May 25,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 43

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have been going over some

information contained in the Budget documents in the past, and looking at some

of the figures and some of the numbers and reading some of the news stories that

have been emanating around the Province for the last number of weeks and months.

It is pretty clear that the people of this Province have been waiting now, at

least for three years to hear some clear policy from the government as to how

they are going to address the economic problems we are facing, that are becoming

more and more severe every day.

Specifically, I would like to ask the Premier, when does his

government intend to take some action and when are he and his government going

to do something to create some jobs for the thousands of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians in this Province who are suffering today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated publicly on

a number of occasions, that the government is planning for the orderly

development of this Province on a long-term stable basis, that will not see it

subject to the uncontrolled gyrations that are the result of the former

government's policies.

Now, the strategic economic plan, with a bit of luck, should

be made public by about the middle of June. The other thing that I would say in

terms of the specific question or the second question as to when we are going to

do something to create jobs, that is the kind of attitude and approach that got

us into the economic trouble that we did. The former government took only the

position that we, the government are the creators of jobs, so we will take

$100,000 from the taxpayers in order to get $50,000 worth of benefit, now that

is a sure way of driving this Province into bankruptcy. We take a different

approach.

Our management approach, Mr. Speaker, is to provide for an

improved economic circumstance that will cause, will induce people to invest in

the economy that will generate job opportunities and create economic activity,

from which, the individuals involved, as well as the government, will benefit.

This kind of grandstanding now is out of place. In terms of the specific

situation, the recession at this particular time, the impact of the reduction in

the total allowable catch in the fisheries and the federal decisions in the

terms of managing the fisheries, we are trying to persuade the federal

government to make an effort in that area to deal specifically with fisheries

matters.

The government, itself, is dealing with it in general terms

but not specifically for the fisheries. We are watching exactly what is

happening, Mr. Speaker, and within the limits of our ability, we will provide

for some assistance to induce or promote the generation of job opportunities in

the private sector.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do acknowledge in fact what the Premier said, that they

have taken a different approach. There is no question about that, they are

governing the Province into economic devastation. Mr. Speaker, the only obvious

plan of this particular government, if you read the statistics, is to put more

people on welfare. That seems to be what is transpiring. This is the government

that budgeted $10 million more for social assistance this year than they did

last year and millions of dollars less for job creation. The Premier's words are

all fine and dandy, but the question that people are asking is, 'What is going

on here? What is the government doing?' Is this a government that believes it is

better to put people on welfare than it is to create jobs for them? That is what

he intends to do.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can say publicly that we

refuse to follow the former government's policy of causing people to be paid to

move rock from one pile to another. We intend to use the financial resources of

this Province, to the extent that they are available to the Province, to provide

for the development of the economy on a sound basis, not for the kind of insane

approach the former government followed.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, what absolute hypocrisy! His own

government brought in make-work projects last year after lambasting that kind of

a process so I do not know what he is trying to prove by suggesting otherwise.

This government should be realizing now that the policies they are undertaking

really are leading to devastation around the Province. I don't think the Premier

knows what is happening around the Province and how much people are suffering,

Mr. Speaker. That is the problem. Does he realize that the policies his

government is undertaking really are doing everything to deprive people of

opportunities to work? The government has reduced spending on job creation. They

have reduced spending on capital works. They have delayed the start-up of

capital works. They have reduced employment in the public sector and they have

increased taxes in the private sector, and that list goes on and on. Again, the

question is, does the government know what it is doing at all? Do you realize

how much people are hurting? Is there some grand plan that only the government

knows about and nobody else?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will produce the

comparative figures for this Province with other province and the nation as a

whole and that will show very clearly the level of impact there has been, and

the kind of impact there has been in the rest of the county in terms of this

recession and how the Province has been impacted. The biggest single factor in

this Province today is not the economic recession, it is what has happened in

the fishery and the complete failure of the federal government to discharge its

responsibility, protected by the members opposite, fronting for them and

shielding them from the criticism in order to make their arrangements with the

Tory Government in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: That's exactly what has been happening.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they have an awful lot to answer for, and

we are going to see that they answer for it when the time comes in the next

election. They are going to answer for what they have done in terms of

undermining the people of this Province to protect their political relationship

with the federal government because the federal government has failed to

discharge its responsibility to this Province.

If there is a farm problem in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, the

federal government sends a cheque for a billion dollars. With the fisheries

crisis here, with the full approval of the Opposition, the federal government

sends us a get well card. And that is with the approval and full endorsement of

the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: He sent you a get well card.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with the

reality, not the situation that the hon. members opposite are trying to

fabricate. If you look at the effect on our unemployment statistics of the last

three or four years of federal reductions in the fisheries, you will see that it

has cost this Province about 8,000 jobs. That is about 3.5 percentage points on

our unemployment rate contributed by the impact of the reduction in the

fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, this government can't shield the fishermen of

this Province from the irrational, irresponsible policy decisions of the federal

government in relation to managing the fisheries. They refuse to participate

with us on the basis of joint federal/provincial management, and we are quite

prepared to do it. We can't shield the people of this Province from the impacts

of the national economic recession. We are going to feel some effects of that. I

admit that. The difference is, the members opposite try to pretend to the people

that they can shield the employees in this Province from the national economic

recession, and the fact is they cannot.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time that this

Premier realized that the people of this Province are sick and tired of this

Premier's standard pat answers and excuses. They are sick and tired of it, Mr.

Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: They are sick and tired of this Premier

shirking his own responsibility and blaming everything on the federal

government, or the recession, or the unions, or the media, or the previous

administration. That can no longer be acceptable to the people of this Province.

I want to ask him this: When is he going to stop offering the people of this

Province excuses and start offering them some hope and some jobs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: What the Leader of the Opposition, of

course, does not recognize is that what he describes as excuses is honesty. He

obviously doesn't recognize that, an honest statement of the situation. We are

not prepared to perpetrate a massive political fraud on the people of this

Province, as the former government did. We intend to deal honestly with the

circumstances, and speak honestly to people and let them know just where the

Province is and just what the limits of the Province's ability are. We intend to

govern for the benefit of the people of the Province, not the Liberal party.

The difference between the Leader of the Opposition and the

Members opposite and this side of the House is that we put the interests of

people first, not our own political survival.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

MR. SIMMS: If it were not so serious, it would almost be

funny to hear the response of the Premier.

Members in our caucus every single day, and I suspect members

on that side of the House, are swamped with telephone calls from people all over

this Province desperately looking for jobs - desperately looking for some help.

I am glad the Premier brought up honesty. I am glad he

brought up honesty. Let me ask him this question, speaking of honesty, or at

least his

interpretation. The people around the Province want to know this: When

is the Premier going to live up to all those flowery words he mouthed and found

in the Liberal party policy manual, page 18 in particular when he was talking

about health care, when he said: Compassion must always take precedence over

business administration. The people around this Province want to know what he is

going to do to help them find work? What is he going to do to help them find

jobs? What answer does he give those people - the same kind of nonsense that he

gets on with here in the House day after day?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have lived up to our

commitments in the manifesto. We corrected the unfairness of the past and

abolished the school tax. We did that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: We have an Elections Act before the House.

We put in place the Economic Recovery Commission. We provided for the

development of the strategic economic plan. We decentralized economic decision

making in Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. We have done a whole lot of

other things to try and create fair and balanced and sound financial management.

We put the pension schemes in order, to avoid the incredible mess that the

members opposite created. We are working right at this moment dealing with the

God-awful mess they created in workers' compensation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If we do not deal with that on an urgent

basis, the workers' compensation fund will be bankrupt in four years, thanks to

the mismanagement of the members opposite; and we are going to disclose all of

that to the public.

In the meantime -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair has tolerated a lot of comments, particularly

coming from my right, while the Premier is answering questions. I have, on many

occasions, quoted to members appropriate quotations to remind hon. members that

they are not supposed to interrupt a member when a member is attempting to

answer. I refer hon. members to Erskine-May, page 423, again, which says:

members are not to disturb a member who is speaking by hissing, booing,

exclamations or any other interruptions. I ask hon. members please to follow

these rules.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: It's not me who is provoked, it's the

gentlemen opposite who are obviously disturbed that they cannot deal with the

reality.

Mr. Speaker, the government - which is the people - still

have to live within the capability of the financial resources. A great deal of

it has to go to cope with the totally unacceptable financial situation of the

government that we inherited, so that limits our ability somewhat. The

government has developed and has in place policies to help out to the maximum

extent that we can in trying to act as an inducement for private enterprise to

invest in job creating opportunities. The minister responsible has announced a

number of these in the past. As circumstances develop, he may well announce some

in the future, but that remains yet to be seen.

The government is acting responsibly in terms of coping with

the present economic and financial situation in this country. In fact, thanks to

the sound and sensible way in which the government has managed the financial

affairs, this Province is proportionately in a much better position than several

other provinces of Canada for the first time in our recent history.

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

MR. DOYLE: I have a question for the acting Minister of

Health, Mr. Speaker, whoever he or she may be. Could the minister confirm if

there is a new outbreak of meningitis, this time here in the City of St. John's,

and could the minister tell the House what action government is taking to deal

with this issue, to safeguard the health of the people of this area?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by

officials of the Department of Education that a sixteen year old female was

admitted to the Janeway on Sunday, where the diagnosis was made, as the member

said. All close contacts have been contacted, I am told. She is recovering with

treatment. The principal of the school has been contacted as well, and letters

have been sent to students and parents.

Mr. Speaker, he talks about an outbreak. I have been informed

by the officials in the Department of Health that this case is not in any way

connected with the two other cases that were identified in St. John's and it is

being treated as a sporadic case, and that appropriate guidelines are being

followed by the officials in the Department of Health.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: I thank the minister for his answer, and I

will just leave that there.

I have some new questions for him regarding MCP. As the

minister is aware, a lot of concern has been expressed by the medical profession

regarding the audit procedure at MCP. These concerns, as the minister is aware,

have to do with confidentiality of patient records and security of these records

once they leave a doctor's office because, frankly, people are getting quite

worried about it.

In order to protect the patients' confidentiality, would the

government consider - if the Premier, as Leader of the Government, wishes to

answer, that is fine as well - a new audit procedure where an MCP auditor

representing the interests of government and a member of the Newfoundland

Medical Association representing the interests of doctors would jointly conduct

an audit by visiting the doctors' offices?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there was an unfortunate

incident a while ago where, through lax administration of otherwise acceptable

policies at MCP, some information that ought not to have been discharged without

being shredded was put into the garbage. Some doctor, for some reason or other,

poking around in the garbage found these and called in the CBC. This

necessitated a full investigation. The minister called a full investigation to

be made. He satisfied the government and I think he satisfied the general public

that the procedures have been tightened up and that MCP will henceforth make

sure that they strictly apply the acceptable procedures that were in place.

So I see no necessity for the government causing a departure

from the standard procedures that are in place.

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

MR. DOYLE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Doctors and patients, themselves, are making the point in

expressing the concern that patients are objecting to their files being copied

and sent off to MCP to be scrutinized by God knows who, because not only people

with medical backgrounds scrutinize these files but auditors who don't have any

medical background. Of course, the public now knows what can happen. It wound up

in the dumpster at MCP. Could the Premier tell me what course or recourse is

open to a patient who objects to MCP scrutinizing his or her records? Now if the

patient objects to the procedure, what can the Premier tell him he can do if he

objects?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, like many cases throughout

life this is a matter of conflicting interest. All the taxpayers of this

Province have an interest in making sure that their taxes are used properly in

terms of the payment and provisions for medical services. That necessitates a

random audit procedure to be conducted. I don't know of any other effective way

to do this to provide for a means of protecting the interests of the taxpayers

of the Province. It would be preferable if nobody else had to look at the

patients records. That would be desirable. But there is an overriding public

interest to make sure that we manage our health care dollars in a proper way.

Now there are circumstances. The MCP report was tabled as to

how many doctors were earning over $300,000, how many over $400,000, how many

over $500,000, how many over $600,000 a year in revenue. So the government has a

real responsibility to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that the taxpayers dollars are

being spent in a proper way. This is the only effective means of doing that, and

I see no necessity to alter that course, but to make sure that we provide for

strict procedures to ensure confidentiality.

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

MR. DOYLE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to

the Premier that I had the opportunity over the last week or so to meet with

quite a number of doctors, and I am surprised at some of the things they are

telling me about MCP. Is the Premier aware that some patients who have

information say of a sensitive nature regarding their own medical condition are

now going into a doctor's office and saying: look I have to tell you this

because it is related to my medical condition, but please don't write it down.

Now is this acceptable? Is that type of procedure where a patient has to do that

acceptable to the government? Patients are forced into doing that because of a

bureaucracy gone mad over at MCP who are afraid to change the system because it

might mean a few jobs over at MCP. Why not change the system to have them go to

a doctor's office, an independent auditor along with a member of the

Newfoundland Medical Association to go and do it? It was recommended before.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If there is anything worse than a

bureaucracy gone mad it is an Opposition acting irresponsibly, and that is

exactly what is happening here.

There may be one, maybe there is two - I don't even know if

there are any more than that - people making the kind of comment the hon. member

just suggested are being made.

Mr. Speaker, the system that is followed now is the system

that the former members maintained in place for the seventeen years that they

were there. The same system. No change. Just listen to them now. Just listen to

them now with this feigned concern, great concern, for privacy of individuals.

The difference, Mr. Speaker, is the Opposition want to try to use this to create

a little political controversy.

Mr. Speaker, every single patient that walks inside a

hospital door has his or her records in detail on files that clerks and a whole

lot of people maintain and have unrestricted access to it. All kinds of people

in the medical records section. They aren't doctors. They aren't nurses. They

maintain the filing system in the hospitals. What do you want to do now, destroy

all those records so nobody can look at them? How nonsensical, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I say to the

Premier that it might very well be the same system, but there were very few

files wound up in MCP's dumpster over the last seventeen years. So is the

Premier aware that doctors are now required to send to MCP such sensitive

information as psychiatric information, psychiatric assessments of their

patients, information that if it was to fall into the wrong hands, like out in a

dumpster at MCP, that it could be used against a patient, say, in the job

market. Does the Premier not consider that to be a gross invasion of privacy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I guess there is something

much, much worse than a bureaucracy gone mad. Indeed it is an Opposition gone in

the same direction. That is where they appear to have gone with this. It is

utterly irresponsible for them to, for their own narrow, political purposes, try

and fabricate some kind of an issue out of this, that psychiatric records are

somehow being subpoenaed because they are psychiatric records and they are going

to cause a person harm in the job market. What utter nonsense!

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there was a lapse at MCP. Now,

I would hope that the attention that has been given to this will prevent that

from ever happening again. I mean, God help us if MCP people are so

irresponsible as to allow that to continue. Indeed we would fire or would cause

to be fired people who are responsible for such lax procedures. Mr. Speaker,

they know clearly what their responsibilities are.

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

The Chair has the second time reminded hon. members about

interruption and shouting across the floor. This is a small House and the Chair

has heard many comments that it would wish not to hear and that it is not going

to tolerate in the future, but the Chair will deal with that at a later date. I

just remind hon. members, please, to extend the Premier the courtesy that should

be extended to every hon. member by other members, the courtesy to speak.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the question is really not

deserving of any more attention anyway.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the Premier, over

the last couple of weeks I have had the opportunity to meet with quite a number

of doctors and they feel that it is the Premier and the Minister of Health who

have gone mad in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, doctors are telling me

that they have no objection to being audited, that it is necessary to do that

and they realize that.

Now, is the Premier aware that the Nurses' Association, for

instance, objected to the current procedure? Is he aware that the Mental Health

Association has objected to the current procedure being used by MCP? And is the

Premier aware that the Auditor General also recommended a couple of years ago

that the auditing system should be changed? What is preventing the government

from tightening up the system to the extent that they would send their auditor

from MCP along with a member of the Newfoundland Medical Association, to protect

the interests of doctors, to the doctors' offices? Now, what is the problem with

that, because the Premier hasn't answered that question yet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, neither the Minister of

Health on a personal basis nor myself nor the President of Treasury Board or

anybody else arrogate onto ourselves the right to determine that this is the

best or the most effective or the most suitable measure for auditing. We provide

for auditing to take place within the limits of the financial resources

available. I don't know whether it would add three times the cost to hire a

doctor to go and visit and send teams visiting doctors offices. The cost of that

would be infinitely more, I would expect, than we are presently encountering.

Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the people responsible are

managing the audit in a correct way, except for that lapse that occurred at the

MCP offices a while ago. Now, I would think that that problem has been

satisfactorily resolved.

Now, I have talked to a lot of doctors too who see nothing

wrong with what the government is doing, who recognize that it is necessary to

do that, that it is essential in order to protect the public interest and in

order to ensure that we provide for fair and balanced treatment for other

doctors too who would not be inclined to abuse the system. They want to make

sure that everybody is treated fairly and that the services of medical

practitioners are provided on a proper basis within the reasonable limits of the

financial capability of this Province. We must provide for an acceptable

auditing procedure.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question that is not within the federal purview. It

is a matter of forestry, for the Minister responsible for Forestry and

Agriculture.

The Kruger Company in Corner Brook has passed out some rather

bad news in my district over the last few days, that very small numbers of

people are being called back for long periods of work. The work is not being

spread out among the various loggers so that everybody can get their stamps. I

am wondering if the minister is aware of this, and what he plans to do about it?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper will not be calling back as many loggers this year as last.

The hon. Member for St. Barbe found out in excess of eighty loggers who have

worked for Kruger for years will not necessarily be recalled this year. I know

that Green Bay is affected. I know that most parts of the Province are affected.

All I can tell the hon. member is that Kruger determined the

amount of wood that would be required this year. They are working with the union

- most of the people he refers to I am sure are unionized loggers. So that is

the situation, Mr. Speaker. I am in touch with Kruger all the time and I am

aware of their plans for this summer, and that is it.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to

consider certain resolutions relating to the raising of loans by the Province.

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

a bill entitled "An Act To Abolish School Tax Authorities And To Provide For The

Collection Of Unpaid School Tax."

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

introduce a bill entitled "An Act To Amend Certain Taxation Statutes In Relation

To The Payment Or Imposition Of Interest."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

bill entitled "An Act Respecting The Application And Effect Of Certain Acts

Passed In The Present Session Of The Legislature Upon The Revised Statutes Of

Newfoundland, 1990."

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

introduce the following resolution.

WHEREAS

Section 28 of The Provincial Court Act, 1991 requires

the Lieutenant Governor in Council to appoint a tribunal to recommend the

salaries and benefits of the Judges and Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of

Newfoundland, and

WHEREAS the tribunal submitted it's report to the Minister of

Justice on April 16, 1992, and

WHEREAS on May 1, 1992 the report was laid before the House

of Assembly as required by the act, and

WHEREAS the act requires the House to approve or vary the

report within thirty days of it being laid before the House, and

WHEREAS the act provides that the recommendations of the

report as approved or varied by the House would apply for a period of four

years, and

WHEREAS The Public Sector Restraint Act, 1992 applies to the

provincial court judges and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, and

WHEREAS it is expedient for the House to deal with the

recommendations of the report for the two year period following the expiry of

the restrain period, and

WHEREAS government has decided to ask the House to vary the

recommendations of the report,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House vary the report on

the salaries and benefits of the provincial court judges by inserting

immediately before 'Recommendation 1', as 'Recommendation A(l)', the following:

A(1) Subsection (a). In light of the provisions in The Public Sector Restraint

Act, 1992, it is recommended that the House defer consideration of the

recommendations of this report until the expiry of the restraint period provided

for in that act.

B. It is recommended that the House accept or vary the

recommendations of the report within thirty days of the expiration of the

restraint period, or if the House is not then sitting it is recommended the

report be considered and accepted or varied within thirty days of the beginning

of the first sitting of the House immediately following the end of the restraint

period.

C. It is recommended that the report as then accepted or

varied, be implemented within thirty days of acceptance or variation, with

effect from 1994-04-01 for the then unexpired balance of the four year period

contemplated by the report and The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

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

Labour Relations.

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

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

Standards Act."

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill 16. Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, continuing on with the debate

on Bill 16, the payroll tax more commonly referred to as the health and

post-secondary education tax. There have been a number of speakers already who

have had a few things to say about this bill and this tax - regressive tax.

As I said on Friday, I thought that when the government

introduced the health and post-secondary education tax, we were going to see

significant improvements in the health care system of the Province. It seemed

that government was going to put an emphasis on improved health care for the

Province and on improved post-secondary education for people in our Province,

but we have seen the opposite.

Of course, coming off the last election when the Premier

promised the four or five universities around the Province, the one in central

and other areas of the Province, we thought that once this tax was introduced

that was where government was going to get the money to put that central

Newfoundland university in place. That is what I thought anyway but then, of

course, shortly after that we found that was just another hollow and shallow

election promise. They never had any intention in the first place of putting a

university campus in central Newfoundland.

Of course the great talk as well was about improved health

care for the Province, how they were going to open more hospital beds. I will

never forget the great trip around the Province the Premier made on his

whistle-stops and everywhere he stopped he talked about opening more hospital

beds. But what did he do in his first Budget? He closed hospital beds, Mr.

Chairman. He closed hospital beds all over the Province. 300 or 400 hospital

beds closed in the Province last year. Now, how does that jibe with the promise

to open more hospital beds? That is the question, Mr. Chairman. How can you get

opening more hospital beds out of closing 400? I have heard tell of new math, I

have head of calculators, I have heard that there are problems in the Province

with science and mathematics. There have been studies into the problems with

mathematics and the attainment level of students in mathematics, but I would

really like for someone to explain to me how closing 400 hospital beds is

opening more beds. I am sure there will be somebody opposite get up in their

place very quickly and will try and convince me that closing 400 hospital beds

last year was indeed opening more hospital beds.

MR. DOYLE: It is unbelievable.

MR. MATTHEWS: They will try to do that I am sure. Maybe

the Premier himself will get up in a minute, knowing full well he closed 400

hospital beds, but trying somehow to describe it, work it, and use the verbal

trickery that the Leader of the Opposition refers to to try and somehow make us

believe he opened more.

MR. DOYLE: He is a real Houdini.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, he is a bit of a Houdini, there is not

doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MATTHEWS: We do not understand anything the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations says, but there is one thing I say to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that I do understand and that is the

transformation that took place within his skeleton, I say to him, within the

structure of his body in a matter of a few months. I have difficulty

understanding that, how he could be out weeping in public, caring about the

teachers of this Province, wept openly in front of 700 or 800 teachers because

he could not deal with that terrible government that was in power at the time.

He wept openly with his Kleenex box of tissues. He took them out and said: I

cannot get anything else from this terrible group in there now. That is what he

did. Wept openly! Then what did he do once he got in government? He turned on

them. We used to use a term down in Grand Bank - I should not say it because I

suppose I would be called racist and all this stuff. I cannot do it. When you

turn against your own people. That is what he did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Turncoat. Traitor.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, it was not turncoat or traitor. That is

what happened to him. I cannot understand that I say to him, how one could

change in a matter of a few short months when he beat from one end of this

Province to the other preaching and crying in front of the teachers of the

Province. Then what did he do? He came in and froze their wages for three years,

tore up contracts in front of their face, contracts that he negotiated just a

few weeks before. He tore them up. That great defender of the Newfoundland

teachers of this Province one Roger Grimes. Now, I know he can hear what I am

saying out in his Common Room or wherever he has gone. I cannot understand that

I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations anymore than I can

understand how closing 400 or 500 hospital beds is keeping a promise to the

people of this Province to open more. Do you know something that is frightening

about it? The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations does not think there

has been a change in him. He still thinks he is a great defender of teachers and

the labour movement in this Province, as well as the Premier, as frightening as

it is, thinks that he has opened more hospital beds in this Province. He really

believes that he opened more hospital beds in this Province.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier does not believe that.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, he does believe it, and in another

twelve months or so he will be going around the Province, maybe at it again, and

he will be trying to convince people then that instead of having their hospital

beds shut down he opened hospital beds for them. He will be going around on the

stump. I can see him now up on the stump, gets off the bus and wades out on the

stump, that is what he will tell people: yes, your hospital is closed up there

but you know, I really did open up more hospital beds in your community, is what

he will tell them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Check with The Health Sciences

(inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes I know all about the Health Sciences, I

have checked with them a few times trying to get people in to have heart

surgery, I say to the President of Treasury Board. I know all about what is

happening over there. If there is one person here, if there is one member in

this House who can identify with the problems raised by the Member for Harbour

Main about heart surgery, I can do it, and I say that to the President of

Treasury Board very seriously.

Two cases in the last four to six weeks of people who have

been on a waiting list so long - can you imagine being on a waiting list for

months, knowing that you have blockages in your arteries and wanting surgery,

can you imagine the strain that is not only on that patient, but on the families

of that patient, can you imagine that? I know about the Health Sciences, I say

to the President of Treasury Board all very well, you call there to the

admission's office and they tell you that the list is so long they do not know

when they are going to be able to do the person you are calling about. They do

not know when. The person may die before he or she has the surgery they need.

They may have another heart attack, which happened in one case, I say to members

opposite, of one gentleman I know in Grand Bank, who was on the waiting list so

long, that he had such a serious heart attack that now surgery cannot be

performed on that gentleman, and still members opposite look at me and say:

everything is fine.

The Minister of Health stands in this House and goes around

the Province trying to convince everyone that health care in this Province has

been improved... where, I say to the minister, where? It may have improved for

him, I say to the Minister of Finance, who is over there mumbling under his

breath. It may be improved for the Minister of Health but he must be the only

one. He must be the only for whom it is improved. It is a terrible situation and

what I cannot understand, Mr. Chairman, is how members opposite won't admit to

the truth! All you have to do is go to any of the hospitals and see the lineups.

Go up on some of the wards; hear some of the tales of what is going on with

patients who have been treated. Talk to some of them, go over and visit them.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no problem (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No problem said the Minister of Finance, no

problems. It is fine for him. It could be like the person who was in the

hospital in Salt Pond; the lady when to the bathroom and when she came back

someone else was in her bed. Someone else was in her bed, I say to the Minister

of Finance, he does not believe it but it is true. A woman who had surgery a

couple days before went to the bathroom, when she came back there was another

patient in her bed. No problem, says the Minister of Finance.

MR. TOBIN: That is true, Len.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is true. I know of another case over

there where a gentleman had skin graft done at the Health Sciences Complex - the

Minister of Finance should listen to this if he thinks everything is fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is better than it used to be

(inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is better than it used to be; there

are twice as many dying I say to the Minister of Finance, it is twice as good as

it used to be because I am sure that is how he compares being twice as good. It

is a play on words that the minister and other ministers have over there. They

have themselves convinced that things have improved, and any of them. I can

understand it for someone in the city who as a member does not get quite as many

calls from constituents as rural members do, that is a known fact. I can

understand a city member - but I can guarantee you one thing if you are

representing a rural district in this Province today, you will get a lot of

calls about health care and other problems, but whether you return your calls is

something else, I say to the Minister of Finance, but we return ours and that is

why we know the problems that are out there, they are very, very serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. Just as one member for St. John's told

me one time, I said to him, I guess you are busy? He said: yes, I have had one

call and one letter the last year, and he was serious when he said that to me.

He had one call and one letter in a twelve month period, and he was serious, he

told the truth, that is what he had-

MR. HEWLETT: City Hall handles most of the problems.

MR. MATTHEWS: City Hall handles most of the problems, but

when you are dealing with health care, post-secondary education and unemployment

insurance problems and income tax problems, it is a serious situation out and

about. People, as the Leader of the Opposition said today, are crying out for

jobs. How many calls do I get in the run of a week from people looking for work?

- wondering if there is any work coming up, wondering if there is going to be a

project approved to hire some people. How many calls did I get this weekend? 'Do

you know of any jobs coming up, Bill?'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Call Graham Flight.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I don't tell them to call Graham

Flight, because he is shutting down Wooddale out there. I don't tell them that.

I tell them the truth. That is the difference between me and the hon. gentleman.

I tell them the truth.

My time has not elapsed already, has it?

MR. SIMMS: Yes boy, ten minutes goes fast when you're

having fun!

MR. MATTHEWS: I must get up again. It isn't ten minutes,

it's supposed to be thirty minutes, isn't it?

MR. SIMMS: Anybody else going to speak or what?

MR. MATTHEWS: I thought it was thirty minutes.

MR. SIMMS: It's only payroll tax - ten minutes at a time.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, it is supposed to be thirty - last week

(inaudible).

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Chairman, I am sure my colleague from

the Burin Peninsula will no doubt follow me and be exceptionally eloquent on the

matters he wishes to address.

I have a situation that I wish to bring to the floor of this

House in my capacity as the Member for Green Bay. I guess it is my duty as a

member representing my constituents to bring this matter before the House and

before the press, if they are interested and so on. It has to do with the

transfer of the crab processing license on Little Bay Island to Fleur de Lys, in

Baie Verte - White Bay district.

An application has been made to make the transfer. I

understand from the Minister of Fisheries that there will be a notice put in the

media to the effect that those for and against the transfer can state their

case. In this particular case, I have no doubt that the Minister of Fisheries

will receive many submissions, both from Green Bay and from Baie Verte district,

being neighbouring districts, on this particular issue.

Last year, this government tried to kill Little Bay Islands

by cutting its ferry system in half. When that proved to be an embarrassing

mess, in this Budget this spring they reinstated the ferry system and everybody

on Little Bay Islands breathed a sigh of relief - prematurely, I must say.

Because just after we got the ferry up and running in its usual fashion to

service the crab plant on Little Bay Islands, we got word that the crab plant

had been sold to new owners, and they are applying to transfer the license for

that crab plant to Fleur de Lys in the nearby Liberal district of Baie Verte -

White Bay.

This has caused some awkwardness on the government side, from

two points of view, I suppose. The Minister of Health is himself married to a

woman from Little Bay Islands, so he is under considerable pressure from his

in-laws with regard to the proposed transfer; I am told the Minister of

Fisheries is related by marriage to the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, which

would put pressure in the other direction on this particular issue. Behind the

scenes I am told - no matter who is listed in the registry of companies

downstairs - and checking, I found, only the lawyer incorporating Sea Treat

Limited is listed as a shareholder - I am told Mr. 'King Crab' himself in

Newfoundland, one Mr. Quinlan, is calling the shots on this particular issue.

Now, I don't know Mr. Quinlan from a hole in the wall, I do

not know if I have ever met him. He has already started installing new equipment

in the plant at Fleur de Lys in anticipation of a positive response to the

transfer of the license from Little Bay Islands to Fleur de Lys. The transfer of

the license will kill Little Bay Islands. You are not robbing Peter to pay Paul,

you are killing Peter to pay Paul, in the case of Little Bay Islands. It is an

island community, a one-industry town, and if you take its crab license away,

you destroy the community - resettlement by another name.

So the decision is essentially in the hands of this

government. Certain business interests have their own interest in mind, but the

decision as to whether or not the license transfer can take place is in the

hands of this government. This government has the power to kill Little Bay

Islands, but let me put this government on notice. If they should kill Little

Bay Islands, they can be assured of one thing, and that is that I am going to

claw their eyes out.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, seeing we are dealing with Bill 16, the Health

and Education Act, and the Minister of Education was not here the other day - he

was on an open line show or whatever, unavoidably absent - I want to make it

quite clear that when I spoke for the few minutes the other day I discussed the

Williams Report.

The House Leader rose in his place and pointed out some of

what he thought perhaps confused me. I want to make it quite clear, the Dr.

Williams Report, from what I read of it, and I read all of the recommendations,

has some good content. The Minister of Education will agree that he and I, over

the past number of years, have spoken at length about certain numbers of those

recommendations. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record today saying, as far

as I am concerned, the guidelines set out in the Dr. Williams report, in the

first instance, were wrong.

I don't think the denominational question should ever have

been part of that report. I really think I am being truthful in saying that the

denominational educational system is a red herring, and that is not where the

problem lies with respect to our educational system. I think each and every one

of us in this Assembly today are there for the good of the student - what is

uppermost in all of our minds, is to make it better for the student, to give

that student the opportunity, perhaps, that he is being deprived of right now.

And we hope that many of those recommendations will be put in place - like

sharing.

How often have I spoken to the Minister of Education about

sharing, which I believe in totally. The day is long gone when we have to see

three different denominations with three different schools. And I think everyone

agrees with that. I think we are slow in improving that situation along those

lines, but I think that has come and has to come quickly. I also agree that the

busing situation, as it is in this Province today, is ridiculous, to say the

least. It certainly has to be changed, and changed immediately. I believe the

recommendations for forming councils and committees in education are good ones.

But again, I go back to what I said in the first instance,

that with respect to the denominational system itself, as far as the

administrative aspect of it is concerned, I see no fault with it. I do not. And

many more people, as this unfolds - I am warning government, don't accept what

was said in that report. I said on Friday and I will say again that many of the

recommendations, but in particular, one, the denominational aspect of this

report, was based on surveys being done, on polls being taken. I said, and I

repeat today that over the past couple of years we have been struck in the

schools, in the educational system, by the misfortunes at Mount Cashel and other

areas of supervision in the administration of our denominational schools.

In part, his report states, that 85 per cent of the people

polled were in favour of the abolition of the denominational education system. I

say to the minister that that poll is not a true one. Before this debate is over

and before this is implemented we have to change the Constitution of Canada. I

don't think that the Premier of the day, and I don't think the Prime Minister of

Canada are ready for that. What you will see in this report if the good

recommendations in it are not implemented you will see this report shelved as

was the last one of the present minister. I am sure there were good

recommendations in that, but it was shelved. It is picking up dust, and that is

where this one will lie, because there is no way - look, we have to change the

Constitution. We have deprived ourselves. Everything else that was in the

Constitution that was applicable to Newfoundland, some of the goodies that we

got through Confederation, we have lost them all. Now, we are going to lose our

last bastion, the last agreement that we had to make us a little bit different.

If I thought today that the denominational education system was bad for this

Province, I would not venture to rise from my seat.

I know what the minister is saying, you're still going to

have the religious aspect of it in schools. But I say to the minister, take away

the administration, who today say you are going to have this religious

part in

the schools, and you will destroy the whole framework. A few years down the road

there won't be any. I want my grandchildren to go to schools that teach

religion. I don't care in what form, as long as they teach religion, the basic

concepts of what I'm all about and I am sure what all the members in this hon.

House are about.

Let's be careful what we do. We are losing the fundamentals

by which we were brought up. Granted, people say they are outdated and, in many

respects, they are. But in some respects they are not. Let's not throw out the

baby with the bathwater. If we have to wait for a constitutional change in

Canada to implement some of the good recommendations in this report, then I say

again to you, Mr. Chairman, all that report will do is gather dust in some

office in Confederation Building.

AN HON. MEMBER: What report?

MR. PARSONS: This report.

I disagree with my hon. colleague from Grand Bank. This study

will be the same as all the rest of the studies, a cost to the people for

nothing, if some of the good things in this report are not implemented. Now, if

we are going to wait for a constitutional change, which we have no guarantee

will ever come about, then I think all this was for naught.

I am quite serious, as serious as ever I was in my life, in

saying that I agree with that party over there, with your own party, in saying

we do have to bring about changes, changes in the structure of the classrooms,

in the way that children are being taught, in the number of days that the

children are being taught. It has to be addressed. The busing situation has to

be addressed. And sharing - look, we are living in the dark ages. It has not to

be addressed, it has to be done - not talked about, implemented in a tangible

manner.

Mr. Chairman, I will have plenty of time to debate this issue

at a later date, but I wanted to make sure that people understood from whence I

came. That is why, while the minister was here, I wanted to make sure he knew

where I stood on this issue.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the hon. the Member for

Burin - Placentia West, I would like to welcome to the galleries this afternoon,

a delegation from the district of Baie Verte - White Bay: Roy Goudie,

Chairperson of the Burlington Community Council; Frank Clark, Chairman of the

Baie Verte Peninsula Lumber and Loggers Association; Chesley Normore, Board

Member of the Baie Verte Peninsula Development Association; and Gus Roberts,

Chairperson of the Baie Verte Peninsula Community Futures Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to say, other

than the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay is a good member. I don't know why he

looked at me and said he is a good member. I am not the one you have to

convince. It is the person who is after your job you have to convince you are a

good member, not me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt about it. As a

matter of fact, I might even go down and help you get the nomination.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your back (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: It is doing well, Jim.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) making fun of you now, Tobin,

look.

MR. DOYLE: I heard you got a crucifixion on Bell Island.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I've a mind to call a quorum.

Anyway, I want to have a few words on this regressive tax bill that the Minister

of Finance has put before the House. There is nobody in the history of this

Province who has put the tax burden on the people of this Province like the

present Minister of Finance. Nobody. The Premier talks here about removing the

school tax. What the Premier of this Province has done is create a tax that is

three times as great as what people were paying for school taxes in this

Province.

What is the difference between an education tax and a school

tax? Nothing. Only it is some sort of a scam that was created and brought in.

Thought up by the Premier and brought in by this Minister of Finance. The only

difference between the school tax and the education tax is that you will be

paying three times more for the education tax as you were for the school tax -

the only difference.

Now, the only problem is, how many people in this Province

can afford to pay this new school tax? That is the question we have to have

answered. Because there is nobody working any more in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is so.

MR. TOBIN: I can speak for my constituents, Mr. Chairman.

That when this crowd over there came into government there were 1,000 men and

women working in the fish plant in Marystown. There were another couple of

hundred on the trawlers in Marystown. There were 650 unionized employees working

in the Marystown Shipyard when this crowd and this minister came into

government. Today there is no one working in the fish plant in Marystown, no one

on the trawlers in Marystown, and there are fifty or sixty people working in the

Marystown Shipyard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is true! The only work that has been in

the Marystown Shipyard in the past year, or the past two years, has been due to

the federal government - thanks to the sharp pens. It was not given to them, I

do not want anyone to make that mistake. It was because of the bidding ability

of the Marystown Shipyard people that the only work worth talking about was work

from the federal government. Federal government vessels. There were two vessels

up for cost plus in the end of it. The minister knows what I am talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: There's not two - Mr. Chairman, that is not

true!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is not true! That is not true!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is not true! The only deceitfulness in

this, as it relates to the Marystown Shipyard, is the deception that this

government is creating by blaming it all on Kvaerner. Kvaerner never did own the

Marystown Shipyard, do not own the Marystown Shipyard, this government owns the

Marystown Shipyard and has forgotten about the ownership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the Minister of Employment should be

singing across the House. He should have stayed and listened to what my

colleague for Grand Bank had to say. He should have heard what my colleague for

Grand Bank had to say about the Minister of Employment -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your own colleague should (Inaudible) to

listen to what you have to say!

MR. TOBIN: - as to how he openly wept when he thought the

government - when the government was going - how he openly wept on the steps of

Confederation Building when the government was going to - how the bad government

was attacking the teachers of this Province. He came into government. Before he

got to the Cabinet, while in the Premier's office, he started putting the boots

to the teachers of this Province, and he has not stopped yet. That is the

hypocrisy that this government is constituted with....

The Minister of Finance will go down in history as the worst

and most incompetent minister that this Province has ever seen in the finance

portfolio. What has happened to personal income tax under this minister? In

three years it has increased -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you are not getting the

school tax back.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, we are debating the school tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: We are debating the school tax. They have

changed it from a school tax to an education tax. The only difference is that

the school tax costs one-third of what the taxpayers will pay for this new

education tax. The only difference, Mr. Chairman. They have changed the name.

AN HON. MEMBER: School tax is not coming back!

MR. TOBIN: They have changed the name from a school tax

to an education tax. Not only that, the Member for Eagle River and the Member

for Mount Scio believe what they said. Both of these gentlemen, and the other

backbenchers, believed the Premier. They believed the Premier.

The Member for Eagle River believed the Premier when the

Premier said he was not mature enough to go in Cabinet, and Labrador should not

have representation. They believed the Premier when he told them that there was

nobody in the back benches with the ability to come in, so he had to go down

town. He had to go down on Duckworth Street and get a lawyer to come up and go

into Cabinet because he had nobody in the back benches with the confidence to be

able to go into Cabinet, he told the Member for Eagle River. What the Premier

said publicly - what did he say? What was it, Rick?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Danny does not have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Danny does not have the political

maturity. The political maturity, he said. Danny lacks the political maturity to

go in Cabinet.

Well if that is not telling you that you are no good, by the

leader of your government, I do not know what it is. Danny lacks the maturity,

he said. Danny lacks the maturity to go in Cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, I think that Danny will mature some day, but it

is going to be too late for him to go in Cabinet because they will not be in

government. The government will be gone by the time that Danny matures

politically enough to go in Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is only young, though. He is only

young.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, he is only young.

MR. PARSONS: Now Danny has the potential. He is not a bad

fellow.

MR. TOBIN: In any case, I want to speak for a few minutes

about this tax bill, but at the same time to be able to demonstrate to the

people of this Province the economic condition that we are in today.

I stopped this morning and spoke with a person from Arnold's

Cove, in Goobies, who told me that that area right now is in hard shape

economically. He made a good point when he spoke to me about the fact that the

fish plant, which was a deep-sea plant - the fish plant in Arnold's Cove

depended on the deep-sea fishery - and the gentleman said that now it is going

to be an inshore fishery, but the plant is probably too large to sustain that

type of an inshore operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Crosbie's fault.

MR. TOBIN: It is the Premier of this Province who said:

Close the deep-sea fishery for one, two, three, or five years. He said that, and

he has insulted the men and women of Catalina and Port Union, of Marystown,

Fortune, Arnold's Cove and St. John's, of Trepassey and Grand Bank, of Burgeo,

Ramea and Gaultois. He has insulted the men and women of the south coast and

down in my friend's district from Trinity North.

What business has the Premier of this Province in saying: The

deep-sea fishery in this Province should close for five years? Who does he think

he is? Who does he think he is to tell 10,000 or 15,000 people: You have to go

on welfare or leave home? We have nothing to do. Who does the Premier of this

Province think he is to stand in this Legislature and make that statement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

I want to inform the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West

that unless he has leave of the House he cannot continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, there has to be an intervening

speaker.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to make a few more comments on this particular bill,

Bill 16.

At the risk of being repetitious, I suppose when you are

talking about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am not talking about

repetition in the sense of other members. I am talking about myself, having

spoken a couple of times on this particular bill, but I would like to have a few

more comments pertaining to Bill 16, Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax

Act. I would like to comment primarily on the effect it is going to have on

small businesspeople in the Province, especially the payroll tax and the income

tax part of it, but that hits everybody.

What made me somewhat hesitant about rising today and saying

a few more words on this is like I said first at the risk of being repetitious,

but there were a few people in the gallery a short while ago from Baie Verte. My

understanding is, and I would say I am right, is that some of their concerns

today in their trip to St. John's is concerning small business operators in the

Baie Verte area.

Now I am not the only one around the Province, I suppose. The

right people are not here now, especially the Minister of Transportation. You

talk about taxes and how the payroll tax is going to hit small companies. Talk

about small truck owner operators in the Province, how they were hit two years

ago when they changed their fines pertaining to the weigh scales on the

Trans-Canada Highway.

They were, Mr. Chairman, to put it bluntly, pretty well

crucified. They were almost to the point of being put out of business when they

changed the fine structure with regards to the weigh scales on the Trans-Canada

Highway. Payroll tax now is going to add to that, and to add insult to injury,

Mr. Chairman, we just heard today in questioning from the Member for Green Bay

to the Minister responsible for Forestry and Agriculture about the further cuts

that Kruger is going to have pertaining to loggers on the west coast of the

Province. They are not going to hire as many loggers as they had last year. They

have no intentions. They brought in slashers, new machinery to take the place of

loggers, and I suppose to make their enterprises more viable.

But, Mr. Chairman, if there was one area, and I am sure the

Member for Baie Verte, and maybe the Member for St. George's, and possibly a few

other members from the west coast of the Province may have that particular

problem with regards to truckers, the wood trucks. The Member for Stephenville

for sure.

Mr. Chairman, it is an injustice as far as I am concerned

that should be righted. Whether the minister is going to take it under

advisement today coming out of his meetings with the people from the Baie Verte

area on what they are going to do with regards to wood trucks alone. How can a

driver, that is anybody who understands the forestry, anybody who understands

the difference between dry wood, green wood, fir, spruce or anything else. But

anybody who doesn't, I can see why the truckers have a problem because when they

go in on a woods road and pick up a particular load of wood, in some cases the

wood has been cut for months, in some cases the wood has been cut for weeks, and

in some cases the wood has been just dropped the day before. Now when they load

that particular trailer and head out onto the Trans-Canada Highway with pretty

well the same load, they can look at the same load whether it is four or five

feet high, whatever, and once they get to the weigh scales, what happens? You

are pulled in, you are weighed, and the same load they might have hauled a week

before, they are nailed for being over weight. How do they do it? They have no

other way to weigh their trucks when they leave the logging site.

So what is happening, Mr. Chairman, the Department of

Transportation and the Department of Finance is making a killing on the backs of

the small operators in this Province namely the loggers and the owner operator

truckers. I think it is radically wrong. I think it should be addressed, and if

the minister is going to take - I think he had meetings today on it with the

people from Baie Verte. My area is affected, the Member for Stephenville's area

is affected, the Member for St. George's area is affected, the Bonavista area is

affected. Not so much because a lot of that is going into wood chips now, around

that area, but there is going to have to be something done about it. One of the

recommendations made last year was to have a measured load. Put it up four or

five feet, whichever, have a measured load so that the operators when they leave

the work site and come onto the Trans-Canada can make sure they can proceed to a

mill, whether it is in Stephenville or Corner Brook, without having the

possibility of being stopped and being charged for being overweight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am being distracted

somewhat by a couple of members to the right of me.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation was here to hear what I am saying because it is a fact and it is

one that he should take under advisement. The Member for St. Barbe is here now

and he has probably eighty or ninety loggers in is district cut and he knows

what I am talking about. He knows what I am talking about as well when I talk

about the loggers and overweight. That is a policy that is going to have to be

changed combined with the payroll tax they are hit with now, combined with the

personal income tax and also the increase in the fines, the increase in the fine

structure with regard to these truckers.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not relevant.

MR. WOODFORD: It is relevant, Mr. Chairman, very

relevant. It is all intertwined and combined. Those people are trying to make a

living, the small trucker operators, are going to be put out of business in a

very short time if something is not done through the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation with regards to the truckers. A trucker leaves

Hawke's Bay on the Daniel's Harbour road with a full load. He has loaded in

there like I said with dry green spruce, fir, or whatever, and when he gets up

in Deer Lake he is nailed for $700 or $800.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is shocking.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, it is. It is terrible and there is no

way for him to know it. Now, some fellows will try to get away in the nighttime

with a large load and that is obvious and you can nail them as far as I am

concerned, but a trucker who is hauling the same height on his machine and on

his trailers should be given the leeway and should be given a measured load,

five or six feet, whatever it is, regardless whether it is green or dry and be

given the latitude to proceed to the mill. It is terrible in this day and age,

Mr. Chairman, when I go to Corner Brook after passing the weigh scales in Deer

Lake, go to Corner Brook and see eighteen and nineteen tractor trailers of

people trying to scratch to make a living and see two RCMP cars there forcing

them to go to the other side of Corner Brook to get weighed. That to me is

wrong, it is an injustice and as far as I am concerned the minister has the

jurisdiction to act quickly, to act decisively, and to make sure that these

particular operators are put in a position where they will not be crucified and

lose their trucks, lose their companies, and they are hiring people as well so

they should be given the flexibility of proceeding with their work and creating

employment and getting their product to the mill source without this

interference.

The taxes and the fine structure as far as I am concerned is

way out of whack in comparison with other infractions pertaining to the Highway

Traffic Act and that combined with the payroll tax, the personal income tax, the

fuel adjustment rate on their fuel, Mr. Chairman, something should be done.

Members opposite should make sure that they impose on their colleagues, and

especially the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to act in a

sensible logical way and manner that pertains to that particular problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The boys are always singing out 'question'

over there, Mr. Chairman, and we have been asking questions now for I do not

know how many days but are not getting any answers, I say to the Minister of

Finance who is over there mumbling to himself again. Everything is beautiful

with the Minister of Finance. We do not get any answers I say to the Minister of

Finance. He brought in this tax.

DR. KITCHEN: I haven't been asked a question in Question

Period for the past three weeks.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, you have. That is not true. The

Minister of Finance has been asked questions inside of the last three weeks, I

say to him. We have been asking questions for the last three years and we have

not yet gotten an answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only no.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, we've gotten a couple of nos and a

maybe.

MR. DUMARESQUE: We have a good candidate for Naskaupi.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, we got a good candidate for Naskaupi,

the Member for Eagle River says. I wouldn't know if he is a good candidate or

not, but you got him. There is nothing like having something forced on you, I

say to the Member for Eagle River. The people in Naskaupi District: There is

nothing like having something forced on them, forced down their throats even

though they don't want it, I say to the Member for Eagle River. They would

rather have the choice of a good Labradorian. They would rather have a good

Labradorian, I say to the Member for Eagle River, who gets up and mouths off

about Labrador and how much he cares for it and all this stuff. Patriotic,

nationalistic about his beloved Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: And only half of it true.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, he fits in very well over there. I

say, he is ahead of the rest of them if it is half true. If it is half true, he

is ahead of the rest of them by 50 per cent over there.

MR. CARTER: He does care for Labrador.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, he does, but only half as much as he

pretends I say to the Minister of Fisheries. The Minister of Fisheries didn't

get it. I said that is 50 per cent more than the rest of them over there care

about Labrador, because there is no one over there who cares 100 per cent for

Labrador. We are going to see that pretty soon when they are going to inflict

Labrador with that candidate of theirs, inflict him on them.

MR. WINSOR: Whether they want him or not.

MR. MATTHEWS: Whether they want him or not.

MR. CARTER: If you care for Labrador, you can contest

that by-election.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, we do care for Labrador, I say to the

Minister of Fisheries, and, yes, we are going to contest it. We certainly are.

We are going to contest Ferryland, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. We are

going to contest it and it is going to be interesting, I say to the Minister of

Fisheries. They are both going to be very interesting. They are both going to be

very interesting contests, I say to the Member for Eagle River. They are both

going to be interesting contests. One will be interesting and the other one will

be most interesting. The Ferryland one won't even be interesting, I say to the

Minister of Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, we are going to win it hands down, I

say. It is not even going to be a contest.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, and being interrupted by the

Minister of Fisheries, I want to get back to talking about this infamous bill,

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

I wonder how the people up in Naskaupi have benefited since

the government brought in this tax? What has it done for them, I wonder, up in

Naskaupi and out in Ferryland, since the government brought in this Health and

Post-Secondary Education Tax? I wonder?

What has it done for the people of Gander, I wonder? No signs

of the foundation being laid yet for the central Newfoundland university campus.

It must be a terrible embarrassment for the President of Treasury Board every

time someone brings it up. The Member for Lewisporte nodding. It must be

terribly embarrassing. The great scrap they had going, one lobbying this one and

that one, and getting the councils all worked up as to: Where is this great

university campus going to go in Central Newfoundland? A big dog fight out

there. Everyone thought the President of Treasury Board and Member for Gander

had the inside track. For sure it was going to Gander. Of course, he thought so

too.

I had people from Gander say to me: Oh, there is no doubt,

Winston is going to have that university campus in Gander. The President of

Treasury Board, the President of the Council, Acting Premier when the Premier is

away -

MR. WINSOR: Acting Premier most of the time.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, he is acting more times than he is

not, because the Premier is never here.

They thought for sure, they had their bets on Winston, that

he was going to deliver the central Newfoundland university campus. The Member

for Exploits was all in a tizzy out there. He had his communities all worked up

putting in proposals and submissions. They had the best site. When Clyde told

them in the 1989 election campaign they were getting a central campus they

believed it. They were going to have this great university out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: They should be made to pay the volunteers

who put so much time in.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, all those people on all those

committees who submitted proposals, who did all the spade work to put before the

government for consideration - they knew full well that they were never going to

do it, the same way they knew when they negotiated all those contracts that they

froze in Bill 16 and Bill 17, it is the same thing. They went around the

Province promising better health care, better post-secondary education and it is

worse, it is worse -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Have you been talking to Crosbie lately?

MR. MATTHEWS: Was I talking to Crosbie lately? No, I talk

to Crosbie about as much as - I say the Member for Eagle River talks to Crosbie

as much as I do; I know he talks about him a little bit more, I say to him. Now,

I do not spend much time talking to the hon. Mr. Crosbie, I say to the Member

for Eagle River, but if I have occasion to, I talk to him. There are occasions

when I need to talk to him and I do -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) fisheries.

MR. MATTHEWS: I never said I never talk to him. I said I

only talk to him when I absolutely have to and I am not like the Member for

Eagle River, who, one hour is putting the boots into Mr. Crosbie and then in the

next hour is whining and weening, wanting to go meet with him. But all I have to

say to the Member for Eagle River is, I am very grateful that we have Mr.

Crosbie where he is today and I say that very sincerely because if we did not

have him there, it is bad enough as it is, and I see the Minister of Fisheries

nodding his head, it is bad enough as it is and if we did not have a man like

John Crosbie up in Ottawa now, my God in Heaven-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I say it very sincerely because I am

saying what I believe. If he was no good, I would say he is no good, but he

works hard for this Province, he has a very difficult job I say to the Member

for Eagle River and I would not wish it on any one, the job that John Crosbie

has in Ottawa; up there by himself, sitting around that table, trying to squeeze

more money for Newfoundland and Labrador, a very lonely job-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Who said he is not getting any more? When

you look at the money that comes into this Province from the federal government,

how anyone can say that John Crosbie does not work on behalf of this Province,

they do not say it for the right reason. John Crosbie gets a lot of money and a

lot of benefits for this Province, a small Province, not that we do not need it,

I am not suggesting that, we need every cent he gets for us but he works hard

and he does well when you are a lone voice at that federal cabinet table, that

huge system, the big system of Ottawa, trying to -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No. It is fine for the Member for Eagle

River to be going on with his nonsense over there, it is fine for him to be

going on with that, but I would not wish it on the Member for Eagle River that

he be put in John Crosbie's shoes, I would not wish it on him, and for a number

of reasons. One is, he would not be able to handle it, he would have more temper

tantrums than the children in the Janeway because when he does not get his own

way, that is how he gets. Crosbie? I tell you, it is alright that he has a

different approach to the fishery than the Premier of this Province, I say to

members opposite. I say it is alright he has a different attitude towards our

Province's fishery than the Premier because he would have it all shut down

today, and we would have another 10,000 on welfare before midnight -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, another 10,000 before midnight. Shut

her down, CLyde, close her down. No, you never hear a suggestion from the

Premier about what he is going to do for the months it shuts down, he never

makes a suggestion. He has no plan; he spends his time in Montreal, Toronto and

Vancouver and all around the champagne circuit talking the Constitution and he

does not know what is going on in his own Province. He does not know.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Do you ever wonder why (inaudible)?

MR. MATTHEWS: Now I say to the Member for Eagle River, we

will find out about your 11 per cents in another thirty days when the Premier

gets the intestinal fortitude to call the two bye-elections. Now that the

Premier has two vacancies and once he has the intestinal fortitude to call the

bye-elections, we will see about your percentages, I say to him. Now when we

come back I will match our fortunes against his after the two bye-elections are

over. Okay?

MR. DUMARESQUE: That is fair enough.

MR. MATTHEWS: Grand Bank is the next one to go? You are

talking about the plant again I suppose. You are talking about the fish plant,

are you? They have gone two or three times but they are back again, I say to the

Minister of Finance, the Grand Bank plant has been shut and opened about the

same number of times as the Member for Grand Bank has been re-elected, so I do

not wish it on them that they have to be re-opened again. I hope they don't have

to be re-opened again down there, but I will tell you one thing, the member will

be re-elected I say to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, the member will be re-elected. The

Minister of Fisheries knows full well. He has been down around there a few

times. He knows what is down there.

The Minister of Fisheries picked me up 300 or 400 votes when

he was down there the other day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sure you did. And if you did I will

tell you what it is about if you got a letter from down my way, it is because

you are taxing them too much. You just about have their businesses closed up I

say to the Minister of Finance. If you got a letter from my district it is

because you have them taxed to death. Taxed to death. Taxed to death. That is

what you have done. Payroll tax, personal income tax. It wasn't from Mrs. Pardy

in Fortune was it? The farmer? It could have been.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell me who it was from now.

MR. MATTHEWS: Tell me who it was from.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) $50 a year school tax.

MR. MATTHEWS: Give them back some of this payroll tax you

have stuck on them and the income tax, 4 per cent this year increased in

personal income tax. I would say you may have a letter about that. They can't

afford it - I will tell you who the Minister of Finance probably got the letter

from, a store owner down there. From a store owner I would say talking about all

the taxes, how regressive it has become and how he can't hire more people since

the payroll tax came in, about all the taxes on tobacco and alcohol and all the

bootlegging activities that it has encouraged. Is that the letter, I wonder,

that the Minister of Finance is talking about?

DR. KITCHEN: I wish to God we had a good Liberal Member

in Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: All I can say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. I say to the Minister of Finance,

there has never been a good Liberal member down there yet. There has never been

a good Liberal member down there yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wish Ed Roberts was running down

there.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, they sure would. They sure wish that

because they would certainly like to give Ed a nice message, and I would say

Grand Bank is the place to give it to him. There are a number of people they

would like to give a message to. They gave a strong enough one last time, but

next time they are going to give a stronger one. Next time they are going to

give a stronger message because they have more reasons to give a stronger

message I say to the Minister of Finance and he is a big part of it in what he

is doing with this tax bill. This tax bill right here.

But the Minister of Finance had a letter the other day from a

store owner in Grand Bank, and the tone of his letter was about all these taxes.

They have a payroll now over $100,000 so they have to pay the payroll tax. He

can't hire more people. He would like to hire more people, but he can't do it

because of the minister's tax. So what is that doing to the economy of the

Province when you penalize people for hiring more people? That is what the

government is doing. They are penalizing businesses in this Province for hiring

more people. They should be encouraging businesses to hire more people, not

penalize them. That way you would have more people working, paying more personal

income tax and sales tax, and the bottom line is the government would be better

off, I say to the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance has done so much damage in three

years, Mr. Chairman, it is going to take three years to talk about the bad he

has done I say to him.

DR. KITCHEN: I am very popular (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, you are very popular. There is no

doubt about that. That is one thing I say for the Minister of Finance, he is

easily recognizable. He has a high recognition factor, I say to him. He has a

high recognition factor. If you asked Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the

Minister of Finance in Canada that didn't know the tax formula, they would say

Dr. Kitchen. If you asked the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what Minister

of Finance called Kentucky Fried Chicken, garbage, they would say the hon. Dr.

Kitchen. He doesn't understand the tax formula, calls Kentucky Fried, garbage,

had Quebec by the - what did he say? Had Quebec by what was it? The short and

curlies.

MR. PARSONS: By the short and curlies.

MR. MATTHEWS: By the short and curlies he said we had

Quebec or we got them now. Yes. Recognition factor is amazing for that Minister

of Finance. Everyone recognizes him, but what do they recognize him for, I say

to the Minister of Finance?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I will guarantee you. The old axe doctor.

Slash. Slash Kitchen. And here he is whopping it to them again all in the name

of health and post-secondary education. Tuition fees have never been higher.

Over-crowding in the post-secondary institutions; people in the hallways of the

hospital on little cots two feet wide, there for days and weeks. I see the

Member for Fortune - Hermitage down there now. Some of his constituents go up to

Salt Pond. On cots that wide for weeks. No privacy. Out in the corridors.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Whether I am nice or not I tell the truth,

because that is what is happening up there, I say to the Member for Harbour

Grace.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true!

MR. MATTHEWS: How would you know? You've never been

there! It is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not true.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is true. Families complain because their

fathers and their mothers have been in the hallways on cots.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bull.

MR. MATTHEWS: You might think it is bull, they do not

think it is bull. They think it is painful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chicken up there, or what?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no chicken up there. They cannot afford

to feed them chicken, I say to the member. They cut their budget by $1 million

last year at the regional hospital in Salt Pond, his government did. One million

dollars you cut their budget by last year, $1 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: You cut the budget by $1 million in the

regional hospital in Salt Pond, is what you did. They did not have a surplus in

money. They needed other services. They needed other people to work there. It

was only last night we met with three doctors who work in the emergency units up

there, work the wards. Talk to them about the problems. You want to know the

truth. Those are the problems, very serious problems in health care in this

Province. Doctors overworked, I say to him. A lot of them not overpaid either, a

lot of them are not overpaid. A lot of doctors making $100,000, $120,000, I do

not consider them to be overpaid. The Premier stands up today and talks about

those making $400,000 and $500,000. How many Doctors in this Province make

$400,000 to $500,000? Not very many. The majority between $100,000 and $200,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words

on this regressive piece of legislation. I am very sorry, I do not know if the

Minister of Fisheries is leaving the House or not. No, he is going to be here,

because I wanted to make a few comments flowing from some of the comments that

were made on the other side when we were talking about Mr. Crosbie. Or when the

Member for Grand Bank was talking about Mr. Crosbie there earlier.

I would like to tell members on the other side that it is

very easy to criticise. But those hon. members were not around when the hon.

Romeo LeBlanc was the Minister of Fisheries for Canada, when many of the rules,

regulations and practises were instigated. When the trawler fleets on the south

coast were built and licensed, that was not done in the last eight or ten years,

I might tell hon. members. That was done in the last fifteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)?

MR. HODDER: Oh, that is why I wanted to talk about the

Minister of Fisheries. Because if the Minister of Finance, who knows very well

of what I speak. The present Minister of Fisheries, when I was first elected,

the first question I asked him - he was the Minister of Fisheries in the

Conservative government of Frank Moores - that was shortly about the time that

the 200-mile limit was declared in Canada. He had also been an advocate of the

200-mile limit in Ottawa while he was a Conservative member in Ottawa.

But, Mr. Chairman, when we start to place blame for what is

happening in Ottawa we should remember that at that particular time - that was

almost eighteen years ago - that in the district of Port au Port alone, there

were sixteen long-liners financed by the provincial government that came into

the district. That was a policy of the provincial government at that time and

that Minister of Fisheries. I do not blame the Minister of Fisheries. But that

was the thinking of the time, because we had just declared a 200-mile limit. It

had gone from twelve to 200. The Minister of Fisheries for Canada was the hon.

Romeo LeBlanc, and the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland was the hon.

Walter Carter.

The feeling was, and it was my feeling too, that: now that we

have the 200-mile limit, now that we have some control over the foreigners, we

can start giving boats to our own fishermen to go out there and catch that stock

that is there. That was the thinking. Nobody knew the difference. But when we

start allocating blame then I think we should look to ourselves. It is not

enough to say that one side or the other side was there, or who was there. In

1975 when I first came into this Chamber, the one upstairs, everybody, including

the Minister of Fisheries who sits there now, felt it was right to put boats in

the hands of our people, and a lot of money was spent. That was a policy of both

the federal and the provincial governments.

When I see members on the other side of the House then get up

and point fingers at an administration in Ottawa who has been there for some

eight years, but worse still, point fingers at a Minister of Fisheries who is

trying to do his best for Newfoundland, and forget, as if the past had been

wiped out in a moment -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your buddies ruined the fishery; Trudeau

(inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Yes, I remember, and I might tell the Member

for Eagle River this. I was sitting in this House of Assembly as a Liberal a lot

longer than he has, or will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: I remember when the Trudeau government was in

power, and they came down, and the Liberals were in opposition, and not one

minister would ever speak. We could not get to talk to them. The only time they

ever wanted to see us was during an election campaign. I remember the

frustrations long before the Member for St. Barbe came on the scene. When he was

directing plays out in Stephenville Crossing I was dealing with these problems.

I just cannot stand to see the hypocrisy when members

opposite say: It all happened today. All I am saying is that it did not all

happen today, and we all bear collective blame for what happened with the

fishery.

But I got up on a tax bill, and I just wanted to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: - because I had heard these comments from the

Member for Eagle River, as if the world started the moment that he was elected

to the House of Assembly, and there is no collective memory before or

afterwards. That is the kind of blind thinking that leads us down the garden

path.

This particular bill, which is again another taxation bill -

I heard the Premier in the House of Assembly today, in answering the Leader of

the Opposition, waving his arms and saying: We discharged our duties that we

promised in the last election. Then he went on to say: We abolished the school

tax. But what is the difference in abolishing the school tax and increasing the

health and education tax? It is the same thing, is it not? There has never been,

in a three year period in Newfoundland, such an increase in taxation by any

government since 1949 as we have experienced under this particular government.

I want to talk about what the Premier had to say today,

because he said he discharged his responsibilities since the last election. We

will forget that they were going to bring all the Newfoundlanders home. We will

forget that. We will just leave that out there. He came out to Port au Port -

AN HON. MEMBER: I heard some of your promises in

(inaudible).

MR. HODDER: I never made a promise in an election

campaign - never - except that I would do the best job possible, which I did.

They returned me to this House of Assembly five times, and if I decide to run

again the next time, I will tell the hon. member that I will be over there and

he will be over here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why, are you coming back?

MR. HODDER: Possibly.

The Premier came to the district, and he made a speech in the

district. It was quite a public speech, carried right across the Province, about

how terrible the district of Port au Port was. The next night he went to

Carbonear and, again in his speech to the people of Carbonear on the east coast,

he talked about how terrible the district of Port au Port was, and how the roads

were bad, and how the economy was bad, and the unemployment, and that if he got

elected, this would change. At the same time we have to realize that this man is

not going to play politics. He is above politics. He is going to do for the

opposition districts as he does for his own.

This year, would the members get out their list of road work

and get out their list of water and sewer projects and see how much road work

and how many water and sewer projects came to the district of Port au Port? That

is just for starters - not one. Not one cent of money has been spent in the

district. Could we look at the unemployment statistics in the district of Port

au Port from the time that the Premier arrived there until this moment? Mr.

Chairman, all you can see are houses boarded up. Everybody is on the Mainland.

Unemployment was about 70 per cent and now it is about 90 per cent in the area

and this is the Premier who was going to change this and look at Port au Port as

an example of what he could do if he became Premier. Mr. Chairman, what happened

to all those promises? Hon. members over there sit there and have actually

convinced themselves they are doing something for this Province. Mr. Chairman,

there is more doom and gloom in this Province - in the Bay St. George area, the

Abitibit-Price paper mill is still operating at full capacity with no down time.

This summer the Atlantic Design Homes hired some 200 or 300 people for six

months and the fishery has been about the same all the way along because we are

in the Gulf region. Hon. members might not realize it, but we are in the Gulf

region and this is a separately administered cod stock so it hasn't changed in

the last four or five years. If anything it has probably got a little better

but, Mr. Chairman, the area is facing a total decline and the reason is not

because there are less jobs, it is because there are fewer expectations and more

taxes.

This particular tax here, Mr. Chairman, means that the little

fish plant in Piccadilly or the little fish plant over on Bell Island will now

be taxed a payroll tax because the whole formula has been changed. Any

businessman who wants to take over a small fish plant now, not only has the

other taxes to contend with but he has these taxes to contend with, as well. Mr.

Chairman, that is the problem in this Province now. It is gloom and doom.

I remember when Bowater decided to leave Corner Brook. I

remember what it was like in Corner Brook before Kruger came. But did the

government of the day sit down and say, 'Oh, we will let the market forces play

here. We won't do anything else. We cannot encourage '- no, Mr. Chairman,

government rolled up it sleeves, went to work, went out in the world marketplace

and tried to attract someone and it did and we were successful.

Over the last eight years, Corner Brook has been economically

viable, but if we had taken the attitude that this government takes for every

single issue in every single case, Mr. Chairman, this Province is going down the

drain because nobody is over there. Everybody is sitting back and we are all

being fed constitutional pie.

There is one other thing I have to say, if we had passed the

Meech Lake Accord in this House back a couple of years ago, there would be no

constitutional problems in Canada right now. Our dollar wouldn't be as shaky as

it is if we had passed it then. This would have been over with. But the

situation this country is in bears directly on this government. Ever since that

fateful day when the government was afraid to call a vote in this House, ever

since that day, this country has been in constitutional turmoil and the Premier

is up wandering around the Mainland with his mind in the sky, while he taxes

this Province to death, more taxes in three years that in twenty-five at any

particular time. I am not saying that is the cause of this recession, this is a

worldwide recession, but certainly Canada has suffered more. The Canadian dollar

has suffered more and the economy has suffered more because of the

constitutional crisis and the uncertainty that was caused in this Legislature.

MR. WALSH: What happened in Manitoba?

AN HON. MEMBER: Elijah Wells voted.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, that could have been looked

after. That would never have happened except for the intransigence of this

Premier. The people of this Province have been taxed to death and yet, the

government continues to get up and say that we are doing it. Oh, Mr. Chairman,

the list that the Minister of Development tabled in the Committee the other day

of the types of business that are - Mr. Chairman, are we now giving out money to

people to buy existing businesses? Is this a way that you create funds where

people buy existing businesses? Are we putting businesses in a place where there

is somebody across the street in direct competition?

Mr. Chairman, I can show examples and I will, and this is not

over.

AN HON. MEMBER: Show them.

MR. HODDER: Yes, I certainly can show them. I can show

them where there is one clothing store on one side of the street, another

clothing store on the other side and another right next to it. Mr. Chairman, I

can go through that list in Grand Bank. In Grand Bank, there are twenty or

thirty beauty salons.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: No, not this member, not me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wasn't going to get up to speak today either, but

obviously, I have been stimulated by the debate opposite, particularly the shots

coming across the House at myself.

Mr. Chairman, I must say, the hon. member gave a fairly good

speech just then. The last time we heard him address the House with such gusto,

was when he put all the Province on hold, when he said: 'Look out, look out,

there is an explosion of coyotes in this Province today.' He said: 'Be prepared,

lock your windows, shut your doors, make sure there's nobody outside, don't put

your children out to play because the coyotes are coming, the coyotes are

coming' - the last time, Mr. Chairman, that he approached this House with such

gusto as he did here today.

The hon. the Minister of Finance said that he heard there is

a coyote on this side of Gander right now, so I know we are starting to attest

to the fact that, yes indeed, coyotes are prevailing, are present in this

honourable Province, Mr. Chairman. But I know the Minister of Health is standing

by, the Department of Health is standing by, the whole force of this government

is there at the ready to be able to go and grab this problem before, Mr.

Chairman, it has the Province in total wracks of pain. The coyotes of the

Province have exploded - coyotes here, there and everywhere, Mr. Chairman and,

of course, we are thankful that the Member for Port au Port made us all aware of

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) babies (inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, mothers have been frightened, Mr.

Chairman, grandmothers having been calling home, people have been sending

letters trying to get the message out: Please don't let them outside the door;

teachers, principals, seminars everywhere, Mr. Chairman. Pleas in all the NTA

meetings, parent-teacher meetings, ten minutes are spent on how to protect your

child against the infamous coyote. The coyotes are coming!

There is now an inundation of seminars; consultants are

making all kinds of money trying to draft courses. As fast as they can get the

courses together there is a demand. Mr. Chairman, it is unbelievable, the demand

for the coyote prevention seminar, with the introduction by the hon. the Member

for Port au Port. We have never seen the likes of this kind of panic throughout

our Province. However, Mr. Chairman, there is one fine note of progress to it

all, the introduction is made in French - in two languages.

MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, this has been a wide-ranging

debate, but certainly, the rule of relevancy has to apply and I am wondering

perhaps, if the hon. member now, could get some information from the Minister of

Finance. I am wondering if the coyotes are subject to the health and

post-secondary education tax. Perhaps they have already gotten into the schools,

I say to the Member for Eagle River.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, I ask the hon.

Member for Eagle River to try to zero in on some of the aspects of the

post-secondary education, Bill 16. I would like him to see how it is relevant to

this particular bill.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, absolutely, Mr. Chairman. It is

definitely relevant. There is absolutely no way that the Health and Education

budgets of this Province can withstand the cost of dealing with this panic that

we have in the Province today. There is no way that the Health and Education

budget can take it, Mr. Chairman, when there is so much vaccination and

everything going to be required in the near future because of the infestation of

coyotes.

However, I must admit that this is a little levity that I

wanted to bring into the House today.

I want to touch on a couple of important things that the hon.

member pointed out, and he rightfully did point out. The fishery is one that is

near and dear to my riding, the people of Labrador, and indeed, to many people

in this Province. The fishery is very important to our future. He made one

particular point on which I must agree with him: In the late 1970s when the

200-mile limit was brought in by a federal and provincial government, and

certainly by a Liberal government of the day, up there, that indeed, the people

of this Province in both levels of government recognised that there was excess

fish to our needs in this Province. They encouraged people to go and buy boats

on the Port au Port Peninsula, and they did in the Labrador Straits, and so

forth. I agree that was the situation at the time.

What the hon. member fails to recognise, particularly as it

relates today to the actions of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr.

Crosbie, is that as the supply of groundfish has obviously waned, as we have

seen reductions in the groundfish quotas, what we are seeing is the politicizing

of the Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan. What we have seen is a Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans who is listening more to the politicians of Nova Scotia,

New Brunswick, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, than he is to try to take on and

protect the interests of his own Province. He makes a good point about the

National Sea plant in Arnold's Cove, that now it is going to be looked at as an

inshore operation.

I would just like to propose a couple of things to the hon.

gentleman that he may be able to take to his colleagues in Ottawa, particularly

the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that is, that there be a total review of

the Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan. Because what we have in place now is a

plan that is laid out, and the stocks that are in it - the cod, turbot, redfish,

plaice, witch and other groundfish. What we have in place now is a plan that is

supposed to be based on five principles: adjacency, economic dependency of

coastal communities, fleet mobility, historic use, and economic efficiency.

These are the principles upon which that plan is based.

However, at the same time, as we see Arnold's Cove having to

go back to an inshore operation, as we see it taken back from a twelve-month

operation to probably four or five months, as we see Catalina and other places -

Catalina, down on the Southern Shore, over in La Scie, up in St. Anthony, down

on the Coast of Labrador -we see plants closing down, the hon. member must

realise that while this is going on we now have 47,298 metric tons of fish being

allocated to Nova Scotia companies. This fish is taken back from 1,000, 1,500

miles, in the 2J - 3KL area of our Province, the waters adjacent to our shores.

Some 5,000 jobs are being created as a result of this fish being taken past our

plants, past our communities, and certainly is being all processed in plants in

Nova Scotia, if, indeed, it is even processed at all. It is certainly not giving

any jobs to this Province.

So, if the hon. member wants to wake up Mr. Crosbie and let

him know what can be done - because in all honesty, what has happened is that in

the late 1970s and early 1980s when the fish was given in surplus, it was all

done with everybody's best intentions at heart. What has now happened, in the

last five or six years, when we have seen reductions in the total allowable

catch, the Nova Scotia percentage of the reductions, and the PEI - New Brunswick

percentage of the reductions, have been applied the same as they are in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is what is fundamentally unfair about it.

We have seen situations right now where National Sea is going

to cut back on the plant in Arnold's Cove. Did you know that at the same time

that National Sea is cutting back that plant in Arnold's Cove, they have 7,777

metric tons of red fish? Seventy-six per cent -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Seventy-six per cent of the total

allowable catch for over 100 foot boats in the 2J+3K area is allocated to

National Sea Products. That is plenty of fish.

To put it in perspective, the National Sea plant in Arnold's

Cove processes around 10,000 metric tons of fish a year. That is what they get.

Now, in terms of cod, the National Sea Company gets allocated 41 per cent of the

TAC - 26,808 metric tons of cod. That is what they get allocated each year -

certainly more than that, but even with the reductions that is what they have

been allocated this year. So 41 per cent of the total allowable catch over 100

feet is dedicated to National Sea.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Northern cod.

MR. DUMARESQUE: That is for Northern cod.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DUMARESQUE: There is absolutely no way they should be

allowed to take that back to their plants while our own people go without work.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

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

MR. WINSOR: Does he want a minute to finish up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, just a couple of minutes.

MR. WINSOR: Sure, by leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Eagle River, by

leave of the House.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I thank hon. members for this, because it

is a very, very, important point. I think it should not be lost on the people of

this Province that what we saw in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when we had

excess supply to our Province, we saw it being given to our neighbouring

provinces, but now we are in no position to be able to see this kind of resource

going past our doors while our own plants are closing down.

The only final point that I want to make was another idea

that is certainly getting very widespread support in this Province, from the

letters that I have been receiving from many councils. Indeed, I had a

discussion with Archbishop MacDonald of the Roman Catholic Church, their

National Committee, last week, and I have been hearing from a lot of councils -

that is on the community quotas.

What we have now is a very, very archaic system, one which is

definitely outside the mandate of any government, and that is where the

government is giving corporate entities the right to fish, and certainly, the

right to sell any amount of public ownership of that resource. That is

definitely wrong, because what we are seeing in the case of Burgeo, Arnold's

Cove, and other communities around this Province, La Scie, up in St. Anthony,

down on the South Shore when National Sea was there, and even when FPI was

there, as we saw on the Southside of St. John's - what we must take a good, hard

look at is having that offshore fish, that fifty-some thousand tons of fish that

is allocated now to Nova Scotia and other interests, we must see that kind of

fish being dedicated to communities.

That definition of community may be broad. It can encompass a

whole bunch of communities like, for instance, in Fogo there is no reason why

the Fogo Co-op cannot be dedicated 5,000 tons of red fish or cod, instead of

having it dedicated to - now in Fogo's case, obviously National Sea doesn't have

the quota, but in a place like St. Anthony, where FPI is, they don't know right

now if they are going to get 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 20 per cent, of the cod

that is allocated to FPI. They don't know if they are going to get an hour's

work, because it is up to the corporate body to decide what they are going to

do.

What we see in recent months and recent years is the

corporate interest saying, 'If we don't have a certain profit margin, or if we

have trouble with a particular labour union, or if we have a situation where

there is more political pressure being put on us in Nova Scotia, or where their

main headquarters is, they draw back unilaterally. Nobody has any say.'

I think it is time that we give that offshore resource back

to the people. Give it to them through the community quotas, to be able to allow

these communities to set up their fisheries management boards. That is a concept

where I believe it can really work, where the power is fundamentally transferred

to the people, because it is not the right of National Sea to sell that shrimp

license there on the Coast of Labrador for $2 million. That shrimp quota is

there for the benefit of the people on the Coast of Labrador, so we can get

fifty well-paying jobs from that particular resource.

Mr. Chairman, I leave hon. members with a couple of these

points. I don't make them in any kind of partisan posture. I make them with all

the best intentions of trying to see a situation put in place where our people

can have some confidence, our communities can have some security. That yes,

indeed, they can go and plan their business opportunities and investment on the

basis that they are going to have at least the option of being able to negotiate

a public resource that is there for them, was there for them, and will always

continue to be there for them, if we can get some kind of a transformation, and

if, in fact, we can get Mr. Crosbie, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who

should have more sensitivity to our needs than any other Minister of Fisheries

in recent time.

I will conclude by taking again this opportunity to call on

Mr. Crosbie to extend the ice compensation package to the people on the Coast of

Labrador and the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland. Because it is now almost two

weeks since the benefits have ended and many people are in very dire straits. I

would again plead with Mr. Crosbie to come forward and say to the people in

these areas that the situation is no different than it was last year. He should

do the thing that needs to be done. I am sure that all people, myself included,

would acknowledge the benefit of that and be grateful for that positive

decision.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank hon. members for their

leave.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I listened with some

interest to what the hon. the Member for Eagle River had to say. His last

sentence absolutely astounded me. Because no less than two weeks ago this hon.

House was asked to pass this very same resolution to extend the areas along the

Northeast Coast and Labrador that would in two weeks - because it was about May

1 - probably be looking for assistance. The Member for Eagle River was one who

voted against it. He voted against it. It was the same one in which the Member

for Baie Verte - White Bay slipped out of the House and didn't vote.

It was on that same resolution that the Member for Eagle

River said: 'We will not do it.'

Now, today, after realising that fishermen cannot fish, then

the member is calling on Mr. Crosbie to extend the fishermen's UI benefits in a

fashion similar to the one that he did last year. I, too, have done that. I

wrote Mr. Crosbie last week asking him to extend the benefits because it became

painfully obvious to me last week that the fishermen in my district, in the

island portion of the district, for sure, would not be able to take

part in the

fishery. As a matter of fact, as of this morning, ice is still within sight of

Fogo Island and fishermen are unable to fish. So, consequently, I have done

that. But I am shocked and amazed that the member would do that today, after

only two weeks ago refusing to entertain the notion in this House of Assembly.

It is beyond me why the member would do it.

But I want to get to Bill 16. I don't want to be sidetracked,

as the Member for Eagle River did in talking about coyotes and other things. I

think there are more important things to talk about. Bill 16, "An Act To Amend

The Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax Act." What the member failed to do

when he addressed these concerns was to look at the impact that Bill 16 will

have on fish plants in his portion of the Province. Because this bill, for the

first time, is going to now include - reduce the amount from $300,000 to

$100,000, and I think is going to now include for the first time, at 1 per cent

the resource sectors, the fishery. For the first time, the fishery will now be

included.

He likes to talk about how much the federal government

attacks this Province. At a time when the fishery is in its worst condition

ever, this administration levies another tax on it, levies another tax at a time

when the fishery is in perhaps the greatest decline we have seen in a number of

years. If the indications we are getting now from the boats that are out in the

700 fathom edge is an indication of what the fishery is going to be like this

summer, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance or the President of Treasury Board

won't be taking much money from the fish plants in payroll taxes; because, to

date in Fogo, not one pound of fish has been processed. In Musgrave Harbour, not

one pound of fish has been processed, not one pound. Mr. Chairman, in years past

it would be quite common in Seldom for fishermen to have landed as much as

150,000 or 200,000 pounds a trap crew. So, thus far this year - and I have to

say that we have no ice in that portion of the district either - not one pound

of fish, not an indication of a fish out there. So the President of Treasury

Board might have to look elsewhere for his money.

I think it is particularly appropriate, too, that we have to

discuss this bill, because it gives us an opportunity to comment briefly on the

Williams report that the minister tabled sometime last week. A long-awaited

report, Mr. Chairman, that if it is implemented will, I suppose, change forever

the face of education in Newfoundland. Mr. Chairman, unlike other members in

this House, I suppose I am in a unique position that it won't impact

significantly from the denominational perspective in my district because I had,

I suspect, the first school in the Province that had a shared jurisdiction. The

very first one, Mr. Chairman, that all the schools on Fogo Island combined, I

think, the first time back in the 1970s and then in the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) school on Fogo Island.

MR. WINSOR: Out in Joe Batt's Arm. And the minister won't

want to tell me what my constituents in Joe Batt's Arm said about him. I won't

get into that kind of debate, Mr. Chairman, because that is not important and

the Williams report is quite important -

MR. TOBIN: You were never down in my district since you

closed down the headquarters.

MR. WINSOR: - because it can change forever -

No, the minister has never visited my district either.

If the Minister of Education wants to take

part in the

debate, I think he should get in his seat, Mr. Chairman.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I was saying that the Williams report,

while certainly a significant document, in terms of denominational education,

will not have the impact in my district that it will in others. I know my

colleague in Lewisporte certainly doesn't have the same problems, doesn't share

the same things because these have all kinds of denominational issues that

surface in his district unlike mine. I am, I suppose, in this case, on the right

side in being fortunate that we only have one school in each community and all

students go to it right throughout the district from Lumsden on the south end to

Rodgers Cove on the other end with the exception of four students who go to G.E.

Shaw Collegiate