to be assessed in that

building?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, it's the same thing. The

telephone exchange equipment is exactly the same. For the first time you are

making an exclusion for a company. You are saying that you're not going to be

taxed for the real value of your building. Are you going to do it for other

buildings in this Province, or other companies? Because municipalities will be

keenly interested.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: You're going to do it for others as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible) could the minister tell us which

other ones you're going to do it for?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: What did he say?

MR. A. SNOW: Can't hear you.

MR. HOGAN: It's in the plan as an incentive (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to take into

consideration - because this is only in second reading - he's got lots of time.

To take the advice of the Federation of Municipalities and ask the minister to

take a bit more time to try to resolve the matter in a fair, balanced and

equitable manner which will make a difference to the overall impact of the

utility companies and the government of the Province. A reasonable delay would

give the government and this Federation an opportunity to review the legislation

in a consultative manner, which didn't occur. It would allow municipalities

adequate time to develop methodologies for budgeting and financial planning

which are now sadly lacking should a similar proposal be the end result of this

work.

So if the minister - and as he's said he's going to do - is

going to in Committee stage allow for the phase-in in a manner that is somewhat

different than we have here, that's a start. That's a positive change to this

piece of legislation. I'm glad the minister took my advice and went to some of

his colleagues and drafters, and will have an amendment that will allow

municipalities that charge on the real value of the property to be subjected to

this transitional, or the phase-in or phase-out - and in this case it's not

phase-in, it's the phase-out of grants.

I think it's wrong. I think this is a cute way of imposing

more taxes on a municipality, of forcing them to increase their taxes, whether

they want to or not, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, a number of municipalities - I

told the minister - of them want, since 1966, how come I'm not hearing them

crying out for it and saying (Inaudible)? I've heard one, maybe two,

municipalities welcome this. Two. But none of them have welcomed the Province's

interfering in the right of the municipality to impose taxes in December, with

the fiscal year just about complete and budgetary preparations ongoing for the

next year.

That's what wrong with this. There was no consultation

between themunicipalities. The Chairman of Newfoundland Light and Power, might

have taken some Cabinet minister out to dinner one time and said: let us change

this and the legislation was changed. Mr. Speaker, it was as simple as that,

there was no planning, there was no thought and we can see how flawed it was

because of the number of municipalities that are going to lose thousands and

thousands of dollars as a result, I ask the minister to delay implementation

until another year.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on this piece of legislation

as well. When I saw this piece of legislation come before the House, I must say

to the minister that I was not very encouraged by it to say the very least. I

thought it was a very negative piece of legislation where government were

interfering into an area, where, in my opinion they have no business -

MS. VERGE: When did you first see it, last Monday

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes. As a matter of fact, I am delighted that

the minister consulted and listened to my colleague, the Member for Fogo,

because I spent the better part of Friday morning in meetings with members of

council from my district and with people from the Federation of Municipalities -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I would

say to the Member for Carbonear that I was certainly meeting with people who are

putting more into the Federation of Municipalities than he ever put into it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now - do you want me to repeat it for you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I was meeting with people from the Federation

of Municipalities. I had conversations with the town manager in Marystown, I met

with the town manager in Burin, the matter was referred for legal advice as it

relates to this piece of legislation, and I was in constant contact with my

colleague, the Member for Fogo, and so were other people involved. I would say

to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that we, on this side of

the House, had every intention of making the appropriate amendment - as a matter

of fact, we had every intention of bringing in the appropriate amendment to the

action of which my colleague for Fogo suggested to the minister and I am glad to

see that the minister has indeed acted upon it. Because what was happening here,

if one were to look at Bill 73, is that only those councils who were charging a

tax on gross revenues were entitled to receive this two-third, one-third break;

and that councils that have properties such as Burin, such as Marystown in my

district will be penalized under this piece of legislation because they were not

allowed to charge, would not get credit for that two-third, one-third on the

property, and if you have properties, you are not allowed to charge the business

tax, so here they were in a situation that was no win, so after consultations

and meetings with people from the Federation, spoke with the President of the

Federation of Municipalities several times on Friday, met with the town

managers, it was referred to the lawyers for the councils on the Burin Peninsula

and no one could believe what was happening, so as a result of that, the

appropriate resolution was going to be put to the floor today to cover them. I

contacted I think it was my colleague for Fogo, my colleague for Fogo, if I

could get his attention for a minute - I think it was on three occasions we

spoke with you on Friday morning from the council office in my district and

asked them to try to bring some sanity, asked my colleague for Fogo, the critic,

to try to bring some sanity to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,

to try to get it straightened up, so I am delighted that as a result of the

meetings that we had on the Burin Peninsula, and as a result of consultations

between the Member for Fogo and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, who is one of the very few, I would say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the Member for

Carbonear is that here is government's piece of legislation that was brought

before this House, here is the piece of legislation that was introduced for

second reading in this House, at the first reading last week it did not include

property taxes, I say to the Member for Carbonear. But thanks to the minister,

in consultation with the Member for Fogo, the minister listened and the

appropriate action was taken in that regard; but all that does is postpone the

inevitable - postpone the inevitable as it relates to the tax kick the people of

this Province are going to get in many towns and communities throughout the

Province.

People in the minister's district will receive a lot less

money. The town of Lawn will lose something in the area of $90,000. The town of

Burin will lose $72,000 under this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of taxes were you charging to

lose that much money?

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for Carbonear that the

Burin town council are charging respectable taxation to the properties, the

utilities in Burin, in line with all other businesses.

The problem is, and I will explain it because I am surprised

that the Member for Carbonear, a former mayor, does not understand it. I am

surprised he does not understand it. The problem is that Light and Power has

their facility in Burin - has their headquarters in Burin. Now what is happening

is that under this piece of legislation they will only be allowed to tax the

shell. They will not be allowed to tax the equipment within it.

Yet, I say to the Member for Carbonear, that if someone has a

bakery in this Province today and are supplying baked goods throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador, the town where it is, they are allowed to charge a

tax on the equipment within that structure - the bakery. Well why should this

government be protecting the interest of Newfoundland Light and Power and

Newfoundland Telephone when they are not prepared to do the rest of it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The same people buy the bread, I say to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why should every town in Newfoundland not

have a chance to (inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: Well why shouldn't every - what about the

bakery, I say to my friend from Carbonear?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bull.

MR. TOBIN: It is not bull. It is facts. That is what it

is. What about the malls? What about the shopping malls? What about the Avalon

Mall? The name itself describes what it is. It is for the Avalon Peninsula, and

people from all over the Avalon Peninsula shop there. Yet the City of St. John's

can charge them what taxes they like. That is what will happen.

There is one reason and one reason alone why this piece of

legislation is before the House dealing with utility companies, because of the

association of certain utility companies with certain people. That is why it is

before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be more specific.

MR. TOBIN: Be more specific - because the Premier is the

former chairman of Newfoundland Power, if you want me to be more specific, and

they were looking for it back then. When we were in government they were looking

for it.

How can you turn around to Burin, that has the right to

charge taxes? How can you turn around to Marystown, that has the right to charge

Newfoundland Telephone taxes on their property? And the courts have upheld that

decision, I say to members opposite. The courts have upheld that position. Just

recently the court ruled in favour of Marystown on that very same issue.

Now you have government going to legalize - bring in

an act,

part of this - the right; they are going to bring in a direct consumption act

whereby Newfoundland Light and Power will have the right to tax the people in a

certain community, or every community, over and above the 2. 5 per cent that the

towns or councils would charge the utility companies.

Why does everyone else not have that right, I say to the

minister? Is he going to give that right to Fishery Products International? Is

he going to give the right to every other company? Is he going to give it to

Bowaters? Is he going to give it to the Marystown mall? Is he going to give it

to the bakeries?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is not incorrect. The other thing that he

has done is made the utility companies now responsible, under this, to the

municipalities with which they deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The minister will have lots of opportunity.

I ask the minister: If the councils now have to collect

taxes, or the utility companies are going to collect the taxes from the people,

over and above that consumption tax, say every month that

I owe ten dollars consumption tax and I refuse to pay it. I

ask the minister who will be responsible now for collecting that ten dollars

that I refuse to pay, will it be the utility companies or will it be the

councils?

AN HON. MEMBER: The utility company.

MR. TOBIN: Under this legislation?

MR. GRIMES: The utility company has to collect it and

give it back to the council.

MR. TOBIN: If council refuses to collect it, under this

Act here, I would say to my colleague, under this Act here the utility companies

become agents of the councils for that purpose and why would they become agents

to the councils for that purpose if it is not for the collecting of taxes. That

is exactly what it is. I have gone through it and the agents and the councils

will have to collect the taxes when the utility companies do not fulfil it.

Mr. Speaker, another issue: I asked the Minister of Municipal

Affairs if he would provide me with a copy of all those councils that will gain

or lose as a result of this piece of legislation. Will the minister provide the

House with that information?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you have it, you obviously have

it, you are sending out now information to councils to the effect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell him whoever is

advising him, and I am telling this House, that the advice that I am going to

give to my constituents is the advice that I request from this legislature and I

want information from that minister before I vote on it and the information that

I would like to have is a list, Mr. Speaker, of all those councils that are

going to be negatively affected and a list of all those councils that will gain

from this piece of legislation.

There are other issues that I would like to have answered

from the minister when he speaks to close this debate, when he gets up to speak

on this debate and that very simply, Mr. Speaker, is what does he purpose to do

for these councils in Newfoundland and Labrador that will not be able to

financially operate, I can think of several. What is he going to do for the

people of - I believe down in Little Catalina and Port Union and these

communities that are going to be negatively affected, what is the minister going

to do for them? What are you going to do for them I ask you, what are you going

to do for them?

I think, Mr. Speaker, my questions are legitimate, I say to

the minister, and if the minister ignores them well there is not much I can do

about it but, Mr. Speaker, they are the concerns which I have. I have raised

them and I hope that the minister will address them because I can tell him that

they are important to me whether he chooses to listen or not to listen, I can

tell the minister that my concerns are important to me, they are important to

the people of Burin, they are important to Marystown, they are important to

people of Lawn and to all other communities that are going to lose a fortune

because they can not charge a property.

I say to the minister, I am not talking right now strictly on

the business tax, I am talking about the right for this minister to restrict

councils the right to charge property tax, to charge taxes on equipment and I

think that is wrong, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I think that is

wrong for him to do that. How can you say that you cannot charge - and my

colleague for Menihek pointed that out to me as a matter of fact - how can you

not say the same thing to everyone? How can you say it to the town of Burin or

the town of Marystown or any town in Newfoundland and Labrador that you cannot

charge taxes on the property. You cannot charge taxes on equipment that is owned

by hydro companies. How can you not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Windsor - Buchans mightn't take

it seriously. But I can tell the Member for Windsor - Buchans that the people in

this Province who have to pick up a tab for $100,000 a year take it pretty

serious, is what I'm saying. You can smirk and grin and make jokes all you like,

I say to the Minister of Forestry, but the men and women in this Province today

who've been brought to their knees because of the economic curse that this

government has been on this Province cannot afford to laugh and smirk and grin

at the fact that they have to pick up another $100,000 in tax losses throughout

the Province.

I ask the minister: how can he say to Newfoundland Light or

to Newfoundland Telephone that you are going to be exempt? I will make you

exempt from the taxes on property and equipment within your structure. But yet

the bakeries that supply baked goods right throughout this Province.... There

could be a bakery, for example in Burin, that could be supplying every grocery,

every person in this Province, they could be supplying baked goods to them. The

town of Burin would have the right to apply tax on the ovens, to apply tax on

all the equipment within that bakery, but yet they have not got the right to

apply a tax to Newfoundland Hydro and to Newfoundland Telephone.

Why is it that, for example, as I understand it, the chairs

in a theatre are taxable, as part of the equipment. But yet, a piece of

equipment in a building that has a sign, 'Newfoundland Telephone,' or

'Newfoundland Light,' is not taxable. I ask the minister why that is the case,

and does he consider that to be fair? Is that the type of fairness and balance

that this government ascribes to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I think it's very serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Are you saying that the rest of them don't?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, why should it be different, I ask him.

Why should the minister be making chalk of one and cheese of the other? That's

the question. Why can you charge - why should Newfoundland Power be exempt?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I'd say to the minister that that is wrong.

That was wrong. That I think that Windsor - Grand Falls and Gander and all the

rest of them should have the right to charge Newfoundland Light or Newfoundland

Power the same as they have a right to charge Bowaters or charge the minister on

his properties, or charge any other business that's there. They (Inaudible)

restriction, in my opinion. I don't know how it came there, I really don't know.

I heard the Member for Fogo giving an explanation of it this evening. I don't

know why it's there. But I think it's right.

I think what the government should have done, I say to the

Minister of Forestry, is lift that restriction. They should have lifted that

restriction, and they should have given every municipality in this Province the

right to level taxes. Whether that tax be against Newfoundland Hydro, or whether

it be against Bowaters, the Marystown Shipyard, Fishery Products, National Sea,

or any group, there should be none of them.

How can this government continue to interfere in the

operations of councils? For example, when I sat down the other day, I say to my

friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when I sat down the other day with

Burin, and under this Bill here they will lose $72,000. But do you know what

else, Mr. Speaker? They're going to lose an additional $22,000 this year under

the road components, the MOG. So the town of Burin, the residents of Burin, are

going to be asked to look for $94,000. The same as the residents of Port Union

and the residents of Little Catalina, under this piece of legislation. I hope

that the member will have the courage to stand in the House and to address the

concerns of these people.

That's why I'd like to have the minister give me a copy of

the information as it relates to every town in this Province, as to who will

gain and who will lose. I'd say to the minister I think that's a fair request.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-one towns (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-one towns.

MR. TOBIN: Sixty-one towns will lose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: There's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, what I'm saying is that if the Member for

Carbonear, Mr. Speaker, has that information, and he should have it, as the

Member for Burin - Placentia West, I should have the information too, I'd say to

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I just gave it to you.

MR. TOBIN: No, you did not just give it to me. You have

it there on your desk. Can I have a look at it as well? It is tabled, is it?

MR. HOGAN: It is in Hansard.

MR. TOBIN: No, it is not in Hansard. You have the list

there on your desk. The Member for Carbonear just went though it. I watched him,

and I want the opportunity to go through it as well.

MR. HOGAN: So you should.

MR. TOBIN: So I should is right. The minister is now

sitting there with that information and I am asking what I consider to be a

reasonable request, not just for me but for every member of the House. Will the

minister table for this House the towns that are going to lose, how much they

are going to lose, and the councils that are going to gain, and how much they

are going to gain? Be fair to them all. Let us all see it. It is pretty

difficult to stand to speak on something that the minister is showing only to

members of his own party. I ask the minister if he would make that available?

Does the minister want to tell me if he is going to make that available?

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: I will certainly give you leave out of my

time. Will you provide us with the information I just requested?

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is not the same response he

gave the Member for Carbonear. He just read it off his desk as I watched him.

Anyway, I guess my time is just about up on this issue, but I tell the minister

that he has postponed the inevitable, that there are councils in this Province

that will go bankrupt, there are towns that will not be able to afford to

operate because of what this government is doing in terms of this protection for

the boys at Newfoundland Power, for the Premier's buddies at Newfoundland Power

and under the MOG which is another issue we will get into.

I say to the minister that I am delighted he took the advice

of the Member for Fogo. I say that in all sincerity. I am delighted that the

minister sat down. Most of them over there would not even do that. I am glad the

minister sat down with the Member for Fogo and discussed it and they came up

with what would be an equitable situation for all the towns. As a result of that

some of the towns will at least get a reprieve for a year, a third of a

reprieve, but at the end of the day I say to the minister it will be all gone. I

say it is a bad piece of legislation, it is a regressive piece of legislation

and it is a piece of legislation that is before this House for one reason and

one reason only, and that is because the Premier was the former Chairman of

Newfoundland Light and Power.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words as well on this particular

piece of legislation. Given the time of year and the frequency with which we see

bad news coming in December for municipalities perhaps the minister might be

best described as the Minister of Municipal Despair rather than Affairs. Any

affairs, Mr. Speaker, are all mis-affairs. A couple of years ago we saw the

government bring in a brand new grant system for the municipalities in this

Province and anything that is brand new for municipalities in this Province from

this particular administration tends to be brand new and bad, so as a result

councils have been losing, over the last two or three years, in a phase-out of a

more generous grant scheme to a less generous one. Now we have a new thing

dropped into their laps again just before Christmas. That seems to be the

favourite time of the year for action on the part of the Wells administration.

Most of the actions are negative and most of their negative actions are usually

saved for Christmas or just before, the annual lump of coal in the stocking for

municipal councils. Even if they did not know this one was coming, they should

have been aware that something had to be coming. For three years in a row again

we have more despair for councils in this Province. Mr. Speaker, in my

particular district I have a little town in Robert's Arm and 1000 or so men,

women and children live within the confines of that town. They have a small

building not much larger, I suppose, than a large chicken coop within their town

that has $1 million worth of electronic equipment in it, and as a result of

changes proposed by this particular bill the council there is going to lose

$10,000 in the third year phase-in of their new grant system and a further

$40,000 with regard to the taxes they got off this building full of electronic

equipment belonging to the Telephone Company, I do believe.

Mr. Speaker, again it comes at Christmas, at a time when

councils are supposed to be putting their budgets together. So you can imagine

what the town fathers of Robert's Arm have to face when they're coming up again

$50,000 short in an area where very few people are working. The ability to raise

extra taxes is absolutely minuscule. Where jobs are at a premium. Most citizens

are either on UI, welfare, and very few work year-round. Yet councils are

expected to come up with relatively large sums of money given their size on very

short notice and as usual, just before Christmas, just before budget time.

One wonders why all of a sudden this is coming to pass. Then

again, we've seen other legislation in this House that has a tendency to favour

the outlook of the company Newfoundland Power. I have nothing in particular

against this particular company. It has a mandate to do as it does with regard

to the generation and sale of electricity in this Province. For some reason, the

Wells administration seems to smile very favourably on this particular company.

It has done so in the past, with regard to regulations and procedures regarding

the raising of electrical rates in this Province. A token effort was put in, in

the way of a consumer advocate, to pretend that the government was trying to

stem the tide of rising electrical rates, only to see this Christmas the

consumer advocate get a lump of coal in his stocking and get the sack just

before Christmas. It wasn't Santa's sack, believe me.

So we have a government that seems to have a very warm place

in its heart for the power company. They claim it's not because the Premier was

involved with the power company. They claim it's not because the Government

House Leader was involved with the Fortis Trust company. But somehow good news

always seems to be going the way of that particular company under the times of

this particular government. Methinks there's a little bit too much cosiness

there for coincidence. Hopefully the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will in

due course pass judgement on this particular relationship which I would contend

is one of a conflict of interest, to put it mildly.

This government has made life miserable for municipal

councils ever since it came to office. The first thing it did was bring in this

massive amalgamation scheme, which was nothing short of lunacy. In my district

they were going to amalgamate three island communities, which made absolutely no

sense whatsoever. It took them two years to finally admit that indeed that made

no sense. Now they've brought in a new grants system. Every community - for

instance, the community of King's Point in Green Bay, which voted heavily

Liberal in the last general election, lost, one of the heaviest municipalities

in this Province in terms of their size and the money they lost under the

municipal operating grants scheme. Obviously no one is shown any mercy by this

government, and I really fail to see how they're going to continue to have

people with reasonable criteria for being municipal councillors actually put

themselves forth for office in this Province in the next little while.

I've talked to many municipal councillors who indicate that

given the cuts that they received in their grants system, given the changes that

always seem to land in their lap, negative changes just before Christmas, budget

time every year, it's getting to the point now where you're going to have

difficulty getting quality people to offer themselves for municipal office.

My friend from the Burin Peninsula mentioned the fact that

somehow the light and power company and the telephone company with their

electronic devices don't seem to be taxed the way other buildings and businesses

in a given community are taxed. Rather funny. I had a call from a gentleman who

owns a woodworking business in a certain community in my district a few weeks

ago. He was required under municipal law to go back a dozen or more years

through his files and come up with invoices regarding the shipping and payment

for woodworking equipment, a lot of which he no longer had on file. It was back

well over a dozen years. They wanted all this data and information with regard

to not only his shop but the contents of his shop. Here we have a situation

where the size of the shop is basically irrelevant, because the contents of the

shop are not being considered in municipal taxation.

If they want to make reforms, Mr. Speaker, I suggest they

make reforms for the better and not for the worse. So far, in the area of

municipal government in this Province, it's been a time of despair, ever since

the Wells government took office and have landed problems and downloaded

expenses onto municipal governments in this Province and I say, Mr. Speaker, it

is not good enough and hopefully the people will support their municipal

councils and in due course tell this government that indeed it is not good

enough. Thank you, very much.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a few short

comments on this particular piece of legislation. There is a theme, Mr. Speaker,

running through this particular piece of legislation that ran through another

piece of legislation that I saw here in the House this Fall and that is the one

pertaining to the municipal operating grants. That is what I could never

understand, why the big rush, why the big rush for this particular piece of

legislation going through the House because the new MOG came in 1989 and we only

passed that just a little short while ago, not passed yet really and that is a

piece of - what I call a piece of retroactive legislation. So, what is the big

tear, Mr. Speaker, what is the big rush, what is the big hullabaloo about

legislation such as this, for instance?

I have seen on numerous occasions what I refer to as

retroactive legislation passed here in the House, orders and regulations had

been issued to municipalities around the Province. They have operated for the

last three years under the new municipal operating grants system pertaining to

municipalities in the Province and this is nothing new, absolutely. It is

another example though, Mr. Speaker, of the Department of Municipal Affairs and

this administration as a whole, downloading on municipalities in the Province,

no question. The Municipalities Act is there, every municipality in the Province

is governed by the Municipalities Act except for the City of Corner Brook

operating under their own Act, the City of Mount Pearl operating under their own

Act and the City of St. John's operating under their own Act. Everybody else in

the Province, pretty well operates under the municipalities Act except for, and

I suppose to a certain extent that is covered in here as well, unincorporated

areas in the Province which you would call a local service district. But to say

to municipalities you do this or you do that, yes I sort of agree to a certain

extent, maybe not with the amount, with the way that it is done with regards to

the uniform taxation in this Province, that is something, and I agree with the

minister, that has been asked for and requested for some time. There had to be

something, some kind of a uniform taxation to go in place pertaining to

municipalities and pertaining to utilities, especially cable companies.

I said it before and I say it again here this evening, that

cable companies in the Province, as far as I am concerned are taking everything

out and putting absolutely nothing back into municipalities in this Province,

absolutely nothing, cable companies, they have done it for years.

I witnessed small municipalities in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, when they could charge up to 2 per cent, when they charged 2 per cent

on gross revenues for Newfoundland Light and Newfoundland Tel and municipalities

around the Province, when they were doing that for years. In some municipalities

Newfoundland Tel and Newfoundland Light did not even pay it. They did not even

pay it. If they felt right, if they felt good and if the gross revenues were not

to high, then they paid it. But, cable companies: I witnessed a small

municipality right down in the Premiers district, in the district of Bay of

Islands, who for seven years they took him to court, they put him into a

collection agency out here in St. John's, they never got a nickel, they got

nothing. They just put him through hell and just go into court and just more or

less laugh at him and now that that taxation is set at 2.5 per cent, I do not

know if it is enough, to be honest with you pertaining to a cable company or

Newfoundland Tel and Newfoundland Light. But the only thing about Newfoundland

Light and Newfoundland Tel and I suppose the cable companies to a certain

extent, there is not a municipality in the Province today that has the luxury to

just go out and arbitrarily set a rate. They can do it, set a poll tax and they

can put up property tax and so on but the consumer and the constituent in that

particular municipality, Mr. Speaker, cannot pay any more. They just cannot pay

any more.

You have municipalities in this Province under the municipal

operating grant structure today who have been crucified under that particular

structure. I had an example the other day of a municipality now, just this year,

because of the rollback, the final rollback in the roads component, to even at

$81.47 I think it is now, and the promise of that being revised, that going to

$81.47, their total road component is wiped out, plus - I do not know if this is

factual or not because I am waiting for a fax to come in on it, that now the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, through the municipal financing

corporation are charging on any outstanding debt 11 per cent, 11 per cent on all

outstanding debt.

Now, if that is true, it is better for the municipalities to

go through the banks. I say to the minister, it would probably save him money

and save his department money, to go through the banks and guarantee it.

Guarantee the loans for municipalities, let them go through the banks, because

more than likely they would probably get it at prime plus one, and prime today

plus one is about 8 per cent, or 8.5 per cent or 9 per cent. That may not be

factual, but if that is factual, that the municipal financial corporation is

charging municipalities in the Province on outstanding debt 11 per cent, then to

me there is something radically wrong with it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the glaring I suppose, deficiencies

in this particular piece of legislation is right on the back, it is referred to

Section 7 subsection (1) and it says: Subsection (1) shall not apply with

respect to the consumption or use by a consumer of a utility service provided by

the utility referred to in subparagraph 2(h)iii where that consumer is a

corporation or organization listed in the

Schedule to the Act.

Now if hon. members might refer to the

schedule to the act,

Mr. Speaker, the first one on it is Abitibi-Price located in Grand Falls and

Stephenville. Abitibi-Price is a generation station, it is providing power to

the mill in Grand Falls. Now I am not so sure if they are selling outside that,

I am not sure about Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls, if they are selling outside

the mill. Albright and Wilson, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, Deer Lake Power

Company Limited.

Now Deer Lake Power Company Limited, Mr. Speaker, pays grant

in lieu to the Town of Deer Lake about, $40,000, $45,000 a year. A grant in

lieu, they are generating power for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper in Corner Brook,

to keep the mill going, but any excess power is automatically fed into the

grids, fed into Newfoundland Hydro's grids, so that means that the Town of Deer

Lake still cannot get their hands on a company such as Deer Lake Power, and that

to me, has to be addressed.

Something has to be addressed and if it is not going to be

addressed in this one, and obviously it will not, then it is going to have to be

addressed somewhere down the road and I realize also in saying that, that some

of those deals were made some years ago and especially with the sale of Bowaters

to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, so there are some cases like that but I think

that is an issue that should be addressed especially when you have a utility

like Deer Lake Power who are paying absolutely nothing compared to what they are

taking in in that particular community.

I was told, I do not know whether it is true or not, that

last year they generated something in the vicinity of $14.7 million; $14.7

million out of Deer Lake Power in Deer Lake alone, and that is a glaring

deficiency that will have to be addressed, so that municipalities can get their

hands on some of that particular funding. We have Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls,

I think they are paying something like $300,000 or $400,000, grant in lieu, to

the Town of Grand Falls. We have Corner Brook Pulp and Paper in Corner Brook

paying $600,000 grant in lieu on property taxes and so on, everything is

involved and here we have a company in Deer Lake, and just because the

infrastructural part of it is small and the employee part of it is small they

are paying a small grant of some $40,000 to $45,000 grant in lieu. Yet at the

same time they are making millions and millions of dollars.

There's something similar going back to the charging of

business tax in a small municipality. Some people might say: why do you charge -

for instance, someone in - a salesperson there in a particular municipality who

might have one person employed, but at the same time might generate $2 million

worth of sales. Gross. You go out to a service station, a gas station. They've

got the sale - the sale of gas alone tells you something. It tells you you could

be selling millions of dollars worth of it. But at the same time it's on your

gross sales. That's where the unfair thing was due in a lot of municipalities in

the Province pertaining to business tax.

So, Mr. Speaker, this particular tax - and the consumption

part of this tax, regardless of where it comes from, and getting back to my

first concerns, under the MOG, the new municipal operating grant passed on to

municipalities, what the communities don't get over the 2.5 per cent the

councils can charge it back to the citizens of that particular municipality.

Then it will be collected by the utility, and then put back into the council's

coffers. So regardless now it gives the municipalities the right to tax - no

matter what it is. Two point five is only to the utility. Any council now in

Newfoundland and Labrador after this so-called consumption part of it goes in

can levy their own tax on the consumer at the point of service. Whether you're

using cable, w