April 6,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if other members would join with me in commending

the St. John's Rotary Club in having undertaken a very successful telethon and

fund-raising effort for the Kirby House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: They raised $183,000 for the Kirby House for

battered women in St. John's and it is very significant, in that this club is

exclusively a men's club, playing an active role and taking some responsibility

to try to help on this issue. I think they should be commended for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to routine business, I

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

today of the Ambassador of Korea to Canada, His Excellency Kunwoo Park and Mrs

Park, and his secretary, Mr. Shoe. I am sure all hon. members will want to

extend a warm welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to commend

the Member for St. John's East on his comments concerning the Rotary Club's

initiative. I didn't respond at that moment because I have a statement to make.

I would like to take this opportunity to offer

congratulations to the Rotary Club of St. John's for their efforts to raise

money to build a new Iris Kirby Transition House for battered women and their

children.

The people of this Province should be thanked because they

have recognized the need for such a facility, and through their generous

contributions, have made the dream of a new safe house a reality. I, personally,

attended the dinner and auction last evening, and at the end of the function,

the final figure of dollars raised was $183,000. This amount, along with

corporate donations, will put the total over the $200,000 objective of the St.

John's Rotary Club.

Mr. Speaker, my department provides operational funding to

Kirby House and will continue to assist this very worthwhile project. Iris Kirby

House is one of five such safe houses in the Province providing temporary

accommodation to women and children who are exposed to violent relationships.

The Department of Social Services is very concerned with the

well being of abused women and children throughout the Province, and is very

supportive of community initiatives such as this project to build a new safe

home in this region. The need for a new Iris Kirby House is evident and the fact

that a new one will be built is a credit to all those who have worked so hard to

make this dream a reality.

The speed with which the money was raised is indicative of

the awareness by society of the problem of family violence. It is hoped that

this growing recognition will have a preventative effect on this major social

problem.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to join with the members of the government and the

Member for St. John's East in expressing appreciation to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador who contributed to this weekend's fund-raising drive

to build a new Iris Kirby House as a shelter for battered women and children in

St. John's to serve Eastern Newfoundland.

I would like to commend the women's movement, who initially

drew attention to the chronic problem of family violence in this Province, and

who pioneered in providing services and gradually generating community support.

I would also like to thank the St. John's Rotary Club, a

traditionally male organization, for joining in the effort to combat family

violence.

Mr. Speaker, while acknowledging the generosity of the

citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador in supporting transition houses, I think

it is time to question the government policy of expecting community donations to

operate transition houses. We have, in this Province, the minister indicated,

five transition houses for battered women and children. Actually, one of them,

the one in Labrador West, gets only a token operating grant from the Province, a

token grant of $10,000 or $15,000 a year. The other four, those in Happy Valley

- Goose Bay, Corner Brook, Gander, and St. John's get operating funding from the

Province which is subsidized 50 per cent by the federal government under the

Canada Assistance Plan. But that funding does not even pay for groceries, and

consequently, the volunteers who operate these shelters have to appeal to the

community year round for operating funding.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we don't expect that kind of community

contribution for hospitals or for jails. Why should we expect it for -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of my colleague, the

Minister of Environment and Lands, who is on her way to Ottawa to meet with

officials regarding the issue of foreign overfishing. Today marks the beginning

of National Wildlife Week which is being held from April 5 - 11 across Canada.

This year's theme is "Keep Canada Ever Green for Wildlife". The Wildlife

Division of the Department of Environment and Lands is planning a number of

activities for the week.

Canada is an incredibly green nation. Almost half of the

country is covered in forest. With almost 10 per cent of the world's forests in

our hands, we have a lot to lose if we let our green heritage erode and, of

course, so does wildlife. National Wildlife Week can be a time for all of us to

find a way to make a difference, from recycling to replanting. All living

things, especially wildlife, will benefit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

We, on this side of the House, also support National Wildlife

Week. It is interesting to note that this great country of Canada is an

incredibly green nation. I say to the minister and to his colleagues that this

government should be aware in keeping our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

green. I think we can all make a difference. It is not only the wildlife and not

only in the forest, but I think we have an obligation to the people of the

Province to put the people first and let them do their job in keeping the

country clean.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Oral Questions, the

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

the gallery of the representation of some town councils throughout the Province.

First, I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence of the Mayor and

two councillors of the Council of Baie Verte. The Chair was not provided with

their names unfortunately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, we have a councillor, Mr. Winston

Norris,

from the council of the new town of Badger's

Quay-Valleyfield-Pool's Island-Wesleyville-Newtown, abbreviated form of the new

town.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Finance. In his Budget Speech, we understand, the Speech, itself

said that the personal income tax rate for individuals would be increased by 2.5

percentage points for the calendar year 1992-93. I ask the minister, does that

mean that the increased income tax rate is retroactive to January of 1992? Is

that what that means?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and the Minister of Finance have both been

saying, and indeed now he has confirmed, that the increase will be retroactive

to January of 1992. They have also been saying that the increase in the personal

income tax rate is to replace the school tax that is currently being paid by

individuals; but the school tax will not be abolished until June 30 - halfway

through this particular calendar year. I want to ask the Minister of Finance:

Does that not then mean that in fact people will be paying both the school tax

and the higher income tax for the six months from January 'til June, and that

is, in fact, double taxation?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no double taxation. What we are trying to do is to

have a Budget where our deficit is $29 million on current account, and our

budgetary expenditures on capital account. In order to come up with that number,

and to maintain the expenditures that we agreed upon, we had to bring in several

taxes. We had to increase the personal income tax. We had to increase the

payroll tax, and we had to bring in a cigarette tax. That is how we did it.

To tie all the tax increases to something that happened to

the school tax is not entirely appropriate, although we did explain it in that

fashion when we did so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will try to ask the minister again: The income tax rate is

retroactive to January of 1992. From January 'til June individuals now will pay

the higher 2.5 per cent income tax rate. He just confirmed that. Can he confirm

that those same people will also be paying the school tax for the first half of

the year, from January 'til June?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, in order to recoup sufficient

funds we have really to raise the tax to 66 per cent rather than the 62 per cent

which is presently in existence. For the current year the tax will be raised to

64.5 per cent - 2.5 percentage points more than 62 - and basically that is to

replace the school tax; but there is no double taxation in that sense. There is

just no double taxation. If we wanted double taxation we would have made it 66

per cent right off the bat.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a question for the Minister of Finance. In this

year's Budget the minister also announced that there would be a 1 per cent

payroll tax for the first time for fish plants in this Province. Can the

minister tell me if that 1 per cent will also apply to the payroll of fishermen

who sell fish to a plant? Is that included in the payroll of the plant?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, there is a deduction of

$100,000 there, so anyone with a payroll of less than $100,000 would not pay at

all. Now if there is some sort of an organization which sells fish to fish

plants and they are operating as a company then they would be taxable. But the

actual number of people who will be paying it who are fishery groups I do not

know. But I can find out if there is such (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the minister

answered the question. Maybe when he answers the next one he will allude to this

one. What I am asking: a given fish plant would also have a payroll that it pays

for fishermen. I am not talking about fishermen setting up a company.

Fisherpersons who sell to that plant, as a part of a payroll, they receive a

weekly cheque from the fish plant. Is that a part of the payroll, I am asking

the minister? Secondly, the minister has said that the tax paid by the 1 per

cent would be roughly equivalent to what was paid in school tax. Does the

minister still stand by his original statement that there would be no difference

in the 1 per cent payroll tax and the mil rate assessment that was charged

through school property tax?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the total amounts are roughly

the same, but I might point out that businesses generally have gained by their

new tax regime, as opposed to what was there before. Now certain individual

businesses may be better off or worse off depending on what they were doing,

what happened before with the school tax, and it also depends upon the

proportion of labour they have in comparison to other components. Other factors

of production. So you cannot say that every single business would be impacted

exactly like it was before. If that were the case then there would be no point

in changing the tax.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that is

not what he said. How does the minister explain this discrepancy then? A fish

plant on the northeast coast last year in school taxes paid $17,000. So far this

year they will pay $8,500, half the year, that has been announced. If we use

their payroll of last year there will be an additional $50,000 in payroll tax

for a total in school tax this year of $58,500, as opposed to the $17,000 they

paid last year. Now, does the minister not agree that this increase would

dramatically affect the operations of that company and in fact it might mean

that they will have to lay off employees because of an increase of nearly

$40,000 in payroll tax?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the hon. member

has his facts straight, but anyone who pays a payroll tax of $50,000 - the

payroll tax is 1 per cent - would have a payroll of over $5 million. Five

million at 1 per cent is -

AN HON. MEMBER: $50,000.

DR. KITCHEN: Yes. So there is either something wrong with

your calculations or you are dealing with a very isolated illustration.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of

Finance another question.

The school tax, as estimated, took in about $32 million

revenue a year. I think those were his numbers. I haven't got them in front of

me right now. If they intend to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-six million.

MR. SIMMS: Thirty-six million, okay. Therefore, if you

are going to collect the school tax for half the year that means you are going

to be collecting $18 million this year. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask your question.

MR. SIMMS: I am trying to ask it, but you keep

interrupting over there.

Therefore you expect they are going to take in $18 million in

school tax this year. Your own budget estimated $21 million from the increased

income tax, $10 million in payroll tax, which is a total of $49 million, to

replace the school tax of $32 million. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well you have just said you are going to bring

in a total of $48 or $49 million, and it replaces the school tax of $32 million.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Normally in a year people would be paying

close to $40 million in school tax, but you have to take out the cost of

administration which is about $4.5 million, and you are left with about $36

million. And about three-quarters of the year that makes $27 million. So that is

really what we are replacing this year, about $27 million. Then, of course,

there is some levelling up that is going to happen, about $9 million this

current year, up until the end of the current fiscal year. That will drive it up

to about $36 million that we will be putting into it. I do not know if that

explains it or not, Mr. Speaker, but I will gladly go into more detail if the

hon. member wants me to.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier. In view of the problems

that we are experiencing with foreign overfishing, particularly with the

countries of Spain, Portugal and, as of late, Germany, I am wondering if the

Premier or the government has considered directing the Newfoundland Liquor

Corporation to immediately stop the import and sale of Spanish, Portuguese and

German wines to try and impress upon those countries who are flagrantly

overfishing outside our 200-mile limit? Has government considered that or, if

not, would the Premier and government immediately directly the Newfoundland

Liquor Corporation to stop the sale of those wines?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, trade sanctions are normally

one of the first things that come to mind. Now if we were to stop the

importation of Spanish and Portuguese wines into Newfoundland - I do not know

what the amount is - I doubt that it would be a fraction of the sales of fish by

Newfoundland to Spain and Portugal. So immediately we stop the importation of

wines from Spain or Portugal they would stop the importation of other fish

products from Newfoundland. So you would get a tit for tat reaction and it

becomes a Canadian action and you get stoppage of other things. Then you get a

response from Canada and response back. That is not quite the way to deal with

it. We feel we should try other ways of dealing with it, and that is what we

have been doing, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. It is obvious, Mr.

Speaker, that the provincial government has not given any consideration

whatsoever to this. If I were in another forum I would think that it was the

Prime Minister of Canada who just answered.

As a Province there are not too many things that we can do to

try and bring attention to this issue which is having a devastating effect upon

our people. So I just want to say to the Premier that I think the government

should take action and they should immediately direct its corporation to stop

importing and selling these wines from Portugal, Germany and Spain. We do not

have too many levers as a government. We are trying all kinds of diplomatic

efforts. So won't the Premier make a commitment to the House today that he and

his government will seriously consider doing this as part of the process to

bring a stop to foreign overfishing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

commitment because we have already considered it and decided that it would be an

inappropriate thing to do. In fact the Newfoundland fishing interests may be

more severely affected by such a decision than they are at this moment.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, I believe the government has been

making significant progress in the last couple of weeks, the last few weeks in

particular, in the effort that is being carried on. The Korean Ambassador is

present in the Chamber today. I had an excellent discussion with the Korean

Ambassador this morning. I am hopeful that he will take the issue to his

government.

Korea has acted in a responsible direction. In this past year

they have significantly reduced the level of fishing from what it was in 1991

from some 17,000 tons in 1991 down to 7,400 tons last year, and I have asked the

Ambassador to take to his government the concern of the people of this Province

with the request that they cease such fishing totally right at this moment,

particularly for the species that are in jeopardy of extinction.

Now we have been making such good progress along those lines

that I do not feel that this kind of trade sanction activity that is now

suggested would get us anywhere whatsoever. The government considered what it

might do in that regard, but we came very quickly to the conclusion with advice

- we had advice on the matter and how we would be affected - we came very

quickly to the conclusion that it would hurt us more than it would help us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Because the City of St. John's will end up with a shortfall

of approximately $1 million, and because that shortfall was caused by

amalgamation, will the minister give serious consideration to an increase in

grants or by any other means to help the city over this financial hurdle?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I am not aware of any shortfall budgetary

position of - I have lost the name, I did not catch the name - I think the

member said St. John's. I have not been officially notified of it, only what you

read in the media and hear from various reports. Mr. Speaker, it has not been

officially reported to the department.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because of the

condition in the Goulds, where drinking water and sewerage problems are of grave

concern, there should have been a special program, an agreement, but, Mr.

Speaker, there was not. I am wondering if the minister now would bring in such a

program to correct an impossible situation in the Goulds?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just waiting for

the rabble there to be finished.

I do not know of any program that has been requested of the

provincial government now, or for the past twenty years, in particular for the

Goulds, to be given any special treatment above and beyond what goes through the

normal requests.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: I want to ask the same minister, Mr.

Speaker: What is the policy of government pertaining to the farm land in the

Goulds area, and is there a government proposal to review the uses of those

lands?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Not to my knowledge on the use of the land,

Mr. Speaker. I guess the member is referring to the taxation problems that have

been experienced by farmers in the area, and there has been representation made

to the department on that. We have agreed with the provincial organization, I

think it was, that came and made representation on behalf of all farmers - not

only the Goulds area, but throughout the Province - but specifically the Goulds.

We undertook to take certain action in conjunction with that organization to

address the problem, and we hope to resolve it to their mutual satisfaction.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister responsible for Works,

Services and Transportation. A few weeks ago I asked the same minister a

question with regard to year-round maintenance of the Trans-Labrador Highway

from Labrador City and Wabush to Churchill Falls, and he informed me that we

would have to wait for the Budget to be brought down to allow him to announce

whether or not the road from western Labrador would be open year-round next

year. In other words, would the snow be removed from the road next year after

the bridge is completed - the Ossokmanuan Bridge? Again, the Budget has come

down and there has not been any announcement. I wonder if the minister could

tell me if the road will be maintained next winter, and the people from Labrador

City be able to drive their vehicles from Labrador City to Wabush, and of course

to allow the people in Churchill Falls to have their freight brought into Wabush

via truck?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As in my last answer to this particular question, whether or

not the Trans-Labrador Highway from Labrador City to Wabush can be maintained

open throughout the winter, in fact year-round, depends upon a number of

factors. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation has entered into

negotiations with CF(L)Co to ascertain what obligations CF(L)Co is prepared to

assume with respect to winter maintenance on the Trans-Labrador Highway, in

particular on the

section from Ross Bay Junction to Churchill Falls.

As the hon. member will no doubt be aware, CF(L)Co currently

maintains a road in the winter to a certain standard between Churchill Falls and

Esker. Obviously they would be interested in abandoning the road to Esker,

because it is only a railway siding, in order to access the

section of the

Trans-Labrador Highway between Labrador City and Churchill so they can have

access directly into Labrador City. So negotiations with respect to CF(L)Co are

undertaken in that respect to determine what their obligations would be.

Secondly, with respect to the

section from Churchill Falls to

Happy Valley - Goose Bay, as the hon. member is aware, this

section is a very

low standard road. It was constructed to a low standard. In fact, it is only a

tote road. In order to maintain that

section of the road open, there has to be a

significant amount of capital expenditure to improve the bridges, various dips,

grades and realignments that are required even to consider the possibility of

maintaining the roads open for this particular winter. The Department of Works,

Services and Transportation has entered into discussions with the federal

government to determine what funding sources are available to address the

bridges, dips and other grades that need to be aligned in order to allow winter

maintenance to occur this particular year.

Mr. Speaker, I give the hon. member the assurance that the

government is doing everything possible to ascertain whether or not that road

can be maintained open this particular winter, and we are making every effort to

see that it is, but no definite answer can be given at this point in time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard so much

gibberish in all my life.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: I am not sure, but I believe in the first

part of that gibberish he suggested that the road from Labrador City to Wabush

was going to be maintained this year. Now we lost the motor vehicle registration

office. We have lost a judge. Now we are going to be pleased in Labrador City

and Wabush to know that you are going to keep three miles of highway open next

year. So you are really doing a fantastic job. Keep it up and you will make a

complete fool of yourself and the department!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister

could settle down just for one little minute and answer my very simple question.

How much money will be spent on maintaining the road by this administration on

the Trans-Labrador Highway from Churchill Falls to Labrador West? Also, how much

will be spent on maintenance of the road from Happy Valley - Goose Bay to

Churchill Falls? They are two simple little questions. He should be able to get

them straight.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the amount of

money that will be spent to maintain, or could be spent to maintain the road

between Lab City and Churchill Falls, in large part depends upon the obligations

that CF(L)Co is willing to undertake. Since we do not know what obligations they

are willing to undertake it is impossible to say what the winter maintenance

cost will be on that

section of the road.

With respect to the other

section of the road, before winter

maintenance can be undertaken on that

section of the road, as I indicated

significant capital work will have to be done. Discussions are ongoing with the

federal government to access funds to undertake that capital work. Therefore we

will have to await that particular decision before we can determine whether or

not any funds will be spent on winter maintenance anywhere on the Trans-Labrador

Highway.

I hope that satisfactorily answered the question, Mr.

Speaker. Thank you.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I guess in this particular

administration the left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing.

We have a Minister of Mines and Energy who suggested we give absolutely no

direction to Crown corporations. Now we have the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation saying that: we are going to sit down with the Crown corporation

and see if they will maintain the provincial highways now. I wonder if he could

get it straight. Talk to his Minister of Energy down here. When he tells me that

the Crown corporations are going to have nothing to do with taking direction

from this cabinet.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I did not indicated that cabinet

was going to give direction to CF(L)Co. I said we were in the process of

ascertaining what obligations CF(L)Co is willing to assume. Obviously if CF(L)Co

is willing to abandon the road to Esker, which is almost an equivalent distance

from the road from Churchill Falls to Ross Bay Junction, this would result in a

considerable savings to the provincial government on the maintenance cost of

that particular

section of the road.

We are not directing CF(L)Co to assume this obligation. We

believe they will derive a significant benefit from assuming that

section of the

road for a period of time. We are in the process of negotiation. We are not

ordering CF(L)Co do it. In fact, I do not even know if we have the legal

authority to order CF(L)Co to undertake that particular obligation. But we are,

and I can say this to the people, the residents of Labrador, this government is

making every effort to see that that road is opened next winter. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the minister has responded that

he feels that the Crown corporation is responsible for clearing the snow or

maintaining a certain portion of the road. Can he now tell me what his

Department is responsible for?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I did not indicate that Crown

corporations are responsible for maintaining the provincial highway system. What

I am trying to do, and what I am trying to indicate to the hon. member and to

the people of Labrador, is that if CF(L)Co was willing to abandon the road to

Esker and move towards the road to Lab City they would derive a benefit. If they

were willing to do that and assume part of the cost of winter maintenance on the

Labrador Highway, not only would CF(L)Co benefit, the people of Lab West would

benefit, and the government would benefit as a result of economies achieved by

the fact that CF(L)Co would assume this particular responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you responsible (Inaudible)?

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, what we are responsible for right

now is summer maintenance on the 'freedom road,' and from Lab City to Ross Bay

Junction. That's summer maintenance. As I indicated to the hon. member - and he

can rest assured, and I wish he would bring back the word to the people of

Labrador - that we will make every effort to have a year-round road in Labrador

so that people up there are not suffering the afflictions of isolation. This

government is making every effort - with the federal government, with CF(L)Co,

and through our resources - to end the isolation experienced by people in

Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Minister of Health about the City of Corner Brook water supply. Would the

minister comment on the cause of the problem, the seriousness of the problem,

and give us his views on the commonly held view in the area that it is humans

and not beavers, which are responsible, and the view that it has been a mistake

to allow so much logging and recreational activity in the Corner Brook watershed

area?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is really an Order Paper

question. It is a question for which you would require a certain amount of time

to dig up the answers. In the meantime, I will start, and go on as long as Your

Honour will permit me, because it is a fairly in-depth question.

Mr. Speaker, on March 19, the public health director in the

Corner Brook area, she, and Shawn Tetford, from the Department of Health and

representatives from the Department of Environment and Lands in the City of

Corner Brook, held meetings on this whole matter that the member is talking

about, the beaver fever, and it was decided that they would initiate the

following course of action - Mr. Speaker, this is all detailed. This is really a

public health matter which the government, of course, didn't cause. We went out

and discovered that there was a problem with the beaver droppings and this

particular thing happening out there, and it is a fairly detailed matter.

I can table it for the hon. member or I can bring it to the

House, but I think, suffice to say, representatives from the public health

division have been meeting with the Department of Environment and Lands, with

the City of Corner Brook, and since March 19, a fairly detailed list of things

have been done in attempting to deal with this matter. But I should assure the

hon. member that the government did not cause the beaver droppings to get into

the water supply. It has happened in other parts of the Province and the best

that government can do, is attempt to deal with it through the different

branches, which will include Health, Environment, the Department of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs and, of course, the City of Corner Brook.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, since my time is so limited, I

won't go back to the Minister of Health, but I will note that he did not answer

my question. I will ask the question now, to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. Will the government provide financial assistance to the City

of Corner Brook, in immediately correcting the problems so that the 'boil' order

may be removed and in providing a long-term solution? I understand from city

officials that the short-term immediate cost will be in the range of $20,000 to

$30,000, but that the cost of a permanent solution may well exceed $1 million;

will the Province assist the City of Corner Brook in dealing with this problem?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, the Province is not

entertaining such thoughts. Although I have had several conversations in recent

days with the Mayor of Corner Brook on that and other matters including the

beaver fever, he has not mentioned soliciting assistance from the Province. He

seemed to be quite in control of the matter.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will now ask a

question of the acting Minister of Environment and Lands. Again, it concerns the

contamination of the Corner Brook water supply.

Would the minister comment on possible corrective measures

that can be and should be taken to contain this Corner Brook water supply

problem and to prevent similar problems in other municipal water supplies in the

Province?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that

the Department of Environment and Lands is very much aware and very much on top

of the situation in Corner Brook. There is consideration being given to finding

a way to remove the beavers from the watershed area. I would like, while I am

up, Mr. Speaker, to comment on her preliminary question to the Minister of

Health.

She questioned, was it wise to have done the forestry

operations that we have been doing in Corner Brook? I will point out to the

member, that in the Corner Brook watershed, there is a lot of merchantable

timber that Corner Brook Pulp and Paper wanted to harvest. She may well have

been involved when the understanding was made, a committee struck and people

from the environment, the city council and every other interested group in

Corner Brook who wanted to have a say in it worked on and devised a plan that

was acceptable to everybody, to harvest that wood in the better interest of

Corner Brook, the people and the company. So, Mr. Speaker, in-as-far as they are

talking about whether it is appropriate, it was the people of Corner Brook who

decided it was appropriate.

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

time for a very short question, with a similar answer.

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

I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, and I will make it as brief as possible.

Does the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation know

the figure that the Department of Transportation will save by having the

Department of Highways' responsibilities for the roads in the amalgamated area

transferred to the City of St. John's, downloaded on the City of St. John's

taxpayers? And would the minister, because the City of St. John's is having

difficulty in meeting the extra requirements of amalgamation, consider keeping

the roads that are within the argicultural zone, particularly in the Goulds

area, under his jurisdiction?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the savings, if

any, that are to be expected as a result of transfer of jurisdiction of the

roads from the Province to the City, I am not aware of that figure offhand.

However, I would say, in answer to the question, that a proposal was presented

to the City of St. John's containing two components, one a capital component and

one a maintenance component. Officials of my department have met with officials

of the City and we are now awaiting the response of the City to the proposal. We

will consider the City's response to the proposal if and when we receive it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 3, on Page 579

of Hansard, the hon. Member for Fogo asked two questions relating to employment

generation and I undertook to get answers. I would like to provide the brief

answers now.

The first question related to the $3.1 million in the

Employment Generation Program in this Budget, how much for projects last year

and how much for new employment generation. While I will provide a much more

detailed answer in the estimates for the purpose of answering the question, it

is approximately half and half. About one half of that money is for previous

commitments from earlier years and about one half of it, which is the same

amount as last year, will be available for new initiatives in the coming Budget

year. I will give more details in the Estimates.

The second question talked about the experience of how many

full-time jobs have resulted from this program which was introduced. The

questioner, Mr. Speaker, indicated the program has been in place for nearly four

years and what has the experience been. I report to the House that the program

was initiated and announced first by my colleague, the current Minister of

Environment and Lands, in January, 1990, so it has been in place just over two

years. In the initial sixty-week period there were 590 jobs created and approved

under the program and the experience in the initial assessment of that first

sixty-week period is that approximately 50 per cent of them went the full

sixty-week duration of the program, which was almost 300, and of those that went

the full sixty-week program of subsidy, 78 per cent of those are still

continuing on with no subsidy, as full-time positions. I am sure there will be

more questions about the program in the Estimates, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The adjourned Budget debate. I think the

Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir adjourned the debate.

The Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few minutes and I would like to conclude my remarks.

As I started off, I indicated it was a good news Budget for the people of Burgeo

- Bay d'Espoir, and it certainly was. The dreaded school tax was eliminated.

That, in itself, was good news for the people in my district, and what made it

better was the fact that the equalization grants from education have been

increased. Under the school tax system that we had, the base wasn't there to

collect the tax in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, so the only amount of money that was

going into the schools and going to the school children out of the school tax

effort that was being put forth in the Bay d'Espoir area was about $93 per

pupil. By virtue of the fact that right now the Government in this Budget has

done away with the school tax and increased the equalization grant by putting an

extra $12 million into the Budget means that the per pupil grant now in the

district of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir is somewhere around $400 per pupil and rising.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the way it always should have

been. They finally got it right.

MR. GILBERT: I didn't say in my few remarks on Friday

that it was a continuation of a 'fairness and balance' Budget. I have a few

figures here and I think it is worthwhile to have a look at them. When the

municipal capital grants were announced during the last couple of years, we

heard members from the other side claiming it was political partisanship and the

Liberal districts were getting it, it was pork barrelling. It was the same thing

with the roads Budget from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

I just took it upon myself to have a look at what happened. I will just go back

to 1985 for the municipal grants system, just to give you an idea. I took two

districts in the same area, two South Coast districts, Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and

Burin - Placentia West. We will take the municipal grant system for 1985, the

year when the Budget was pretty well in place before the elections so they did

not know that I was going to get elected in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir then and they

had planned something else. In 1985 in municipal capital works there was

$353,000 that went into Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, they no doubt cut back something.

In Burin - Placentia West, there was $1.1 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. GILBERT: A million point one.

Now, an interesting thing happened, though, in 1986 in the

District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. There wasn't one cent went into Municipal

Capital Grants in 1986, but there was over $1 million spent in Burin - Placentia

West in that same year.

Now, we go to 1987. That was another year when there was an

Opposition member in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and a government member in Burin -

Placentia West. In 1987, there was $155,000 spent in the District of Burgeo -

Bay d'Espoir, Mr. Speaker, and there was over $1 million again spent in Burin -

Placentia West.

Now, we go to 1988, another year when there was an Opposition

member in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. That year, there was $250,000 spent in Burgeo -

Bay d'Espoir and again over $1 million in Burin -Placentia West.

The first year we were in government, there was $278,000

spent in the District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir but there was $838,000 spent in

Burin - Placentia West. Then, the next year, when the Budget was announced, we

heard the cries of pork-barrelling and things like that. So there was, I must

admit, $1.7 million spent in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir in 1990, but there was

$700,000 spent in Burin - Placentia West. Then, in 1991, there was $1.8 million

spent in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, but there was $770,000 spent in Burin -

Placentia West.

Now, we will go back ten years, from 1981 to 1991. The

District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir had $5.9 million in a ten-year period. The

District of Burin - Placentia West had $10.7 million in that same ten-year

period. And this year, I understand, there is something like $2 million spent in

Burin - Placentia West and $1 million spent in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

So I think we have done away forever with - we have not heard

the members talk about pork-barrelling this year, because we have done away with

it and we have pointed out exactly what we were trying to do. We are not going

to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It might be the appropriate place to remind the hon. member

that his time is up.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, in conclusion, there is no doubt that there is no

partisanship and it is a fair and balanced budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often one gets to

stand in this House and express his gratitude to a member on the opposite side

for coming in, standing up and making a four-minute speech acknowledging the

great contribution that I have made to my District of Burin - Placentia West

and, certainly, providing me with an opportunity, I would suspect, to use that

portion of Hansard in my district. It is not too often one gets a former

Minister of Transportation to throw that type of accolade in the way of a member

whom he has indicated has worked extremely hard on behalf of his district for a

number of years.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank the Member for

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, and I say with the deepest sincerity that I really

appreciated his kind comments, and I can assure him, Mr. Speaker, that I will

let the people of Burin - Placentia West know how he has appreciated how hard I

have worked on their behalf.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you are continuing to do so.

MR. TOBIN: And I will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to speak in this

Budget Debate, not because I am elated with the Budget, in itself. I don't think

anyone can get overly excited with this Budget. The Minister of Finance has

basically said the same thing. I heard him on Friday past, on my way to

Marystown, driving back home - he was involved with the, I think it is the On

The Go Program or whatever it was with CBC radio - and he acknowledged, at that

time, as he did today, that this government has implemented a double taxation

system on the people of this Province for three months of the year.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what he said.

MR. TOBIN: I can say to the Premier that I am only

repeating what the Minister of Finance said. This lady called in and the

Minister of Finance said: Yes, I suppose that is what you can call it, or

something to that effect. The Premier should become irritated with him, not with

me, because I am only repeating what the Minister of Finance said.

MR. R. AYLWARD: We will send you a transcript in the mail

now while you are gone, while you are up talking about Triple E.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister of

Finance. He was quite explicit in his support of the Budget and what it meant,

and he did say quite clearly that it meant double taxation.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He did not pull any punches. He just

admitted it.

MR. TOBIN: He is saying no. I probably misunderstood it,

Mr. Speaker, I do not know.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I heard it too, and I never misunderstood

him yet.

MR. TOBIN: Now I will not say what I heard the Minister

of Education has said about your Budget. I will not repeat that. I will let him

speak for himself, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, he had a few words about it after

the (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I saw his excitement for the Budget when he

tried to shake hands with a few people outside this Chamber a couple of weeks

ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Last week.

MR. TOBIN: We all know, Mr. Speaker, how the Minister of

Education likes to shake hands. If there is ever a person, Mr. Speaker, who I

met in my ten years of public life - as a matter of fact ten years ago today I

was elected for the first time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Ten years ago today, Mr. Speaker, three of us

in this House were elected. Myself, my colleague from Grand Bank and my

colleague from St. Mary's - The Capes. It was the first time we were elected.

There were others who came back, but the three of us were new members.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the House of

Assembly has changed somewhat in those ten years -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Forty-four members we had that time was

it? Forty-five?

MR. MATTHEWS: Forty-four.

MR. TOBIN: We had a few too many. It was hard to get

money.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, we had to share it up too much.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the ten years

that I have been in public life I have never seen anyone who likes to shake

hands like the Minister of Education.

MR. MATTHEWS: Everyone is his friend.

MR. TOBIN: Everyone is his friend. How are you my friend?

How is my friend today? Any he walks out to the teachers last week and he says:

How are my friends today?

MR. MATTHEWS: And he put out his hand.

MR. TOBIN: They said: Put that in your pocket.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, put that back in your pocket and get

some more money for education they told him.

MR. TOBIN: That is what they said, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: Put that back in your pocket.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The President of Treasury Board was supposed

to go out, but the Minister of Education walked out - I say to the President of

Treasury Board - to the teachers last week and said: How are my friends today,

and he put out his hand. They said: Put that back in your pocket and get some

more money for us. That is what they said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Get some more money for education.

MR. TOBIN: Some more money for education. You have a

double taxation system brought in

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, but I cannot repeat what you -

AN HON. MEMBER: They cannot repeat what they said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, they said there is not enough money for

education, Mr. Speaker, that is what they said.

MR. GRIMES: Who said that?

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the weeping willow should

stay quiet.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Kleenex of 1986.

MR. TOBIN: Because if there was ever a total example of

hypocrisy as the Minister of Employment. He put the teachers of this Province,

Mr. Speaker, on the streets because of the strike, because of a wage freeze. He

put them on the street, Mr. Speaker. The President of the NTA put them on the

street because of a wage freeze, goes back and joins Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. Not

only did he freeze their wages, he rolled back the contracts that they had.

MR. MATTHEWS: Tore up the contracts.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, tore up the contracts and

laughed at the teachers of this Province. How sincere and genuine was the

minister when he was President of the NTA?

MR. MATTHEWS: Wept one year and laughed the other.

MR. TOBIN: Back then, Mr. Speaker, he was so upset he

wept, and now he is so happy he is laughing. So what has changed for the

teachers in this Province? What has happened for the teachers in this Province

when seven or ten years ago - whenever it was - he put them on the streets

because of a wage freeze and he goes back in government -

MR. MATTHEWS: He will put them on the streets again now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Carbonear

can say what he likes too. There is an example of a fellow, when he was

President of the Federation of Municipalities, claiming that he was going to

tear up the building, Mr. Speaker, because there was not enough happening. Now

what is he doing? Standing up and voting for a Budget that has changed the grant

structure and done nothing but create hardship for small municipalities in this

Province. They cannot afford water and sewer, Mr. Speaker, and that very same

member, when he was President of the Federation, stood entirely opposed to what

he is now supporting. So talk about hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. What an example.

MR. MATTHEWS: And the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, the

same thing.

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. MATTHEWS: He was on the federation too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have never done too bad in my

district except in the last two years. The past two years I have done very, very

little. This year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Closed up the shipyard.

MR. TOBIN: I do not know, Mr. Speaker. Insignificant.

MR. GRIMES: How much did you get this year?

MR. TOBIN: This year? I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, how

much we will be able to avail of. Hopefully we can avail of all of them, Mr.

Speaker.

Now I want to talk about roads. This report that the Minister

of Transportation gave was so bad that he would not even read it in the House.

He slipped it to the press instead. He would not get up in the House and give a

ministerial statement. I would not blame him. When the minister of this House

had to get up and announce things such as... what is it? Paving and muddy holing

Tilting, approximately point three kilometres; resurfacing Trepassey, MacNeil's

Turn, point three kilometres; resurfacing Old Perlican, one kilometre; replacing

a culvert.

Can you imagine a minister putting out a capital works...?

The number twenty-seven item is: replacement of a culvert in Wesleyville. What

an announcement. Replacement of a bridge part. Replacement of a bridge on the

Shore Road. All of these things. Resurfacing a place where there was a culvert

put down last year. What you would not believe. Never before have we seen it.

Not only that, this year the budget for capital works for transportation is $25

million. The last five years I think we were in government it never went below

$40 million. Never below $40 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, the minister says yes that it did, does

he? I can tell the minister that it was never less than that. I can also tell

him what the budget document, or the cabinet document dealt with, the year that

the governments changed. That was $48.4 million. That is what we had dealt with,

Mr. Speaker, as a cabinet, put in place. Not only that - $25 million is bad

enough - but when you find out a year later that a large portion of the money

that was allocated last year for transportation was not even spent in this

Province, one has to wonder. How much was it, Rick?

MR. GRIMES: Not so! Not so!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, if it was not for the

Roads-for-Rails deal that this crowd over here complained about - particularly

the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir - if it was not for that agreement that was

signed, the $800 million that went in this Province, and the portion of it that

has been spent this year, there would not be a need for a piece of heavy

equipment in this Province. Because I can tell the Minister of Transportation

that from what is here on this list, that any company that owns D-8 dozers today

might as well drop the blades because there is no work for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: Well, I can say to the minister that I have

not seen anything here that would involve D-8 dozers. I have not seen it. It is

mostly resurfacing, Mr. Speaker. That is what we have in this Province today.

Twenty-five million dollars, $15 million less than it was four years ago. Yet,

this crowd supports it. Fifteen million dollars less than the budget was a few

years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Member for St. George's says no. It's not

true? Mr. Speaker, let me see what I can find here. I am not sure where it is

now, but I was going to read out the Minute in Council that approved the

Transportation budget. I was going to read it out from back in 1988-1989 year. I

can tell the minister that $40 million worth of road work was approved, which is

$15 million more than what is approved this year. Including provincial roads. I

am not talking about the money that John Crosbie got that has been spent in

places such as the Burin Peninsula highway. I believe anyone who has driven over

the Burin Peninsula highway lately realises what a mess that road is in because

this government has sat on money for three years and not allocated it for the

upgrading of the road. That is what is happening. The people of the Burin

Peninsula deserve a better highway than we have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. I remember looking at Hansard

and the Member for Windsor - Buchans said that, prior to the 1982 election. He

could not wait to go to the polls. He was in opposition then, and he knows what

happened to him in 1982. He didn't come back. Now if he can't wait to go to the

polls again, probably he doesn't want to come back. But the Burin Peninsula

Highway is in desperate shape. The Member for Lewisporte probably knows what I

am talking about, what the Burin Peninsula Highway is like. The Member for

Lewisporte bounced his way down there this weekend. He knows all about it. It is

not fit to drive over, and for three years, this government has sat on funding

from the Roads for Rails deal and not spent a nickel on the Burin Peninsula

Highway. The road from Red Harbour to Marystown was done a few years ago, the

last year we were in power, and since that there has not been one dollar spent

on the Burin Peninsula Highway, yet the money has been allocated. The money that

Mr. Crosbie got for the Roads for Rails agreement with our government has been

there for three years and not spent. When one considers the work and the

taxation that comes to this Province from the people of the Burin Peninsula, it

is no wonder that we should expect more than we are getting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe you should not have entered into a

thirteen year agreement (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, I don't care what we have to do. I can

tell the Member for St. George's that this government had to make a decision on

what money was spent from the Roads for Rails deal, and they never spent a cent

on the Burin Peninsula Highway - not a nickel! Not a nickel, Mr. Speaker - not

one plugged nickel did they spend on the Burin Peninsula Highway. That's what is

happening in this Province. And it is one of the roads that has needed to be

done moreso than anyplace else in this Province. The member should drive down

there and he would know exactly what I am talking about. I can tell him right

now that they deserve better, because when one looks at the economy of the Burin

Peninsula, I believe it is fair to say that they have contributed significantly

to the tax base of this Province.

Also, what is happening is that many of the oil companies

have now set up their old tanks down there and, rather than having them brought

in by water, they are now being trucked in by tractor trailers and tankers. All

of that additional weight on the Burin Peninsula Highway has left it in the

state it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) have total control over

(inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: Well, I can tell the Member for St. George's,

and probably the Member for Fortune - Hermitage might like to listen to this,

that if it were not for John Crosbie this year, insisting that the Burin

Peninsula be included, there would be no money spent on the Burin Peninsula

Highway. That is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: John who?

MR. TOBIN: John Crosbie. John Crosbie. The fellow who

gave you $800 million for the Roads for Rails deal. That is the fellow, Mr.

Speaker, that you are now going around this Province denouncing day in and day

out. I don't hear you saying too much about it now. It seems pretty good now,

because if it was not, every heavy equipment contractor in this Province would

be gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, it is good. Sure it is good.

So what else do we have in this Budget? What about Social

Services? It is too bad that the Minister of Social Services is not here,

because I have never seen such disregard for the poor and the suffering in this

Province, I have never seen such contempt displayed for the unfortunate in this

Province as we have seen in this Budget.

We have seen the Budget reduced from $159,460,800 to $154

million. Now, Mr. Speaker, $5 million less - $5 million less in the Budget for

Social Services recipients, yet the minister is projecting a 30 per cent

increase in his caseload. So how does the Minister of Finance explain that? How

does he explain that - attacking the poor of this Province? How does he explain

to the pensioners of this Province, who are not getting an increase this year?

How does he explain that? I am sure there are days that he must be confronted

with pensioners, government pensioners, who want to know why there is no money

there, because we get letters every day, and I am sure members opposite get the

same letters, from -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you go check your facts?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You said a few weeks ago that you were going

to resign your seat over that report. I did not see you pass in your resignation

yet.

There are pensioners day in and day out - people have been

fired, Mr. Speaker, in the last twelve months from the health care system in

this Province by the Minister of Health - who are on pension and not a single

nickel for them in increase. That's what is going on in this Province, and

government couldn't care less about it.

The Minister of Finance is the minister responsible for

bringing in the Budget, so he has to take much of the responsibility for what is

not in the Budget as well as what is in there, and when one considers that the

people on social assistance -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are better off than they ever were.

MR. TOBIN: Are better of than they ever were? Well, Mr.

Speaker, why does he not go out and talk to them? If they are better off than

they ever were how can he justify $5 million less in his Budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No. Well, that's what is happening. Mr.

Speaker, I guess when you get up in the Budget debate, there is also a great

opportunity to talk about your district and the problems that your district is

experiencing and the fact that certain parts of it have not been addressed in

this Budget. I want to talk for a few minutes about the roads in my district

that are in a deplorable state. The road from Spanish Room to Rock Harbour is

not fit to drive over. It is a gravel road. The road from Little Bay Bridge to

Beau Bois is not fit to drive over. The road to Monkstown - there is a certain

section of that road that cars, oil trucks, and grocery trucks have been stuck

in for the last two weeks and the department's response is to provide a grader

to tow them out, and that is not good enough. That Monkstown road situation

should be addressed immediately, providing the appropriate type of fill that

will prevent the trucks from getting stuck. The people of Monkstown deserve no

less than than type of support from this government. For years they did not have

a road and yet, this government has not spent one nickel to assist the people of

Monkstown who are hard workers. Most of them are involved in the fishery and

have to have their fish trucked over that road, and again this year, sadly to

say, despite the representation that was made by the people, there is not a cent

for road improvements in their community.

The road, as I said, from Rock Harbour is deplorable, it is

not fit to drive over. The road from the Burin Peninsula highway, to Spanish

Room, to the Cow Head facility was an ongoing process and the final phrase was

supposed to be from Spanish Room to the community of Rock Harbour at a cost of

only $400,000. That road, Mr. Speaker, is not in very good shape. We had hoped

since 1989 that it would have been addressed, but this government, for some

reason, has not seen fit to put money there. Just about all the people in Rock

Harbour work in Marystown and there are days when they cannot get to work

because of the condition of the road. There are days the school bus cannot drive

to Rock Harbour because of the condition of the road. The Member for Burgeo -

Baie d'Espoir today talked about the money I got for my district. Did I not

deserve it, Mr. Speaker? Ten years ago we needed $30 million to pave the roads

in my district. We did a lot, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately, we didn't get to

finish it all before this crowd came in and this government has turned its back

on the people of Rock Harbour.

I ask the Minister of Transportation, in the name of common

decency, if there is any money in this year's Budget that is not spent, don't do

what he did last year, but get up and pave that road to Rock Harbour at a cost

of $400,000. That is not very much, as a matter of fact, there is almost that

much paid there in taxes a year. If anyone is familiar with Marystown, we took

it from Creston Boulevard in about four or five different phases. We did so much

a year and we finally got to Little Bay. The last year we were in government, we

built the bridge, and the final phase would cost another $300,000 or $400,000 to

do the road to Beau Bois, but we did not get one cent since. The people of the

other side of Little Bay and Beau Bois never got a nickel, and that is

unfortunate, because, as I said about Rock Harbour, the people of Beau Bois work

in Marystown, as well, and they beat up their cars, day in and day out because

of the deplorable condition of that road.

They were promised by members who sit opposite that that road

would be paved. It was a four or five year project because it is a good

distance. Every year we did a portion but in the last three years, not one

plugged nickel did the people of Beau Bois get for their road. When one

considers, for example, there are probably three or four trawler captains, most

of the people out there are involved on the trawlers, pay in thousands, tens of

thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in taxes and no

service; government refused to spend the $300,000 needed to provide them with

pavement. So again, I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to

look at that.

The branch roads throughout the district are not fit to drive

over. They all need to be resurfaced and yes, I am sure there are other places

that have the same needs, no doubt. But when one considers the measly amount of

money that this government has spent on roads, provincial roads, that is, in my

district in the past few years, as a matter of fact, it really irritates me to

see them show such contempt for the people of Burin - Placentia West. It is the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I am talking about, Mr. Speaker,

and his predecessor.

MR. HOGAN: You are not talking about the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that's for sure.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking about the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, because I said it publicly - the

day he was appointed I went on radio and commended him on being appointed to

Cabinet as Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I said, I knew of

nobody over there who would have more compassion and understanding of municipal

needs in rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. I said I knew of nobody over

there. I know of a few over here, but I know of nobody over there who would have

more compassion and understanding for municipal problems in this Province than

the Member for Placentia. And I said that because I believe it, because there is

one bay in this Province that is the best bay; the best bay, bar none, is

Placentia Bay and I have one side and he has the other. There is no place like

Placentia Bay.

MR. NOEL: And you are going to be spending a lot more

time down there pretty soon.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible for me to

spend more time down there than I have, because I am down there except when the

House is in session and for the past ten years I have travelled my district. I

am not like the Member for Pleasantville, who can walk out through his door in

the morning and look around and say I have visited my district. A lot of other

members are not. He has no concept or understanding of the needs of rural

districts in this Province. Many of his colleagues have, as we have, but that

Member for Pleasantville has no understanding. As a matter of fact, I ran into

him once, back some years ago when I lived in Trepassey and he was campaigning

for the NDP. He knew all about rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, the people in

rural Newfoundland showed him what they thought he knew about rural Newfoundland

in that election. So, you stick to the Triple E Senate, Mr. Speaker, and the

Constitution, because you know nothing about rural Newfoundland. And Placentia

Bay is the best bay in this Province, despite what the Member for Pleasantville

says.

MR. NOEL: You won't be able to vote in city elections

anymore.

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

MR. NOEL: You won't be able to vote in St. John's

elections anymore.

MR. TOBIN: I never took any great pride in voting in St.

John's elections.

MR. NOEL: No, you, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind the hon. the Member for Pleasantville, he is

not to speak from the seat he is in. He is not in his own seat, and in any

event, the House is very careful about interruptions. I also remind the hon.

member that he is not being recorded and it won't go down in posterity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West may continue.

MR. TOBIN: I have nothing against the City of St. John's,

I think it is a great place, with great people, but it is not for me. My life,

Mr. Speaker, and my home is on the Burin Peninsula. I have been there for the

last twenty years and I hope when I get old enough - my grandfather lived to be

102. I hope I live as long as he did and that when I die, I die on the Burin

Peninsula. One thing about us, there is longevity in the family, and we have

been extremely successful. The Tobins have been extremely successful in whatever

they undertake, and I could have a long future yet in this Assembly. So I am

sure the Member for Pleasantville will be watching me from the galleries as I

perform for years to come, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I want to get back to the basis of this.

MR. NOEL: Watching you in the galleries.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and I would like to rig up the knot.

Mr. Speaker, I am serious when I talk about the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. He represents the east side of Placentia Bay

and I represent the west side of Placentia Bay, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it is

well represented on both sides of the Assembly. When I get back in government,

after the next election, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people of Placentia -

AN HON. MEMBER: After you become Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs, will you give me $3 million?

MR. TOBIN: I can assure the people of Placentia that,

after the next election, when I am minister or whatever it may be, they will

have a strong voice both in the House of Assembly and around the Cabinet table.

MR. NOEL: After the next election you will be a church

minister. That is the only minister you will be.

MR. FLIGHT: After the next election (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the Member for

Windsor-Buchans is talking about. I know he knows what it is like to watch from

the galleries, Mr. Speaker, because he got turfed out of this House once before

and he will be turfed out again if he decides to run.

Mr. Speaker, I have five minutes to clue up, so let me say -

MR. SPEAKER: I don't believe so. According to my time,

the hon. member's time is up now, and the Chair was just giving him a minute or

so to give a concluding sentence.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in cluing up, then, I want to say

that I don't support the Budget, that it doesn't do enough for the people I

represent, it doesn't do anything for the people of Newfoundland. The double

taxation system, Mr. Speaker, and everything else that has been implemented is

not good for the people of this Province, is not good for the people that I

represent and it is not good for the people that they represent. So I encourage

them, Mr. Speaker, to join with us in rejecting this Budget outright. I

sincerely hope that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when they go to pay

their taxes in the next little while - their personal income tax is increased by

6 per cent - will only wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier had stayed home and

looked after this Province, forgot his foolishness with beating around this

country on the Constitution and taking advice that is totally unsound and unfit,

from the people from Pleasantville.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: It is always a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to rise

following the Member for Burin - Placentia West, because most of the time, he is

so amusing that he brings a little bit of life into these dreary premises,

dreary on times. He brings a little bit of humour and a little bit of life. I

laugh at most of what he says because most of what he says is what, I guess, a

lot of us baymen are used to doing in the spring of the year when we go in to

clean out a barn. With that said, I do appreciate the fact that he has

complimented the Minister of Provincial and Municipal Affairs and the government

of this Province, and not only him but the whole Opposition.

You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that there haven't been any

comments made this year in the House about municipal capital funding. We haven't

heard a word, for some reason or another.

MR. NOEL: Except from you.

MR. REID: Except from me.

It is sort of ironic, I think this is probably the first year

in a long, long time, that Opposition, whether it be the Liberal Opposition

before 1989 or now, I guess, the Conservative Opposition after 1989, that there

haven't been any comments made about the capital works budget. And do you know

why there haven't been, Mr. Speaker? People like the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West are after walking away with close to $3 million in capital works

this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? How much?

MR. REID: Three million dollars, and the poor Member for

Carbonear had to give up his share so that he could get some of it. The poor

Member for Carbonear managed to get $450,000 this year, and $100,000 of that is

for an environmental impact study, which I was going to get anyway. But with

that said, I went to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and I

said: 'Well, if Burin Placentia West, or Fogo, or Humber - East, is it? -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Humber Valley.

MR. REID: - Humber Valley, or any member for that matter,

needs money more than we need it in Carbonear, sure, why shouldn't they get it?

There are places in the Province, Mr. Speaker, that still do not have a water

system, have sewerage running in the drains, a number of places. Those are the

places that this government is going to fund. I have no problems with that. If

it happens to be a Conservative riding, sobeit. Let it be a Conservative riding.

I just wanted to mention the fact that - I do not know. My

hon. colleague for Burin - Placentia West mentioned that it was ten years ago

today - and it was ten years ago today - that the Peckford regime took power in

this Province, if I am not mistaken. From that time, in 1982, up, I guess, until

1989, I happened to be honoured to be a member of the council of Carbonear and I

think I became mayor around that particular time. I sat for seven years. Just

after I became mayor, I joined a group called the Large Towns Group, which was a

part of the Federation of Municipalities, to begin with. I became the first

chairman, by the way, as my hon. colleague for Humber Valley can remember, of

the Large Towns Group in Newfoundland, and subsequently became the president of

the Federation of Municipalities.

I remember the hundreds of meetings that we had in that

period of time. Just about every time we had a meeting as it related to the

municipalities, it was always: 'What are we going to do with the Peckford

Government and those people who are in government? Because every time we had a

meeting, it seemed like there was something being picked away or taken away from

the municipalities in the Province. I remember the component grant going from

fifty cents to forty-five cents. My hon. colleague for Humber Valley and I went

in and fought hard and long for that. We fought with the Peckford regime - he

was not a part of it then - and we demanded that that government of the day have

pity on the municipalities in the Province.

I can also remember, around the same time, I think it was

1983 or 1984, there was an announcement made on Carbonear. I have to refer to

Carbonear because I am knowledgeable enough to be able to talk about Carbonear.

I cannot talk about Gander and what happened in Gander or Corner Brook. I will

talk about Carbonear and Carbonear district. At the same time, around 1984 or

1985, fifteen beds were closed in the Carbonear hospital - cutbacks in the

health care system in one of the budgets, I am not sure which one it was. I

remember my hon. colleague for Trinity - Bay de Verde coming to my house one

night and he said to me: 'They are closing the Old Perlican hospital.' Do you

remember that? They are closing the hospital here, they are closing the hospital

there. Cutbacks in health - can you imagine?

In 1985 or 1986, I remember, as a teacher, having to go on

strike, forced onto the streets of St. John's, Carbonear, Corner Brook and all

over the Province, not because of my hon. colleague from Exploits, I am telling

you, but because of my hon. friends who now sit in Opposition. They put us on

the streets for one reason only, because they had a deficit that year and they

figured by putting teachers on the streets for a couple of weeks that would help

them balance their budget. They succeeded.

AN HON. MEMBER: And it did too.

MR. REID: Sure it did. It worked. No problem with that.

So I stand here, and I can go on. I can talk about the seventeen years, or the

ten years, under the Peckford regime. I can talk about budgets that were brought

down. If I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, just about every budget that came

down, there was an increase in alcohol and cigarettes, a decrease in education

and health, a decrease here, a decrease there. I am not saying that it is a

reflection of any one individual or group. I think it is a reflection of the

whole economy of Newfoundland.

Somebody mentioned today, and I heard it on the radio too,

and it was mentioned at an earlier meeting - it was reported that it is the

first time since the Second World War that there has been no increase in

domestic product or global national product, and that includes all of the

countries of the world, I would assume. It was a decrease.

MR. RAMSAY: First time ever.

MR. REID: I have been wondering for the last two years, I

guess, what we are into. Some people call it a recession. You go on the lower

shore or lower part of my district and it is far from a recession, it is a

depression, it is as simple as that. It is not only a depression here in

Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, it is a depression all over this country. It is a

depression in the United States.

Look at the figures that are coming out of Great Britain and

the possibility of that great Tory regime in Britain falling in the next few

days to a Labour government because the unemployment rate has hit 9 and almost

10 per cent. Look at the problems they are having in the United States, and the

same reflection is on the upcoming election, I suppose, in the United States

presidential primaries that are coming up now in the fall. Look at what is

happening in Ontario, great Ontario. A prime example of what is happening, I

guess, to Canada is what is happening in Ontario. Well it is only this morning

that I learned that Ontario has a current account deficit this year of $14

billion. Can you believe that. Little Saskatchewan with less that one million

people are looking at $2 billion. It is unbelievable. Not much bigger than

Newfoundland. I do not know exactly what our deficit was in Newfoundland last

year, $60 million was it?

MR. RAMSAY: Fifty-nine, yes.

MR. REID: Fifty-nine million. That is nothing. That is

chicken feed, I suppose.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Prince Edward Island is looking at $200

million, and we here in Newfoundland are looking at a deficit last year of

approximately $60 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: And we came in $8 million under Budget.

MR. REID: Came in $8 million under Budget this year, my

friends are, Mr. Speaker, giving me some facts. We are going to come in under

Budget. I would almost make a prediction now. I would be willing to stand in the

House and say right now that we are going to balance our Budget next year if

things keep going the way they are. We probably will.

But getting back to what I was saying about the economic

situation of the Province and getting back to all the things that governments

can find money for. I look over, I suppose, with sorrow in my heart for those

hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side because while they were putting

teachers on the street, while they were cutting municipalities funding for

grants, while they were closing hospital beds, while they were cutting back on

education grants, while they were cutting back to $25 million in 1987 to

municipalities, somebody in government was thinking about this wonderful plan

where they could spend $25 million of the taxpayers money on a place called

Sprung. With all of that said, it's frightening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: It was not you. You did not have the authority.

You had nothing to say in government, and your colleagues are saying that today.

You were a second class minister at the time and you had nothing to say in

Government.

MR. NOEL: Like the good Germans, nobody was responsible.

MR. REID: Nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Proud of it?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes I am proud of it.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Opposition for

not being critical because basically what they are saying to us is not

criticism. It is not getting reported in the media. Nobody wants to hear it

anymore. Newfoundlanders are out there now looking for encouragement. Everyone

is looking for encouragement. Hundreds come along to me and say: Art, is it

going to get better? Am I going to be able to find a job this year? I say: I

hope so. I hope it will get better. I am not going to go out and be pessimistic

about the economy. I am not going to be pessimistic about the Province because I

think in a lot of cases, Mr. Speaker, that is what is wrong with

Newfoundlanders. They have been put down all their lives, and they would just as

soon right now - a lot of baymen and rural people just assume that the worst is

going to happen to them. I suppose if you believe that it comes true.

MR. RAMSAY: They used to lead them on.

MR. REID: I want to get back to the Budget, Mr. Speaker.

We came into this Government in 1989 and the Premier

promised, and as far as I am concerned he has fulfilled it, not to the nth

degree yet because it is an ongoing process. We have made promises to the

Province that we would come up with a strategic economic plan and when we look

at what we have tried to do in the Province I guess in 1989 when we came in

things were a lot rosier than what they are now, and there were all kinds of

factors that affected our plans for the future. I suppose to come as far as we

have in the last few years we have not done too bad with what we had to work

with, a Government that was passed a substantial debt and having to cope with

that substantial debt. Now, I guess, in a time when, like I said most

governments in the country, including the federal government, are trying to come

to grips with substantial current account deficits, we in Newfoundland now can

say, I guess because we moved a year earlier than anyone else in the country, we

can at least say we have some control over our destiny.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the single most important comment that

was made in the Budget, or item in the Budget that the people of Newfoundland

sat up and listened to was the increase in taxation. I will say there had to be

an increase in taxation to offset that $40 million that we lost, or we will be

losing, July 1, from the school tax that we have been collecting in the

Province. Over a two year period that tax will amount to 4 per cent but the

misconception out there is that when people say 4 per cent you automatically

assume that it is 4 per cent more income tax in 1992 than there was in 1991

which is not really true because that 4 per cent is 4 per cent of the portion of

the federal tax that we in Newfoundland collect so it is not 4 per cent. You

cannot put 4 per cent on top of your salary and say I am going to have to pay

that much extra.

Mr. Speaker, I sat in this House last week and I heard the

hon. Member for Mount Pearl quote figures. I heard a number of other members on

the other side quote figures about who would suffer and who would not suffer and

how much money. The hon. Member for Mount Pearl on a number of occasions with

his calculator figured out what it would cost a person making $20,000, $30,000,

or $40,000, and being the type of person I am, Mr. Speaker, as you well know I

had to find out for myself. What I did was I went to the Department of Finance

and spoke to some officials who worked out for me a scale of what exactly would

happen to certain individual people in the Province as it related to the amount

of extra income tax they would pay this year and next year in comparison to what

they were paying in school tax and the surprising thing about it, Mr. Speaker -

I am going to let you copy this later on because I think everyone in the House

should have a copy of it, and I believe it, it is true because I have worked on

it myself, and then you can look for yourself. I just want to read some figures

if you would allow me. I am going to base it on 4 per cent, not 2.5 this year,

but 4 per cent. I am not going to talk 2.5 per cent, I am going to talk about

what is going to happen at the end of 1993. I am going to first talk about a 4

per cent increase and I am going to talk about a married couple, two people

working with no children. I am going to use that one. I have four different

categories and I could not use children because basically if you use children it

is too much of a problem to try to figure out because if you are talking about

children and two people are working then you are talking about baby-sitting

allowances that can be claimed and all kinds of other things so I am going to

take the extreme and I am going to say there is a married couple working and

they do not have any children. I am going to take the upper end of the scale.

Mr. Speaker, a family with a combined income of let us say $30,000, $15,000

each. Now, if I am not mistaken that works out - between $15,000 and $20,000

works out to be about the amount of money that a woman and a man who are working

at a fish plant and getting ten weeks work at a fish plant, plus their

unemployment insurance after they are laid off, they make somewhere in the range

of $30,000 to $35,000 - maybe a little over that, based on their hourly pay and

so on.

MR. RAMSAY: Between the two of them.

MR. REID: Between the two of them. Based on a $30,000

income - remember now, for 4 per cent for two married, no children, the tax on

their income in 1993 - not this year - 1993, will be an extra $105. That is

$52.50 extra. That is extra money that they will have to pay in income tax, but

if they were living in St. John's, or in Corner Brook, where the school tax is

$150 a year, then do not forget, both of them together would be paying $300. The

difference of the $300 school tax and the $105 increase in income tax is a

saving to that couple of $195 per year.

Somebody asked me today when I showed them this: Reid, you

are not going to talk about anybody over $30,000 are you, because there is

nobody in the district, or very few people in your district, making over

$30,000. I said, well there are some. There are teachers. There are certain

workers. There are doctors and lawyers. There are some office people, I guess,

making over $30,000 a year, but not many. You go on to the bottom part of my

district, Victoria, Salmon Cove, Perry's Cove, and down towards Northern Bay,

Gull Island and that area, and there are not too many people down on that shore

making $30,000 a year. I will guarantee you that - not too many.

Anyway, I am going to go a little bit further. A husband and

a wife making $30,000 each - listen to this one now. I know they are going to

come back and argue with me on this one. $30,000 each would give you a total of

$60,000 per family - a married couple with no children - their income tax

increase would be $300 a year. $300 a year, but that is what they are paying now

in school tax, so it means absolutely nothing to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: So you are up to $60,000?

MR. REID: $60,000; $30,000 combined, yes. I will send

this around and let you look at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Four per cent in 1993 would cost the average

couple - a couple making a total of $60,000 - $300 and they got their $150 each

wiped out, so they break even.

Now I will go on a little bit further and say, married

couples making $100,000 - and now I am talking more along the lines of what my

hon. colleagues sitting across from me are making per year, and we will see how

much they would pay. $100,000 a year between a husband and a wife, you will pay

an extra $715 in income tax, and take your $300 off that, that you are going to

save, and you lose, basically, $415.

Now the hon. minister stood in this House when he read the

Budget, and he is after standing three or four times since, and he basically

said that finally we have a taxation system in Newfoundland where those people

who can afford to pay will pay. I do not represent a district where there are

many $100,000 earners. I will have to pay it - I admit - a certain amount more,

but when I think about all the people in my district last year who scraped ten

weeks of work in whatever way they could, through social services grants and

everything else, making $4.50 and $5 an hour, if they could get it, and I think

about those people having to pay, out in my district, $120 or $130 a year income

tax, when there were doctors, lawyers, politicians and business people paying

the same amount? Make no wonder that this government decided that it was time to

get rid of that foolish, insignificant tax that was in!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The richest man in this Province today was

paying $150 a year school tax in St. John's and the poor son of a gun who was

living in a shack in Torbay or Logy Bay or down walking the streets of St.

John's was paying $150. Fair tax? No, that is not a fair tax. Not one of you can

get up publicly and in your district say to the 90 per cent of the people who

live in your district that that was a fair tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Carbonear. Let me give you the breakdown for a

single individual with no children. Let me give you that one. I haven't got a

lot of time left. Mr. Speaker, a single individual who makes $20,000 a year will

save $65. A single individual living in Newfoundland right now who did pay $150

in school tax who makes $30,000 a year will not get any increase. It will

balance out. Thirty thousand dollars. That is a single. I also have the bottom.

I am not sure where this is but there is one tax authority in Newfoundland that

only charges $85 per year. Where is it? Does anyone know?

MR. RAMSAY: It was Bay d'Espoir, was it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)?

MR. REID: Probably Ferryland? Eighty-five dollars a year.

MR. RAMSAY: Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MR. REID: Anyway, I have taken the maximum of $150. That

is St. John's, and I believe Corner Brook too. Corner Brook charges $150, I

believe, is it? I know the Avalon north region charges $120.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes. Well, I have taken the highest one and the

lowest one. I am going to give you some quotes from the lowest one, now. School

tax for $85. So let's say Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. A family of two workers with no

children would have to make $40,000 between them a year and they would pay $170

in taxes. But then, two times $85 is $170. So they balance out. So you are

looking at a family making approximately $20,000 each. So that is right back to

where we were. My hon. colleague for Bonavista is looking at me, because he

knows. Right back to where we were again.

You are talking about somebody working in a fish plant and

drawing a bit of unemployment during the year. That is what they add up to,

around $20,000. So all those people - and there are thousands of them out there

- are not going to pay any taxes. Not going to have any affect on them

whatsoever. None whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about teachers?

MR. REID: Oh yes. Teachers are going to pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: More?

MR. REID: No.

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MR. REID: No, no, no.

MR. RAMSAY: Some will. Some.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Fishermen, now, poor fishermen.

MR. REID: Yes, that is what I am talking about, poor

fishermen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: You tell me a poor fisherman who made $60,000

last year and I will tell you he is not poor! What poor fishermen?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CRANE: But there are none of them in your district,

Art.

MR. REID: Poor fishermen. No, there are no poor fishermen

in my district, all lies. Come down sometime and I will show them to you.

MR. CRANE: No $60,000 ones.

MR. REID: I will take you down in Ochre Pit Cove, down on

the wharf with 150 of them some night, and you will see how much they made last

year. There was not one of them down there I don't say made over $10,000 last

year, unemployment not included.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)?

MR. REID: Terrible.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)?

MR. REID: No, and John may have a few. He only got a

handful. If there are any out there making money it is only a handful. No more

than that. No more than yours, either.

Anyway, I am going to circulate this, Mr. Speaker, I am

running out of time. Basically all I wanted to do was bring that to your

attention. I sit here and I listen to my hon. colleagues on the other side, and

they are doing the job that they have been elected to do, and that is to

criticise. That crowd does nothing only criticise anyway. There is no planning.

I have not heard the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West get up and say:

now you should do this. If you don't do it this way let's do it the other way.

Right? We don't hear him. I don't hear him.

I don't hear the unions around the province saying: here's

what you should do. I do not hear them and I suppose the reason we do not hear

them, and I am going to include my hon. colleagues on the other side with one

exception, the reason we do not hear them is because my hon. friends who are in

unions and representing unions in the Province also support a fellow by the name

of Bob Rae, who is the Premier of Ontario, who, just this last year, one year in

government put his province $14 billion in debt in one year, $14 billion. How

can you do it?

I do not know how to do it, but I bet you my hon. friend for

St. John's East knows how he did it, and we await, we will sit back and we will

hear of the cuts in Ontario, we will hear of the cuts in Saskatchewan, we will

hear of the cuts in British Columbia and when it is all said, Mr. Speaker, the

hon. Minister of Finance can sit back and say: I told you so. I did something

about it last year, this government over here took the bull by the horns a year

before anyone else in the country did, we took the bull by the horns and that is

why we today, can honestly sit back and say that this government is handling the

economy and the problems we have in this Province, the right way.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to sit on

this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suppose I should have been up before the hon. member, he

said, so far nobody has criticized the allocation of funding for the capital

works project this year, the $60 million. Well I will have a few words to say on

that as I go along with my few words on the Budget debate, but to the hon.

member I would like to allude to one of the comments made by him about a plan. I

remember a plan not too long ago, I think it was April 22, of 1989, a plan

comprising, I do not know how many pages but it was about three-quarters of an

inch thick and it was called then, the bible of the Liberal candidates who were

running for election around the Province.

I was going through this just the other night, some fantastic

reading especially leading up to an election and in fact, one of the reasons I

was going through this particular document was to get ready for the next

election, because I do not know if members know it or not but I have my

nomination over with in the District of Humber Valley, so I will be a candidate

and I was looking for some great material, some quotes and some material to put

in some pamphlets that I was about to get ready for the next election; that is

the nice thing about having your nomination ready, especially when you look at a

forced Budget gone down and the possibility of another one, but I doubt it very

much. So, one thing for sure, Mr. Speaker, that I can surely make up my

pamphlets and have no worries or hesitation about what is going to be in the

next Budget. I do not think there is going to be another Budget before an

election.

Mr. Speaker, I will open my comments on the municipal Budget.

I am glad the minister is back because I am going to tell you one thing that if

there is anything this minister believes in, there is certainly one thing that I

know that he certainly does not believe in and that is the components under the

new grants system. He has never said it to me personally, you have never said it

publicly, but as far as I am concerned, you are against that particular system.

Now, if you could convince your colleagues in Cabinet, if you could get their

attention long enough and your backbenchers, because there is one who just

spoke, the hon. Member for Carbonear, knows quite well what I am talking about

and that particular system, the new system that was announced in the fall of

1989, by the former minister, is bad stuff - very bad - for the municipalities

in this Province.

I have said it before, and I will say it here again today,

municipalities in this Province have been denied the right to even apply for

capital funding - to even apply. I will give you some of the reasons why. Under

the old component system if you could get your cabinet colleagues to understand

what you are going to try to get through to them over the next number of months,

because I know you are going to have to, because you will have pressure put on

you by municipalities, and I think you believe in it yourself, like I said - to

try to get your colleagues to look at the rationale behind this new system.

Before, you had the per capita component, and you had your social assistance

component and your roads component. Municipalities knew exactly what they were

going to get under those components, except for the social assistance one - very

little variance in the per capita one; very little variance in the roads

component.

You could do up your budget and pretty well tell; but now,

under the three components, they got in an equalization component. I have asked

the question time and time again. I still do not have the answer. Nobody has

been able to tell me from where they got the provincial average. Did they, in

one of my suggestions, take all the property in the Province, except for St.

John's, Mount Pearl and Corner Brook, take the average and come up with a

provincial average? Is that what they did? That is what they did. They came up

with approximately $48,000 for deficiency grants under the equalization

component.

In setting up this equalization component, they took the

total property value - that is the total property assessment in any given

municipality in this Province - and divided it by the number of households.

Then, when they got that particular figure, say for instance that came to

$40,000 - the provincial average was $48,000 - they base it on whatever the

percentage of that was. If it was 16 per cent, okay, they paid them a deficiency

grant based on 16 per cent. That is the provincial average.

If something was explained to me pertaining to this

equalization grant that I do not know about, how they arrived at the provincial

average is one thing, but to pay rural Newfoundland and Labrador - not only

rural Newfoundland, but even St. John's; I would venture to bet today that I

would say they left out St. John's; they left out Mount Pearl, and they left out

Corner Brook when they got the provincial average pertaining to the equalization

component. I would venture to bet that is what they did.

Municipalities - what could they make it up on? Total

property value, and then anybody who does not have any property tax instituted

like in a local service district or anywhere else, will get a maximum of forty

dollars per household. If I am not mistaken, that is what the other part of that

component is. Now how municipalities can operate - and not only that, but I am

sure there is another way that members opposite, when they sit down around the

cabinet table, can simplify those particular components rather than what they

have in place today. As far as I am concerned, it is ludicrous. How can a

councillor who is working every day of the week - most of them are volunteers in

this Province - come home after working all day and sit down in a council office

and try to determine what they are going to get under the components, let alone

the repayment on capital debt on water and sewer. I will get to that later.

I vowed that I was going to take this opportunity to talk

about the components and the repayment on capital debt, water and sewer, because

as far as I am concerned, municipalities in the Province today are being

shortchanged, in no uncertain terms. Now I do not disagree when it comes to some

kind of a system with regard to repayment on capital debt, but the component

system and the equation and formula they have in place for that today, as far as

I am concerned, is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I will move on to the local incentive grant

under the component system, the new grant system. There they take the total

property tax collected in a municipality - the total property tax 'collected' in

a municipality - and then the sums are done based on the number of households

again in a municipality. Then you get that and you come down and take I think it

is 25 per cent of the first lot, 37 per cent of - I just forget what they are

now, the proper percentages. I think it is 25 per cent on the first one. Then it

goes on to another.... There's nothing up to $250, that is a zero, and then from

between $250 to $500 it is 15 per cent. As you go over that you go on up to

$750, 25 per cent, then the maximum is between $751 and $1,000, which is $1,000

with 40 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, you work that out, again based on households,

and that is what you get under the local revenue incentive program. There is no

way in the world for that to move. Even if the value of households go up. It is

based like I said on the total of property tax collected and the minister should

take that under consideration. If that particular municipality does not collect

that property tax in that particular year, or the year previous to that, then

they cannot get their full compliment under the local revenue grant. There is no

way to get it.

Household component, the $85, well that is pretty

straightforward. But the equalization component and that local revenue incentive

component, as far as I am concerned, should be looked at.

The roads component. That started off at a couple of thousand

dollars. Up to the fall of 1989 that was $2,000 per kilometre. Municipalities in

this Province could just make it under that. That took into account snow

clearing in wintertime, maintenance of the roads in the summertime, year-round.

Year-round, where the councils had jurisdictions over their grants. That was cut

in the fall of 1989 from $2,000 per kilometre down to $1,949. It went from

$1,949 in 1990 down to $1,269, and then went from $1,269 down to eight hundred

and something this year.

Now the other thing about this. They were told in 1989 that

they were going to lose fifty-odd dollars in 1990. Not one sound until just last

fall. Councils were notified retroactively that they had lost, from $1.949 down

to $1,269, and then told that they were going from $1,269 down to eight hundred

and something. Now how can any member on the other side of this House, or in

this Chamber, regardless of his political stripe, stand up and say that is fair?

They cannot do it. Municipalities cut over 60 per cent to 70 per cent in some

cases, and trying to look after roads in this Province.

It is alright if you want to look around this particular

area. No problem. Get outside and have a look at some of the jurisdictions

around this Province, and look at the total amount of roads you have to keep up

in this Province. Right in my community, in the community of Cormack, a small

community of seven hundred and ninety-odd people, twenty-eight kilometres of

roads to keep up. Now you tell me how the council and the people are going to

maintain that particular road system on eight hundred and some odd dollars a

year? Winter and summer? When we have the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation going in every day of the week begging for money from his

colleagues to try to institute and put in place a system whereby you could pay

more money and help with the roads in this Province.

The Member for Gander, the President of Treasury Board, knows

exactly what I am talking about. Now, if anybody on the other side - especially

in cabinet - should support the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on

this particular subject, it is the Member for Gander. Because he knows exactly

what I am talking about. He is after sitting down with a couple of

municipalities and going over that in detail over the last number of months. I

am sure he has not heard the last of it.

Now, let's move on to the water and sewer subsidies that the

hon. Member for Carbonear brought up. Nobody on the other side mentioned about

partisanship, political patronage or whatever. I did not get into it, to be

honest with you. When I responded to your particular ministerial statement on

capital funding I did not get into that. Because as far as I am concerned there

is a more important issue. If municipalities have money, and they can afford to

pay for it, so be it. More power to them. But as far as I am concerned

municipalities - I would venture to say that not 60 per cent of the

municipalities that received funding under this particular program this year

will be able to take advantage of it, and I am serious. That is not being

political, I am going to back it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope not.

MR. WOODFORD: You hope not! That is exactly what I was

thinking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, he said, "I hope not." I did not say

the reverse about the 40 per cent, I said 60. Well, Mr. Speaker, now I have the

answer.

MR. WARREN: That is on record.

MR. WOODFORD: I said that not 60 per cent of the

municipalities in this Province will be able to take advantage of the capital

funding allocated to them this year. The President of Treasury Board said, "I

hope not." I don't think it is what he meant, but still he said it.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why. Because last year under

that particular scheme, under the municipal infrastructure last year, if I am

not mistaken there was only - it is right here in the Budget highlights -

$36,425 spend - that is under the Revised Budget for Municipal Affairs. That is

revised. Under the estimates for 1992 - 1993, after announcing an allocation of

$60 million in municipal financing, the estimate to be spent, $48,000,652. It is

even written in the Budget. It is in the highlights. Now, members can't say that

I am playing politics with that, that is written in the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why a lot of municipalities are

not going to be able to take advantage of it. I will give you one example under

the new water and sewer subsidy. This was not made public. I don't think what I

am going to say now is public knowledge to municipalities in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It will be after this, though.

MR. WOODFORD: It will be after this.

Mr. Speaker, under that formula municipalities would have to

take their total debt charges. Say for instance a municipality had a total debt

charge of $300,000. They would take the number of households in that community

and divide it into their total debt charges. When they get that figure - say,

for argument's sake it was $600 - they would first take 60 per cent off that

particular amount of funding because that is what had to be paid, 60 per cent of

that total amount of funding, say $360. Then anything over $750 would be looked

after 100 per cent by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Now I find out that that was only applicable to any loans up

to the end of 1989 - 1990. That particular formula is only applicable to loans

incurred and debt incurred by municipalities in this Province up to 1990. Now,

the minister can correct me if I am wrong. I stand to be corrected, no doubt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. WOODFORD: Under that particular formula.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious subject and I -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, we can see that. We can see by the

way you are (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: With some of the comments coming across the

House, Mr. Speaker, I can't help but laugh. I am human. That is one thing about

it, I am human.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health struck dead on with

regard to a municipality in my particular area. I will give a prime example of

what I am talking about. Now, from what I can understand - the minister may have

had a hand in this. He probably did. I have to try to give credit where credit

is due. I'm not sure, but in the municipal financing under capital funding, the

community of Reidville in my area got an allocation of some $350,000 to look

after the water and sewer system. Mainly water.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. WOODFORD: Three hundred and fifty-thousand dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. WOODFORD: Reidville.

MR. GRIMES: I got it for you.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the prime example here, and I

will use Reidville. Yes, I will use Reidville. That is a prime example. If the

minister had anything to do with it, then thanks a million, on behalf of the

people of Reidville. I am not one bit ashamed of that.

Reidville, I will tell the minister, under this system, had

$300,000 in debt, say up to now, and that was previous to 1990. So that formula

kicked in. They operated under the old formula, paying $23,000. Now the Member

for Carbonear, I suppose he knows about those formulas, I would say he does, he

is after being around long enough. But under that particular formula they pay

$23,000 under the formula I just outlined.

To give you an example. After 1990, any debt incurred by any

municipality in this Province - any municipality, regardless of which it was -

was based on up to a maximum of $300 per household. To add to that, the consumer

price index for that particular year is added to the total debt of that

municipality. Before they multiplied by the number of households in that

particular municipality. To give you an example. Reidville alone will go from

$23,000 repayment on capital debt to a total of $46,000 repayment on capital

debt this year alone.

MR. WARREN: And the minister didn't even know the

difference.

MR. WOODFORD: Municipalities around this Province do not

know that. I am sure. I don't only blame the Department for this. As far as I am

concerned, I blame the Federation of Municipalities too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Sure, that was fair. Sure it was fair. I

will tell you why.

MR. REID: There were communities in Newfoundland paying

their whole way.

MR. WOODFORD: I will tell you why. Because then it was an

incentive for the municipalities to put up their taxes. If you did not put up,

the most you could pay was 20 per cent repayment on capital debt, based on your

local revenue. Based on local revenue in a municipality.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: All revenue, yes, all local revenue in the

municipality. Then, if you went and put it to 25 per cent or 30 per cent if

would have been incentive -

AN HON. MEMBER: Fixed revenue.

MR. WOODFORD: Fixed revenue. But now what is happening

under those components, there is no way in the world to tell. A municipality in

this Province has to have a balanced budget. They are not allowed to send it in

- end of December, as you know - they are not allowed to send in a deficit

budget. They have to send in a balanced budget. How in the name of God can you

balance a budget when you find out a few days before that you are going to be

short $30,000, $60,000, $150,000, or $200,000? You cannot do it. Taxes are in

place. Their fiscal regime is all in place because their budgets are done, and

then find out a few weeks after that this kind of a thing is in place. That is

the bad thing about it.

The new system now, all debt charges after 1990, are

multiplied, like I said, a maximum of three, plus the consumer price index. That

will go up again next year. Granted it was 2 per cent or 3 per cent, the

consumer price index was added to it next year before the calculation is done.

So really the municipalities... how can you budget, that is what I am saying?

There has to be some kind of a system put in place so municipalities will know

up front what they are going to pay.

I do not have to tell - everybody here knows that people

sitting on councils today all around this Province, 90 per cent of them are

volunteers. The clerk is the only one on the office every day of the week, the

clerk is the only one who deals with the minutes after, and deals with the

department officials every day of the week. Then, a council comes in in the

nighttime, and can you imagine? Can you imagine clerks today in council offices

around this Province trying to explain those formulas to the councillors when

they come to their meetings in the night time. It is not easy.

You call the officials in the Department of Municipal Affairs

today and I will tell you something, a few of them are after crossing up on me

the last few days.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WOODFORD: They are after crossing up on me on the

intent of the formula. They got mixed up pretty good when I started to cross

examine them on the formula. That is a fact, and I do not blame them. I can say

there is something wrong with it, yes, but the point I am trying to make is the

complexity of this particular system. It is alright for St. John's, Gander and

Grand Falls, they have city managers, they have city engineers, they have

environmental officials, they have everybody on staff getting the biggest kind

of money, and when the councillors walk in for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well as far as I am concerned they have to

be told up front. A municipality in this Province has to be told up front what

they can bear. If you are going to give a municipality -

AN HON. MEMBER: Based on what they can bear.

MR. WOODFORD: Based on what they can bear. And I will

tell you another thing we are doing. I said it here last year in a Speech and I

will say it again, we are putting in cadillac systems in municipalities around

this Province and the municipalities cannot afford it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Artesian wells (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Cannot afford it. We have artesian wells in

the province. Put in two or three artesian wells in communities in the province

and it can do the same system for $40,000 or $50,000 that is costing millions

and millions of dollars to do. Now I know, and I have told municipalities, and

you know I am not going to hide that fact, telling officials in Municipal

Affairs over the years because what I am saying cannot be argued against because

it makes sense. I come from a community that does not have water or sewer

systems. It has drilled wells and a septic system. What is wrong with it? When

we have a community with 33,000 acres with 791 people and cannot put in a septic

system. There is something radically wrong. I mean it would cost, I think the

last figure we got was $6.9 million to put a sewer system alone in Cormack. It

is ludicrous, crazy. If the government went out and gave everybody $1,000 and

said: Look, put in a good concrete septic system, $1,000 per household, $300,000

and you have everybody looked after.

We have one particular well - I will give you an example -

with 27 families on it, down forty feet giving off 24 gallons a minute. What is

wrong with that? They are never out of water. They do not have to be hooked up

to a system where it is interfering with beaver fever or anything else. It is

coming right out of the ground. Why can't that work?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, we have to do a whole assessment. I

will tell you half our problem. Because the community next door to us has a

water system the other community figures they should have it and then on she

goes and up she goes. Now there has to be a system where we can deal with the

municipalities in this Province and cut down a lot of the debt in municipalities

in this Province and put it to better use.

I am sure that if the minister went to his colleagues in

Cabinet and