May 21,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 41

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before calling Oral Questions, I want to bring to the

attention of hon. members the presence of several groups of students in the

public galleries today and wish them a warm welcome.

Firstly, we have twenty-five students from Whitbourne High

School, Whitbourne; then we have sixteen students from Xavier Central High

School, Placentia and lastly we have or supposed to have forty-four students

from Dunne Memorial School, St. Mary's.

Accompanying the students from Xavier is their teacher, Mr.

Adrian Norman and accompanying the students from St. Mary's are two chaperons,

Ms. Marjorie Gibbons and Ms. Helen St. Croix. Also, we would like to extend a

welcome to the Mayor of the Town of Twillingate, His Worship, Harry Cooper and

the Town Manager.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister

must be aware by now that the cardiology unit at the General Hospital is under

very, very severe pressure. The unit is severely overcrowded and doctors are

frustrated because of the overcrowding, it is impossible to admit new patients

on a timely basis who are in dire need of treatment and the whole scene right

now, I would say to the Minister of Health, has been described to us as being

very, very volatile.

Now, when is the minister going to take this issue seriously

because he has been informed of it on several occasions before, and make sure

the cardiac patients in the Province get the treatment, the critical treatment

that they need, when they need it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the simple answer is

that I have been taking it seriously for the last three years. However, about a

month and a half ago - the hon. member is sort of behind as usual - but a month

and a half ago I met with people from the General Hospital to work out a plan to

deal with this problem.

Essentially there has been a buildup of demand over the past

ten or fifteen years, as part of the old neglect which we saw, previous to the

change in the administrations. There has been a buildup. Now this Province

requires somewhere between 280 and 300 surgeries performed per year to meet the

needs of our people. What has happened, there has been a backlog. So to address

that backlog we would probably have to do well in excess of 300 procedures per

year, for a number of years, to catch up on the backlog that the previous

administration allowed to build up.

I have met with the General Hospital, and they have put in

place a plan to deal with this. Now the plan is a detailed one, and I could

certainly have it made available to the hon. member to do it. There are a lot of

technical things here which, to be quite frank with you, as a layman, I do not

really understand; but it is an issue which we are on top of and that we are

dealing with, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is on top of it,

he should be doing something about it, or something should be done about it, if

he is on top of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: The Fraser Institute reported in February, and

these are not my words; they are the words of an independent group. The Fraser

Institute reported in February that there were seventy Newfoundlanders on a

waiting list for bypass surgery, and that the average waiting time for these

people was fifty-two weeks - a waiting time of fifty-two weeks. Twenty patients,

on top of that, requiring other open heart surgery, were waiting on the average,

thirty-three weeks. Now does the minister believe that is an acceptable

situation? Is that the quality of care the critically ill Newfoundlanders can

expect from this administration?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I read that same edition, that

same

article which the hon. member is talking about. That is the one where the

Fraser Institute gave glowing praise to many aspects of the Newfoundland health

care system. I have to admit that some of the praise they gave us was not

warranted. The figures were off. We were not quite as good in some of the areas

where they said we were. However, I also have to admit that we were not quite as

bad in the cardiac area as they suggested that we were, so their figures are not

quite accurate. Waiting lists are extremely difficult things to deal with. Lots

of times the person would have gone somewhere else, or the person would not have

required the surgery, so they are extremely difficult to deal with. However, the

issue that the hon. member raises is certainly one about which this government

is concerned.

One of the problems we have is with the intensive care units

in the hospital. We have sufficient numbers of surgeons to deal with the

required number of procedures, but there is a problem with the Intensive Care

Unit. Just for an example. The nurses who work in the Intensive Care Unit are a

highly skilled group of people. There are eleven or twelve nurses there in that

unit. If a couple of nurses are off sick -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: If a couple of nurses are off sick, for that

day cardiac surgery would have to be cancelled. There were fifteen or sixteen

times in the past ten months when the Intensive Care was closed down because a

couple of nurses were off sick. One of the things the hospital is looking at is

training a new group of nurses to be on standby. So you cannot go and take a

nurse off the second or third floor, because it is a very specialized type of

work which has to be done. Mr. Speaker, these are some of the things we are

doing.

It was thought in 1986 or 1987 when angioplasty was started

in this Province that the need for cardiac surgery would go down. In actual

fact, the need for angioplasty has gone up, and also the need for cardiac

surgery has gone up. Which is almost a contradiction, but that is what has

happened.

There are a whole lot of factors which are constantly, daily,

being dealt with by the Department and the General Hospital. It is a matter that

did not happen overnight. It is a matter which happened by ten, fifteen years of

neglect, and it is going to take some time, Mr. Speaker, for us to deal with,

but I can tell you we are making good efforts to deal with it.

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

MR. DOYLE: As usual, Mr. Speaker, you cannot get a

straightforward answer from this minister. Let me remind him that no one is

questioning the skill or commitment of the people who work in the cardiology

unit. No one. Especially not on this side of the House. But the people of this

Province want to know what government is going to do to solve that problem now.

Will the minister commit now to the necessary resources needed to ensure that

there is no delay in providing treatment for patients who need open heart

surgery? Again I ask him that question.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how dense the hon.

member is. He just can't seem to understand. I am pointing out to him, if this

were a matter of, to quote Joey Smallwood, "mere money,' we could solve it. It

is not a matter of mere money; it is a matter of organization. As I explained to

the hon. member, there have been ten years when the health care system was going

off in about twenty-five different directions. Ten years of neglect. Now the

hon. member is asking too much if he wants us to wave a magic wand and solve all

these problems in one or two months.

I have told the hon. member that the whole situation is under

serious consideration. I have met with the General Hospital. We are dealing with

the problem in the Intensive Care. We are dealing with the problem of the

Intensive Care nurses. As I told the hon. member, if we brought ten more cardiac

surgeons into Newfoundland tomorrow it would not solve the problem. It is not a

problem with the surgeon, it is a problem with the organization, that is being

dealt with, and I suggest to the hon. member that over the next few months, we

should see the impact of the changes that have been made, Mr. Speaker. But, you

know, it is not easy to correct all the wrongs we inherited. We can only do the

best we can, and hon. members have to be patient and accept the fact that they

helped cause this problem and now we are trying to solve it.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that the

Minister of Health continues to play politics with such a very, very serious

issue. It is really too bad.

Now, if I can't get an answer from him on these questions,

maybe he will answer this: Is the minister aware of a very serious situation

that has developed on Bell Island? He should be aware of it - he has a colleague

there behind him who should have made him aware of it by now and who should have

done something about it. And, if he is not aware of it, would he please do

something about it?

Currently, at the Bell Island hospital, there is just one

doctor, who has been there since April 30 - just one doctor since April 30 -

Now, if the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island wants to have

a meeting with the Minister of Health, I suggest he wait until after I am

finished. And if he wants to do something for the people of Bell Island, go over

and do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member, on a point

of order.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like an

answer, I would be more than happy to give it. But, on the other side of the

coin -

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

There is no point of order. I ask the hon. the Member for

Harbour Main to please put his question.

MR. DOYLE: This is a new question, Mr. Speaker, so I

guess some

preamble is in order.

Now, is the minister aware of a situation that has developed

on Bell Island recently -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, would you please keep the Member

for Bell Island quiet? Because this is a very serious situation, and if he

doesn't treat it seriously, that is his problem.

Mr. Speaker, for the third time, is the Minister of Health

aware of a very serious situation that has recently developed on Bell Island?

Currently, at the Bell Island hospital, there is one doctor, and that has been

the situation since the last of April. There are, generally, three doctors at

the hospital, but two retired on April 30, and they haven't been replaced.

People - many people - on Bell Island have been calling me about the situation.

They are very, very upset.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I ask the hon. member, please, to ask the question and not

make any extraneous remarks. He is aware of what Question Period should be. I

ask the hon. member to get to the question, please.

MR. DOYLE: This is a new question, Mr. Speaker, so I

guess some

preamble is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: Is the minister aware -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair decides what

preambles are in order. I tell hon.

members that. It is the Chair that decides what the question will be. So I ask

the hon. member to get to the question quickly before I move to somebody else.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Health aware

of a very serious situation that has developed on Bell Island? Is he aware that

there are 4500 to 5000 people on Bell Island? Is he aware of the fact that as of

April 30 there has only been one doctor operating on Bell Island because two

retired as of April 30? Is he aware of the fact that there has been no clinic on

Bell Island since May 1, just one doctor trying to cope with the whole situation

and one doctor trying to handle 4500 to 5000 people? Why isn't he doing

something about it, given the fact that the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island

must surely have made him aware of it by now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, two parts to the question. He is

playing politics with the Department of Health. As my good friend, Dr. Twomey,

used to say, that Liberal member who was surrounded by a bunch of dinosaurs for

a number of years: You should never play politics with the Health Department,

and I will not play politics with the Health Department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: I can't say the same thing for my hon. friend

from the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, who is attempting to play politics with this

issue on Bell Island.

Now, the hon. Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island doesn't

need anyone from across there to represent his district, Mr. Speaker. He brought

this matter to my attention many, many, many week ago, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to begin with, this is not the extremely

serious situation that the hon. member is talking about. The Bell Island

Hospital is under the jurisdiction of the St. Clare's Hospital Board, one of the

top hospital boards in this Province, Mr. Speaker. The St. Clare's Hospital

Board over the past few weeks has made provision to have the weekends covered

when the resident doctor is not available. They have made time available so that

the doctor can be off. So Bell Island is being covered.

Bell Island, like other rural parts of the Province, is

having a difficult time recruiting physicians, Mr. Speaker. However, I have been

advised by the hospital board that either they have one doctor hired and another

about to be hired or they are in the process of doing it. What happened there

was the people who were there, a man and wife team, both left at the same time.

This is happening throughout the Province, doctors are resigning and moving on.

Sometimes there is a gap between when the previous doctor leaves and the new

doctor comes in. This is the case on Bell Island, there has been a gap there.

As the hon. member knows, Bell Island is being represented, I

suppose better than it has been, certainly in recent history, by the present

member who discussed this with me. But more importantly, the St. Clare's

Hospital Board, Mr. Speaker, which is responsible for the delivery of health

care on Bell Island, is doing an excellent job. They made sure that the off

times were covered, and everything is well in hand, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the hon. Opposition Health critic does not want people

to think that because he wants to play politics with it, but we are concerned

with delivering health care, not scoring political points, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: My question is to the Minister of Environment

and Lands but, in her absence, I will ask the acting minister, the Minister

responsible for Forestry and Agriculture.

In the recent Budget, government announced the elimination of

certain park fees in the provincial parks, such as seasonal vehicle entry

permits, as well as the daily permits. I wonder if the minister will tell us if

government has conceived any related way of making up for the loss in revenue?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I think the decision by the

Minister of Environment and Lands, the recommendation, and acceptance by Cabinet

was out of concern to improve the lot of the people using the parks, senior

citizens and others. It was done on a social needs basis. We are not so

concerned about replacing the revenue that came from the park permits.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder, then, if the minister can tell us why labourers in

the park are being recalled one, two and three weeks later than usual this year,

and have been given notice that they will be laid off at least a week or more

earlier?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, there may be many reasons but

one of the reasons, I would think - I would question the need to have had the

parks open very much quicker than they were, a couple of days ago. The weather,

itself, could have dictated the decision.

So, Mr. Speaker, I presume the people who manage the parks

decided that the staff were not needed to be recalled until they were.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, has to be to a

minister who can give an answer, that is, the Minister responsible for Tourism

in the Province, the Minister of Development. I wonder if he will tell us what

effect this is going to have on the physical condition of parks, parks that are

already under the gun for not being up to standard in relation to the physical

condition, when labourers are being called back, despite the fact the parks are

open, one, two and three weeks later than usual and have been notice that they

are going to be layed off a week or more earlier than on other occasions?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I didn't listen to

the first couple of questions. I was talking to the acting Premier. I will take

the question under advisement and seek the answer from the Minister of

Environment and Lands.

I should tell you, while I am on my feet though, I expect

tourism will pick up considerably in this Province this summer. Some of the

operators -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: As I was saying, tourism is expected to pick

up considerably, Mr. Speaker. Some of the boat tour operators I have talked to

have tripled their bookings this year. Bed and breakfasts are looking very good.

The hotel and motel operators tell me things are looking good. I expect we are

going to have booming banner year in tourism.

I will get the answer to the first part of the question when

I get a chance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Health. As most people

know, the Captain Jackman Memorial Hospital in Labrador West is operated by the

Salvation Army, and over the number of years, I think, has been doing a good job

delivering good health care to Labrador West. Would the minister advise if

Grenfell Regional Health Services will be taking over the Captain Jackman

Memorial Hospital in Labrador West?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question to which

I can say yes or no. As the hon. member knows, in the Budget, the Minister of

Finance announced that over this year, government will be looking at ways to

reduce the number of health care boards in the Province from twenty-five down to

five, six, seven, or four or three, or whatever. Now, during the next few

months, we have made arrangements to have a facilitator meet with all the

hospital boards throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

discuss with the local people and the hospital boards what direction we should

take.

So it is a possibility that the hospital in Labrador West

could end up as part of Grenfell Regional Health Services. But there is also a

possibility that the Grenfell Regional Health Services could end up under the

Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital, which is run by the Salvation Army.

These things have not yet been determined, but it is all being looked at. The

reason it is all being looked at is because we want to improve the delivery of

health care to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If it can be improved by

putting the Jackman under Grenfell, we will do it; if Grenfell can be improved

by putting them under the Salvation Army, we will do that. We are going to do

whatever we can to improve the health care system in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would say

the minister's answer then, is yes, Grenfell will be taking over the Jackman

Memorial Hospital. I ask the minister: If Grenfell Regional Health Services

takes over the hospital in Labrador West, will the service improve more than

presently, as administered by that particular board on the coast of Labrador?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is a hypothetical question so

I really shouldn't fool around with answering it. But I should say this. I would

have to word it a little differently. If we can improve the delivery of health

care in Labrador City by putting them under Grenfell, then we will put them

under Grenfell. If we can improve the delivery of health care by putting them

under the Salvation Army, we will put them under the Salvation Army. If we can

improve health care by making one board for all of Northern Newfoundland and

Labrador, we will do that. The name of the game is to improve the delivery of

health care for all of our people, whether they in live in Labrador West, or on

coastal Labrador, or on LeMarchant Road, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question for the Minister of Fisheries. Yesterday in responding to a question

that had been previously asked of the minister, he went through a number of

plants and the status with regard to processing crab in the Province. In that

answer yesterday he said that Roddickton will not be in production in 1992. I am

wondering if the minister could inform the House as to why Roddickton will not

be in production this year?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the plant in Roddickton was

operated by Quinlan's, a company headed by Pat Quinlan. The plant was destroyed

by fire two years ago. It was partially rebuilt but has not been fully rebuilt

yet. The operators have not yet decided exactly what they are going to do with

it. It might well be that there will be a decision made by the current operator

and license-holder to reactivate the plant in Roddickton, but at this point in

time, the plant is not working, and will require quite a bit of work on it

before it will become capable of being operated. So that is what prompted my

reply yesterday.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am told by people from the

area that the supply of crab is not a problem, that there is a trained, skilled

work force there, and if the facility operated it would employ around 150

people. The other thing that has come to my attention, and perhaps the minister

can answer for the House: Who owns that facility in Roddickton? There seems to

be some question or dispute about ownership. Could the minister inform the House

as to exactly who owns that facility?

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

MR. CARTER: The building that was initially built there I

think by the Town of Roddickton and then it was leased to Quinlan Brothers or a

company controlled by the Quinlans on some kind of a lease/purchase arrangement

I understand, where, they were given the option to purchase the plant I think

after a certain period -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: By whom?

MR. CARTER: I presume by the Town of Roddickton.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot tell these people, we cannot force

these people to go down there and reactivated that plant. We can only talk to

them and endeavour to get them to go in to reactivate the plant. Certainly we

cannot tell a private sector company that they must go into Roddickton and spend

another million dollars maybe, and reactivate the crab plant. I would like to

see the crab plant back in operation, but we cannot force them to do it.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister undertake and bring an answer back to the

House at the earliest opportunity, and try to determine the question of

ownership of that facility? There seems to be some question since the fire took

place; I am told there was not an investigation and there seems to be a whole

lot of questions unanswered in the area, but would the minister undertake, for

the House, to determine the ownership of that particular facility and bring the

answer back for us?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know really, the

relevance of the gentleman's question. I would be very happy to get the answer

for him but I think the information I have given is reasonably accurate, that

the building was initially owned by the Town. I presume the operators have

exercised their option, but I will find out and report back to the House

tomorrow.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, the Province had to issue a processing licence to

the facility I would think, and I would think also that the minister should know

who owns the facility. There seems to be something in question here. A final

supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

A week or so ago, the Leader of the Opposition asked the

Premier about the pending problems with Fishery Products International, on the

offshore plants and its trawlers and so on. Now that we have the news from Mr.

Young, that it looks like all of the offshore plants are going to shut down;

Fortune is going down at the end of this week, Harbour Breton is going down at

the end of the month with its red fish operation.

At that time the Premier had not met with Mr. Young, he said

government had not been informed by Fishery Products International of what the

status was of that company. Can the minister inform the House if he has met with

Fishery Products International or if the Premier did, and really, what does this

mean for those communities in rural Newfoundland who are depending on the deep

sea trawler fishery and processing plants, what does it mean, how many people

will be affected, how many jobs are going to be lost and more importantly, what

is the government going to do to try to help them?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I have been in contact with Mr.

Young, I do not know if he has met the Premier, I think he has but that question

would be better asked of the Premier I guess when he returns to the House, but

Mr. Young did extend us the courtesy of telling us what his plans were before

announcing it publicly. As to precisely how many jobs it is going to cost the

Province I cannot say at this point in time, but the other part of his question

as to what do we intend to do about it, I would suggest to him that he use his

influence on his federal soul mate The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and let

him start -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Oh, we will. Certainly you can be sure that

we will be contacting the minister, but I would -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you going to do?

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker it is no laughing matter. It is

no laughing matter to see fish plants closing and people being thrown out of

work by virtue of mismanagement on the part of the federal government, the

government supported by these men opposite by the way, and I would suggest that

if he has any real interest in those people and the people who will be affected

by the plant closures, that he get on the phone after Question Period and call

Mr. Crosbie, and alert him to the problem and ask him to do something about it,

rather than try to pass the buck on the Province.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I recognized the hon. Member for Fogo. I do

not know whether other members have!

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

Minister of Fisheries in an area the minister has exclusive jurisdiction.

A couple of months ago the minister announced in this House

some changes or a policy for the Fisheries Loan Board with respect to fishermen

who either had direct loans through the board or those that were guaranteed

through the loan board through the bank. Could the minister tell us what

specific criteria did he give the Fisheries Loan Board to assess the

applications of fishermen who had loans with the bank under the bank guaranteed

program?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Loan Board has two

programs. One is a direct loan program where we have about 5,000 clients, I

suppose, and probably a loan portfolio of about $50 million. Then we have a bank

guarantee loan program.

Under the former program, the direct loan, in 1991 we have

decided to forgive interest on the loans. With respect to the bank guarantee

loan program, if a fisherman can demonstrate to the board that his landings were

low and that he does not have the ability to pay his or her loan, then the board

will seriously consider writing off the interest, and that is the policy that is

being followed.

Now I think I know what the hon. gentlemen is getting at, but

there are cases where some of our larger boat fishermen, people who have a

number of licences, a crab licence, or shrimp or caplin and so on, do not

require that kind of assistance. But in cases where they can demonstrate beyond

doubt that they are in need, that they have had a bad year and that they need

special help, then they will get it.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the

guidelines that they have established is that you have to have 20 per cent

landed value less than the previous two years, and 25 per cent of your income

had to be used for payments last year? Is the minister aware that of 130

applications, only twelve, and possibly one more, have been approved for

fishermen with loans with the bank program? That only twelve to this date have

been approved, and that the Fisheries Loan Board has tentatively taken boats

over fifty feet in length outside of that program altogether? Did the minister

give these instructions?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Loan Board is

operating without any political interference, which is something that was almost

unheard of before, by the way. They know what they are supposed to do.

Now he talked about the 20 and 25 per cent payment. That is

the normal amount used in terms of where there is an assignment of catch; where

the loan board makes a loan to a fisherman, and that fisherman will then

undertake to instruct the fish plant to which he sells his fish to forward 20 -

sometimes 25 per cent - to the loan board to cover the payment on his boat for

that year.

I have no figures at the moment as to exactly how many loans

have been forgiven or how much interest has been forgiven, but again I will

certainly get the information for the hon. gentleman. That is a function that is

being done by the loan board and its nine members who represent all sectors of

the fishing industry, and government, by the way; and I think they are doing a

pretty good job of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Just before moving on to the next item, as a result of

today's Question Period, the Chair would like to bring to hon. members'

attention some of our rules or Standing Orders relating to Question Period. I am

a firm believer in the fact that once people possess the knowledge and have the

information, they will proceed to follow it.

Our own Standing Orders,

Section 31(

b) says: "In the

discretion of Mr. Speaker" - not in the discretion of anybody else - "a

reasonable number of supplementary questions arising out of a Minister's reply

to an oral question may be asked by any Members."

The second

part I would like to read is 31(

c) which says: "In

putting any oral questions, no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any

facts stated except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in

answering any such question, the minister is not to debate the matter to which

it refers."

That, I say, is the rule most abused, because the more of a

preamble, the more that a member prefaces a question, then the more open it

becomes to a minister debating the

preamble and debating the extra things, the

extemporaneous things and sometimes the superfluous matters that have been

introduced into the question, and it makes it very difficult. These rules are

made for a purpose, because, as I have said so many times in the past, Question

Period is not a period for debate.

Lastly, I want to bring to hon. members' attention that the

Speaker's rulings related to Oral Questions are not debatable or subject to

appeal. The Chair did not make the rules. The Chair is only enforcing the rules,

and there is an equal obligation on members to follow them.

Thank you very much.

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 No. 14. The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader,

is a little bit anxious to get this bill through the House. Unfortunately, it is

not going to happen as soon as he wants it to happen.

I want to have the opportunity to speak to this piece of

legislation. It gives me the opportunity to talk about the way that government

not only have been raising the money, but the way government have been spending

their money throughout the districts of this Province.

In this Province, since this government came to office, less

than three years ago, we have seen personal income tax increase by 6 percentage

points. I believe that is the most significant increase over a three-year period

that we have seen in the history of this Province. So this government is acting

in a very deceitful manner - extremely deceitful. What they are doing is trying

to leave the impression that they are not raising taxes when they are grabbing 6

per cent of personal income tax from the taxpayers of this Province.

They talk about the elimination of the school tax, and the

replacement of the school tax with personal income tax. What they have done is

they have cost the people of this Province who were paying school tax, in some

cases, three times the amount they were paying before. That is what the Minister

of Finance has done, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: More? More than three times, the Minister of

Finance is saying, than what they were paying before.

Mr. Chairman, when one looks around this Province and sees

how government have cut back - they have cut back in the education system, they

have cut back in health care. As we have just heard, my colleague for Harbour

Main raised questions about the fact that there are two doctors less on Bell

Island than there were a year ago. We have known what has happened to hospitals,

particularly the smaller hospitals throughout rural Newfoundland, in the Budget

of the Minister of Finance last year. We know what has happened to the Social

Services Department: this year, when we have the highest rate of unemployment

that we have had in the past ten years in this Province, probably the highest

rate that we have ever had, this government have seen fit to cut the budget of

the Department of Social Services by some $5 million. The total budget for that

Department has been reduced by some $5 million.

The Employment Opportunities Division, where there are 7,000

less jobs in this Province today than a year ago. There are 7,000 less

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working in this Province today than there were

one year ago. At the same time, the Employment Opportunities budget of that

department has been reduced from $22 million last year, which was to help train

people and to help create work for those who were unemployed, who hopefully

could qualify for some federal benefits or whatever the case may be. Last year

this government spent $22 million; this year, with 7,000 less men and women

working in this Province, the government has budgeted $16 million. That is $6

million less in the Employment Opportunities Division of that department.

Men and women in this Province are being thrown out of work.

The fish plant in Catalina has been closed for several months, Ramea is closed,

Marystown is down, Fortune is going down next week, Harbour Breton is going down

in another two weeks; trawlers are tied up, men and women who work in the

deep-sea fishing industry in this Province are unemployed; yet this government,

while they have raised taxes, have refused -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you have raised taxes on the backs of the

poor of this Province. That is what you have done! You have raised taxes on the

back of the poor!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: You have attacked the poor, you have attacked

the suffering, of this Province. You have attacked the poor, Sir, by cutting the

budget of the Department of Social Services. By attacking health care you have

attacked the suffering of this Province. That is what the Minister of Finance

has done. He should hang his head in shame. You should hang your head in shame,

the way you have attacked the underprivileged in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You have attacked the sick and the suffering -

AN HON. MEMBER: And the poor.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and the poor. How can you

reduce the Social Services' budget by $5 million and say you are not balancing

the books on the backs of the poor? Everyone can understand that except the

Minister of Finance. Because you don't understand what it is to work with people

who have to depend on that department. I worked there for ten years as a social

worker, and I can tell you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) pay school tax.

MR. TOBIN: I can tell you that when someone in this

Province today has to live on $2.90 - and that is what this government is giving

to single, able-bodied people in this Province, $2.93 a day. Now, Mr. Chairman,

if that is something for the Minister of Finance to be proud about, then let him

be proud. But the person who has to live on $2.90 a day is not extremely happy.

No wonder - that is how you cut the Budget, that is where you balance the books,

on the backs of people who are getting $2.90 a day.

MR. SMALL: How much did you give them?

MR. TOBIN: Well, I can tell you one thing, we treated

people fairly. There was never a reduction in the Social Services' budget in

this Province. I can further tell the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay that

when we had to stand and vote on an issue in this Province, we didn't scurry

through the door, as he did a few weeks ago, and is now appearing in the

newspapers throughout this Province. You didn't have the courage of your

convictions to stand up and support a resolution that would see support coming

from Ottawa for plant workers and fishermen in your district last week. You

should talk about what is going on in the Budget! It is this Minister of Finance

who has balanced the Budget, who has increased taxes.

DR. KITCHEN: No.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you have increased taxes. What about the

payroll tax throughout this Province? Do you think that is not affecting people

who have to go out and buy clothing? You have increased personal income tax by 6

percentage points since you became the Minister of Finance.

MR. WINDSOR: That is true. That is true.

MR. TOBIN: That is what you have done in this Province.

You have increased the payroll tax in this Province, brought it in as a new tax.

My colleague from Mount Pearl has pointed out several times that it is a new

tax. Yes, and at the same time now, you can loan out money to Enterprise

Newfoundland to set up restaurants in competition with other restaurants in the

same town. You can loan money out to people to set up small restaurants in this

Province which will go in direct competition with other people. You are closing

down industries in this Province. You are closing down the private sector in

terms of small businesspeople in this Province who are being affected.

MR. DOYLE: And you don't care, that is the sin of it all.

MR. TOBIN: There is not a mine left on the Island portion

of this Province since this crowd came to power. Hope Brook was opened last week

with $6 million from Mr. Crosbie's budget, not a nickel from this group here,

except to build a clinic. Every other mine on the Island portion of the Province

has been closed since this government came to power.

For the first time ever - I heard Mr. Vic Young on CBC, I

believe it was, this morning - all deep-sea plants in this Province will be

closed in a couple of weeks time. The fishery is closed down, the mining

industry is basically closed now, and now they are going to try to attack the

small businesspeople who are trying to survive. They are doing that by the

Minister of Finance imposing a payroll tax. That is a tax burden that is very

difficult to support. They are doing it, Mr. Chairman, by setting up competition

to small businesspeople in the Province, forcing some of them to close. That's

what is happening.

It is time that the Minister of Finance realizes that the

people in rural Newfoundland are being attacked, day in and day out, by this

administration. They have no sense of responsibility to rural Newfoundland, and

every single issue that this government faces and every single decision they

make around the Cabinet Table have one common denominator, and that is the

resettlement of rural Newfoundland. Make no mistake about it. They started off

talking about -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the plan, the economic plan.

MR. TOBIN: The economic plan, yes. They first talked

about amalgamation, how they must amalgamate -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will get

back to it after.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

Actually, I expected the Minister of Finance to take

part in

this debate since, from his seat, he was so vociferous there a few minutes ago.

Perhaps when I sit down, in ten minutes time, he will rise and contribute in a

direct way to the debate.

Chairperson, what we are discussing, of course, is yet

another taxing measure from this government, a bill to increase, once again, the

personal income tax rate. The government has resorted to a whole host of

revenue-raising measures which, together, are having the effect of taking quite

a bit of money from all our citizens, reducing the disposable income of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That additional tax burden on our people is

coinciding, of course, with a drop in employment and a decrease in income since

public sector wages have been frozen through violations of collective

agreements, public sector jobs have decreased because of the massive reduction

in public sector employment that started last year when over 3,000 positions

were eliminated, direct government jobs and jobs with provincial funded

agencies, so a squeeze has been put on people in our Province.

The personal income tax was increased by this administration

in their very first Budget three years ago. Now that was a Budget which included

a current account surplus forecast, most of the work on that Budget had been

done by the previous administration. This is the government that walked into the

offices of power inheriting, inheriting a good financial position. Now the

months that led up to the change of government included lavish promises by the

Premier, then Opposition Leader who was campaigning for election. Of course, the

Premier had access to the Province's financial statements, he was in the House

of Assembly when the budget documents and the spending estimates were tabled in

1988 and 1987, so he was well aware of the financial position of the Province

and on that basis in his campaigning, he said that the Provincial government,

under his leadership should the Liberals win the election, would build new

university campuses all over the Province, saying the first additional

university campus would be in central Newfoundland.

My colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, hands me

an Evening Telegram

article from February of 1989. It is an account of a speech

the present Premier, then Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Liberal

Party, made to the Gander Chamber of Commerce. Now the Member for Gander was

probably in that audience. The Member for Gander in fact, probably helped write

that speech; it was a speech that attracted considerable attention at the time.

Now in that speech, Chairperson, the present Premier promised that if he became

Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, he would not stand for having just one

university, no that was not good enough, he would insist on the construction of

new university campuses, first in central Newfoundland, which of course is where

he was speaking, but then he would proceed to build a university campus in

southern Newfoundland, a university campus in northern Newfoundland and a

university campus in Labrador.

He said at the same time, he would expand Grenfell College in

Corner Brook, the campus of Memorial University in Corner Brook so that -

MR. BAKER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Government House Leader on a point of

order.

MR. BAKER: Maybe the hon. member does not want to let the

facts get in the way of what she is saying, the truth, but I was present on that

particular occasion and I do know what was said and if the hon. member is

interested in the truth, I will now tell her.

The Premier to be, and we knew he was going to be Premier at

that point in time, indicated that first of all, there would be a full four year

program offered in Corner Brook. Secondly, he said that he wanted to see and at

some point in time would build a campus in central Newfoundland and that these

were the three locations, St. John's, Corner Brook and central Newfoundland. He

did not say Gander at all, he said somewhere in central Newfoundland. He went on

to mention that maybe in the distant future there might be other possibilities

in the Province, and that the concept was to bring university education closer

to where the people lived and where the students lived. So, Mr. Chairman, there

was no promise to do all that; this was a vision of educational improvement in

the Province. The hon. member used to be Minister of Education, and I am sure

that she had somewhat the same vision as well when she was Minister of

Education. Unfortunately, she did not do much about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No point of order. The hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

Of course there is no point of order. It is simply a case of

the Member for Gander being embarrassed because I am reminding everyone of what

his Premier and he promised people when they hoodwinked the voters three years

ago. Now they did not fool all the people, because only 47 per cent of the

people voted Liberal; but the 47 per cent happened to be distributed in such a

way as to give the Liberals more seats than the PC's, when 48 per cent of the

people had voted PC.

So we now have as our Premier, as Premier of the Province, a

man who promised, and this is a direct quote according to The Evening Telegram:

"Let me tell Mr. Peckford that a second university is in the cards, and a third

and fourth as soon as practical." Now the Liberals did form the government, and

the man who made that promise became Premier. When he had realized that he was

going to have to get real, he proceeded to prolong the conning of people in

central Newfoundland by inviting groups there to make proposals for the location

of the university campus in central Newfoundland, inciting the opposite member's

constituents to make a bid for Gander as the ideal site for the central

Newfoundland university. Then, of course, the Member for Exploits worked with

his constituents to make a proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Member for Lewisporte.

MS. VERGE: And the Member for Lewisporte, and the Member

- I do not know what the Member for Windsor - Buchans did, but they carried out

the charade for a whole year. Town councils, community groups -

AN HON. MEMBER: He did not know about (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: The Member for St. Mary's - The Capes reminds

me that the Member for Windsor - Buchans actually did not know about it, because

he did not get a call.

At any rate, considerable time and money went into making

proposals for the location of the central Newfoundland campus of the university.

When finally the members opposite realized that they could not prolong this

pretence any longer, they finally had to admit to the people that the whole idea

had been crazy from the first place. There is no way the Province could afford

it. But they managed to win the government on the strength of that promise and

many other extravagant, ludicrous promises which the Premier knew he was not

going to be able to deliver on.

He still tells people in western Newfoundland that he is

going to expand Grenfell College. In the meantime, what is happening is that

there has been a reduction in the number of personnel there, in the face of

unprecedented enrolment. There are now twice as many students at Grenfell

College as the facilities were designed to accommodate.

Here we have all kinds of measures on the part of the

government to increase revenue. That is what we are talking about now. We have

had cancellation of commitments that were made for various improvements in

public services and construction projects, and this is largely because the

government has mismanaged administering the affairs of the government and its

agencies, and has worsened the climate for private business activity.

The mismanagement of government we have to fault them for

unmercifully, because this is an area where they are in complete control. Now my

colleague, the Member for Humber Valley -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: I will have to speak again later, Chairperson.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Chairman, I just had to have a few

words, because there has been such terrible misrepresentation of what has been

going on with respect to taxation.

We are debating a bill having to do with increasing the

personal income tax, and hon. members opposite are suggesting we should not do

that. That instead... I don't know what, there is no "instead" at all. Because

they tell us on the one hand that we should not raise taxes, we should spend

more money, and we should not increase the deficit.

Now there is a very simple equation out there that you take

your revenue, take off your expenditures, and that is supposed to equal your

surplus or deficit. If your deficit is fixed - as it is with us because we

cannot increase our deficit any more because of our credit rating - and

therefore, if we cannot increase taxes, we have to maintain expenditures at the

same level. What we did this time, we increased taxes by $6 million. On a budget

of about $3 billion, that is not a very great increase in taxes.

We had to get rid of the school tax because we were committed

to do it. The school tax was blatantly unfair. If hon. members opposite think

that we are going to reinstate the school tax, they are wrong. The school tax is

dead, it will never be imposed in this Province again!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No matter (Inaudible)!

DR. KITCHEN: No matter!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: It is no good wishful thinking on the school

tax. That is a terribly unfair tax. Even yesterday a person came to me who

worked with one of the school tax authorities, a person who has a part-time job,

and who may make $7,000 this year, and may not. That person is being hounded

unmercifully by school tax authorities. It is the sort of thing that makes your

blood boil, to see poor people being hounded by school tax authorities. We are

not going to come back with the school tax, it's gone! That is so.

Instead they say we should not raise income taxes. Now there

is no fairer tax than the income tax. People who make money pay more taxes. They

do not pay any more taxes than another person unless they make more money than

another person. Simple as that. It is a fair tax. So don't object to the income

tax. If we are going to collect revenue from individuals it is much fairer to do

it through the personal income tax system than it is through the school tax

system. That is gone. That regressive tax, where the poor were hit unmercifully.

Some were even put in jail. We are not doing that. That is not going to happen

any more in this Province, where people are being unmercifully hounded by school

boards and their affiliates. We are not going to allow that to happen. That's

gone. I want to make that point quite clear, we are not allowing that to happen

any more.

The other point I want to make is this. The Opposition keeps

telling us that the people in the Province are opposed to our budgetary

measures. Mr. Chairman, the people in this Province realise the situation that

this and every other province is faced with in Canada, and that we are being

extremely responsible in the way we are operating. There is no public revulsion

against our Budget. The hon. members opposite, the trio in the Opposition, the

Len, Lynn, Glenn. Have you heard of the Len-Lynn-Glenn?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

DR. KITCHEN: Oh yes. Len, Lynn, Glenn were out in

Clarenville the other day. The hon. Members for Humber East, Grand Falls, and

hon. Member for... Terra Nova?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: They were out in Clarenville. They had a

public meeting: All those who are against the government please come to our

meeting and tell us what is wrong. They had a throng, they came from all over

the area. They came from Bonavista, Gander, the Burin Peninsula. They all

congregated on Clarenville and had this big meeting. Seven people! Seven people

showed up! Seven!

AN HON. MEMBER: That included them.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Chairman, the public in Newfoundland are

not listening to the Opposition, and God bless Glenn, Len and Lynn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few

comments. The President of the Council disappeared a few minutes ago when he got

up on a point of order suggesting that the Member for Humber East was misquoting

the Premier in what he was saying about a second university in this Province.

The Member for Humber East had an

article from the Gander Beacon, I believe it

was, on what the Premier actually said.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Evening Telegram.

MR. R. AYLWARD: From the Evening Telegram.

The Member for Gander seemed to say that the Member for

Humber East was either misleading or misquoting what the Premier was saying

about a second university.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of what is called here, the

Campaign '89 Policy Manual. "Liberal, A Real Change," is what it says. I am

going to read a

section from this, and I don't think the President of Treasury

Board can say I am misquoting anyone, because I am going to be reading directly

from Page 6. Page 6 refers specifically to education. It starts on Page 5 but

there is no need for me to read through some of the earlier parts of it. It has

to do with high school and elementary education policies.

Mr. Chairman, on Page 6 it starts of by saying:

"Post-secondary facilities will be expanded to allow more students in rural

areas to participate in career development without being penalized by high cost

of accommodation and transportation." Mr. Chairman, this is a good goal. This

certainly, if accomplished, would help out people in rural Newfoundland. I don't

know how the Premier squares this with his statement on television the other

night that he wouldn't mind seeing some resettlement done in this Province. Mr.

Chairman, that seems to be completely against what he said in his policy manual

of 1989 and what he said on television a couple of nights ago: If resettlement

happens because people are not working in their communities, well sobeit. Now,

that doesn't seem to me to square well with the policy of the Liberal Government

which says that students in rural Newfoundland should participate in career

development without being penalized by the high cost of accommodation and

transportation. Mr. Chairman, that was one statement they made.

Here is how he was going to achieve it. There is no question

of what is being said in this policy manual. This is how he is going to achieve

it. "To achieve this, we will expand the curriculum of Grenfell College in

Corner Brook to include third and fourth year courses." Also a good goal. Not

accomplished yet, but also a good goal.

"So that in time, bachelor level degrees in basic arts and

science disciplines can be obtained in Corner Brook, and Grenfell can become a

degree granting institution on its own." That certainly is a good goal, Mr.

Speaker. That is what the Liberal Government wanted to do. That is what they are

going to do.

Here is what it goes on to say: "A Liberal Government will

start immediately on the construction of a similar small university campus in

central Newfoundland." There is no doubt about that. There is no misquote of

what the Premier said. He didn't say when feasible or when possible. He said

directly, "A Liberal Government will start immediately on the construction of a

similar type university in central Newfoundland," to develop as Grenfell has in

Corner Brook. Now, not in the future or not if we had more money. Immediately

means immediately, as soon as he was elected. That is what I would say. I would

say immediately that you put me in as Premier, this is where I am going to

start. That certainly was the impression the Premier wanted to leave. I don't

know if he changed his mind since he got in. He seems to have changed his mind

on quite a few things.

This Liberal Policy Manual here seems to be quite liberal

when you read through it. But the actions of the Premier and this government do

not seem to be quite as liberal as this policy statement. He seems to have

turned around quite - actually, he didn't turn around at all, he has always been

very conservative. But when he is writing for election campaigns he seems to

have a different frame of mind than when he is writing for budget speeches and

throne speeches.

When I plant my strawberries I plant them immediately so the

plants won't rot but, Mr. Chairman, I know that immediately when enough sun and

enough nutrients have gone into that plant that immediately I will have

strawberries. I know that immediately as soon as I plant them, if I look after

them properly. Now, Mr. Chairman, immediately that I put those plants in the

ground, immediately I know that I have to do a certain amount of undertakings to

get those strawberries to develop.

Immediately that the Premier took office, as he said in his

plan, he was going to start construction immediately on the university campus in

central Newfoundland. Now, immediately was not five years down the road.

AN HON. MEMBER: He never said that, you know.

MR. R. AYLWARD: This is a direct quote from the Liberal

Policy Manual. It says, "A Liberal Government will start immediately on

construction." Not planning. They were not going to do any planning on this

facility at all, they were not going to draw a plan, not a mark. The Department

of Works, Services and Transportation weren't even going to let a tender, they

were going to start immediately on construction, which has to be the most stupid

statement. I don't know who, if anyone, ever really believed it. I guess some

people must have believed it but most people I knew laughed at it when they

heard it, because you just can't start immediately on the construction. Everyone

knows you can't start immediately, but the Premier said, in his policy

statement, that he was going to start immediately. Now, I don't understand what

he meant. I certainly don't understand, seeing what he has done since he took

office, why he would make such a statement, because he is very careful about the

words he uses. This Premier is extremely careful about how he phrases any

statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Do I?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: My strawberries? No I have a u-pick, so

other people pick them immediately after they are growing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: After they are growing?

MR. R. AYLWARD: - immediately after they are ripened

perfectly and immediately after the sun develops them, I open the u-pick and

people immediately come in there, they rush in - actually, they are lined up on

the road to try to get into it because they know how delicious they are. So

immediately as those strawberries are ripened, people are in there in droves and

they pick them and then they are so good, they can't put them in their freezers,

they immediately eat them, and that's the best part because the next day they

immediately want some more. Then they come back the next day and get some more

because they loved them from eating them immediately as they pick them. But the

berries that are eaten while they are picking are the ones I don't get paid for.

I would have to weigh the people as they come in and as they go out, and if

there is a difference in weight, then charge them for the cost of what they have

eaten.

But I will let those few strawberries go for promotion,

because they will immediately be back as soon as the sun comes up the next day,

Mr. Chairman, just as the Premier is immediately going to start construction of

his Central Newfoundland - but, Mr. Chairman, when I plant my strawberry plants,

the immediacy of getting a strawberry off them is certainly about five years

ahead of the immediacy of the Premier building a university campus in Central

Newfoundland.

Now, Mr. Chairman, my definition of the word 'immediate' and

'immediately' as the Premier says, seems to be different from the Premier's and

all Liberal members over there because they were going around saying, 'We are

going to build a new campus. Our Premier told us we will have a new campus in

Central Newfoundland immediately.' And I guess there were fellows out there

buying lumber and buying boards, they were looking at pieces of land all over

the place -

AN HON. MEMBER: Buying stone.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes. - seeing where they could get in on

this. Well, if the Premier is going to build, we must have a piece of land, so

everyone out there starts saying: 'Well, gee-whiz, I have a good piece of land.'

Then they came in and it was not so immediate, they put out some kind of a White

Paper or feelers around, 'Now, where can we put this?' and they got into the

biggest kind of a war between the Grand Falls, Gander and Lewisporte area, so

they had to cancel the whole works. There will be no university out there in

Central Newfoundland because the Minister of Education, because he was a bit

naive at the time, I guess - actually, what they wanted to do was delay the

decision. They thought they could bury it for a while by saying, 'We will do a

study and see where the best location will be.'

Then Springdale and Grand Falls got into the action and

Bishop's Falls got in; they got into so much of a tangle, they said, 'If we had

some way to take back all of these copies of the Liberal manifesto in 1989 - if

we had a way to take them back and change that word 'immediately', to 'some time

in the future', like it was said probably in that Telegram

article there, that

in time, when we can get a chance, when we get around to it, we take

'immediately' out of here as fast as we can, and then some time in the future,

if we ever happen to get elected a second time, because we could probably use

this. I would say, this fall or next spring when we have another election, there

will be another page five and six, and it will not read: A Liberal government

will start immediately on construction. That will not be in it, but there will

be a university promised for Central Newfoundland again in the next election.

But 'as soon as we can get our economy diversified,' is what it would read - 'as

soon as we can get our economy diversified.'

Now, in the Central Newfoundland area, we have started

diversifying our economy by giving out money to a fish and chips store, I think

it was, or a chicken place. Now, we are really diversifying the economy for

Gander -

AN HON. MEMBER: Chicken and ribs.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes. So we are leaning towards Gander to

put this university as immediately as we can after the next election by

diversifying the economy, by putting I don't know how much money it was - I

can't remember now. We diversified the economy in the Gander area. Now we are

finished with that. We have a ribs and chicken, or chicken and fish, or some -

what was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Chicken and ribs.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Chicken and ribs deal. The Newfoundland

Recovery Commission and the Economic Recovery Commission and Enterprise

Newfoundland got together for three years and wondered how they were going to

fulfil this immediate promise. We have to diversify the economy first, so

immediately we will give money to a fish and chips store or a chicken -

immediately we will do that, because that will start the diversification in this

Province.

Another thing they immediately did when they were going mad,

in 1992, they immediately gave money, I noticed in here, to a -

AN HON. MEMBER: A beauty parlour.

MR. R. AYLWARD: - A beauty parlour. This was in the

eastern region. They immediately gave money to a beauty parlour in the St.

Mary's Bay area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, there was one in St. Mary's Bay, too.

They immediately gave it, and on the next line they immediately gave the woman

more money to move to another location because she couldn't spend the money in

the place she had. There certainly had to be a great feasibility study done into

that one, because when they got the money approved immediately to open up a

beauty salon somewhere down in St. Mary's Bay, immediately after that they had

to give her more money so that she could get out of there because it was the

wrong place to operate.

So, immediately, this university will be built, as soon as

the beauty parlours around the Province get our economy diversified enough and

get us back on schedule.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) eating strawberries.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I know what happens to me if I

immediately eat too many of them.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that is what this government is going to

do. Oh, the President of Council - maybe I can start again. I can get my time

back again, Mr. Chairman, When the President of the Council -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Is the House ready for the question?

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

It is a shame that the Member for Gander missed that

fantastic speech by my colleague, the Member for Kilbride. He was just talking

about the government's record, contrasting what they have done with what they

had promised. They promised action. They were going to revitalize the economy.

'Recover' was the rallying cry. There was an Economic Recovery Commission set up

a few months after they took over the government, and they brought together all

kinds of sociologists and business people, and they consolidated and amalgamated

various agencies of the government, and set up a new corporation which, after a

couple of years, they called Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador.

So there was going to be recovery and enterprise and

competition, and there was going to be immediate action to diversify the

economy. They were going to do that as a means of delivering on their campaign

promises to improve health care, to open more hospital beds, to boost university

education, because one university definitely was not good enough for

Newfoundland and Labrador. There was no way Clyde Wells was going to settle for

one university. There had to be not one university, not two, not three, but four

or five, and the Member for Gander helped him write that campaign speech that he

delivered with such sincerity in February of 1989. That would have been vintage

Clyde Wells on the subject of higher education.

He was saying that what Brian Peckford had done was wrong. He

wasn't going to stand for that. He knew about the financial position of the

Province. He, being a conscientious lawyer, had studied all the financial

statements of the Province and he was convinced as a matter of principle that we

had to have four or five universities. He was speaking to the Gander Chamber of

Commerce with the Liberal candidate for Gander in the room, and his provincial

campaign manager, whom he proceeded to name as vice-president of Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador, the man who would have given the loan to the chicken

and ribs restaurant in Gander because they were going to immediately diversify

the economy.

These were the people in that room when Clyde Wells sincerely

told the people of the Province that when he became Premier he was going to

build the second university in Central Newfoundland.

Then, when he moved into the Premier's Office and met with

various civil servants - he fired a few - but when he grouped the ones that he

deigned to continue on the payroll, and got a thorough briefing, consulted his

Minister of Finance, he proceeded to reiterate in the first Throne Speech - was

it? - that the government was going to proceed with the construction of the

Central Newfoundland university, and the expansion of Grenfell College in Corner

Brook to offer full arts and science degrees, adding third and fourth year.

Now, they were forecasting a current account surplus. The

months went on. They jettisoned a few programs - they cut single mothers. But

they proceeded with the plans to have a Central Newfoundland university campus,

and they got bids in from all kinds of communities and groups.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every crook and cranny in Central -

MS. VERGE: Yes, every crooked nanny in central

Newfoundland took

part in competing for that university campus - every nook and

cranny. At any rate, they kept the charade going for at least a year, wasn't it?

MR. WINSOR: A full year.

MS. VERGE: A full year, the Member for Fogo says.

MR. WINSOR: And communities making proposals.

MS. VERGE: Yes, lots of business for consultants.

Finally, they just couldn't keep it up any longer and they had to tell the truth

- the whole thing was pie in the sky.

There hasn't been another word about the Premier's commitment

to have universities in Southern Newfoundland or Northern Newfoundland or

Labrador. The Premier, who finally got a district for himself, Bay of Islands,

when he has been in that area, when he has been skiing at Marble Mountain,

hasn't even talked about his promise to expand Grenfell College.

MR. FLIGHT: Humber East, next time.

MS. VERGE: Humber East next time. Well, I hope so. I am

ready for any challenge. Why not?

MR. FLIGHT: He's got the ground work done now.

MS. VERGE: Why not? The people of Humber East passed

judgement once, and I am sure they would be quite capable of passing judgement a

second time.

Chairperson, I have talked about all the measures this

government has taken to decrease the spending power of the citizens of the

Province, to cut into the disposable income of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

They have jacked up the personal income tax rate not once, not twice, but three

times. In their very first Budget, they increased the personal tax rate. Of

course, that has been built in and that has continued to extract more and more

money from the citizens of the Province. They have increased the business income

tax rate.

They created a whole new tax, the payroll tax, and that is a

tax which is a disincentive to do business in this Province. Our neighbouring

provinces don't have the payroll tax. The payroll tax is a disincentive for

businesses that are in the Province to employ people. The tax has no

relationship to a business's profitability. The retail sales tax has been

increased, the base has been broadened, and it has been piggybacked on the GST.

Effectively this government is charging a 13 per cent sales tax.

Municipal taxes have been increased, quite drastically in

some cases, and it is all because of the policies and actions of this

government. This government has put the boots to municipalities. The government

has slashed funding to municipalities. Pretending to redistribute funding, to

take from the rich and give to the poor, they have taken from everyone.

Sometimes they pretend to take from the small and give to the big. In the

district I represent there is the City of Corner Brook, which has had the

highest municipal tax rates in the Province for years. This government has

reduced funding to that municipality. The government at the same time has

reduced funding to every other municipality in the district I represent.

There has been a dramatic decrease in provincial funding to

municipalities, and that decrease is quite out of proportion to the slowing in

the rate of increase of federal transfers to the Province. Because contrary to

what members opposite are saying, there hasn't been an absolute decrease in

federal funding. Granted, the increase has not kept pace with the cost of doing

business, the cost of providing services, the cost of operating the provincial

government.

But yes, the Government House Leader is getting out his

Budget document, as well he might. In the estimates document near the front

there is a

summary of revenue. I would draw to his attention page, Roman

numeral, viii. My eyesight is deteriorating as I'm aging so it is harder for me

to decipher this now. But I think it is page, Roman numeral, viii. We will see

than last year, by a very slight margin.

Now granted, that doesn't allow the Province to meet all its

former commitments and obligations, so there is a revenue crunch for the

Province because of federal government fiscal policies. But the problem that is

being passed from the federal government to the Province is not nearly as great

as what is being passed by the Province to the municipalities. The municipal

downloading is way out of whack with what is being done by the federal

government to the Province. The Province's municipal affairs policies, or lack

of policies and actions, have been done without proper planning, without

consultation.

Now the new minister is listening. The new minister has

signalled a desire to take a different approach and I welcome that. But that

comes late in the going. This government has been in office for more than three

years. They brought down four budgets. They have shafted municipalities through

the reduction in the municipal operating grants, through the changes in the

formula which hurt particularly -

MR. CHAIRMAN (Crane): Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Time is up. I will have to resume later. One

of my colleagues will have to take over.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill No. 14).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion 4. Bill 16.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 1 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: I've now called motion 4, Bill 16. He is

calling the first clause.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "An Act To Amend The Health And

Post-Secondary Education Tax Act."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have a

few words about the Bill so that hon. members then can have a few words as well.

Then all hands will have a few words and then we will either pass it or reject

it, whatever the wishes of the House are.

Mr. Chairman, we are proposing to increase the payroll tax by

a half a per cent on all businesses which presently pay the payroll tax and to

reduce the exemption from $300,000 worth of payroll per year to $100,000 worth

of payroll per year and, to extend the tax to those industries which did not pay

the tax last year, namely the fishing industry, the agriculture industry and the

forestry industry both primary and secondary, but we propose that these newly

taxed industries will be taxed at half the rate of the others. This will result

in a 1 per cent tax on the renewable resource industries and a 2 per cent tax

rate on all the others.

It was essential that we get rid of that school tax, and the

school tax comprised two parts. One was the poll tax that individuals paid

generally, and we were very glad to get rid of that poll tax, even though the

members opposite would have very much wanted to retain it, however, nobody else

except the members opposite wished to retain the poll tax except certain

individuals who are collecting the tax and generally speaking that was well

accepted in the Province as a proposal.

The other half of the school tax was a property tax

assessment on businesses, and in order to eliminate the whole School Tax

Authorities, we also eliminated the property tax for businesses. It is

interesting about property taxes and whether they should be eliminated or not

because we have to realize that the rate of property tax in this Province is the

lowest in Canada. Our average rate is something like now about one-third of the

national average on property taxes, so Newfoundlanders were not very heavily

taxed as far as property taxes were concerned and they are less heavily taxed

now as a result of our Budget, but not much less so, because the elimination of

the business tax did not result in a great deal of funds for the government, but

it is something that we have to face in the future whether we are going to keep

with the low property tax or whether we should be like other provinces and have

higher taxes on property.

We are out of step with the other Canadian provinces and

while it is true that some of our taxes are higher than they are in Nova Scotia,

it is also true that the property taxes that businesses pay in Newfoundland are

much less than they are in the Atlantic Provinces and in fact much less than

they are in Canada. The Province cannot impose a property tax at the moment,

basically because all the property in the Province has not yet been assessed. We

have some municipalities that have not had their properties assessed and there

is non-incorporated areas where property has not been assessed as well, so it is

impossible at the moment at least for the Province to proceed with a

province-wide property tax even if we wanted to, and we don't, and also it is

traditional in Newfoundland to be against property taxes.

That was one of the reasons why Confederation failed in the

nineteenth century and was one of the main arguments against Confederation in

the 1948 debates, the whole question of whether everything is to be taxed, so

there is a feeling in the Province that property taxes should not be in place,

but at the same time, they are in place in most provinces of Canada at a much

higher rate than they are in Newfoundland and so this is something that people

have to be considering.

In any event we decided to remove the school portion of the

property tax when we removed the School Tax Authorities, and instead we had to

recoup those funds and the fairest way to do it would be through the payroll

tax, realizing though, that there are certain - even though when we did that,

businesses would be less heavily taxed this year than they were last year, on

the average. The total taxes on businesses this year are $2 million less than

they were last year. However, let me say that some businesses will be paying

more tax than they did last year. Particularly does that apply to businesses

which have a large component of labour in their operation, and not much

property. This applies particularly to labour contractors and people of that

nature who basically provide labour for a variety of businesses; but usually

these contracts are short-term for a year, and in the second term, by increasing

their rates to the people they supply the labour to, they should be all right.

So overall we feel that the decision to increase the property

tax is as fair as we could, under the circumstances, given our resolve to

eliminate this very unfair tax, the school tax.

Hopefully, we were also thinking that possibly we would not

have to replace the school tax. We could just eliminate it and hope that our

increase in revenues that we would normally get from increased transfer

payments, or the increased yield on taxes which were presently in place, would

be able to cover it. Unfortunately, our predictions from the retail sales tax

were down, so our taxes were not yielding, because of the projections in the

economy, would not yield sufficient to replace the school tax. So we had no

alternative but to increase the tax. The other alternative would have been to

increase the budgetary deficit.

Our budgetary deficit this year on current account is

something like $29 million or $30 million, if we are lucky. If things go fine we

should be down about $30 million. Some people have suggested that we could

increase our budgetary deficit. That is completely out of touch. If the economy

were better and we could support more debt, perhaps we might be able to do it;

but the fact remains that the fishing industry is not in very good shape at the

moment, and unless steps are taken to improve fish stocks, we cannot count on

that industry bouncing back very quickly.

The other perceived weakness in the economy is the need to

get a partner for Hibernia. So it is very important for us not to increase our

deficit. If we had increased our deficit, or planned to increase our deficit, we

would have been in trouble with our creditors. I tell you, that is an ever

present fear that we have about our credit rating. We feel that we have been

managing the Province's finances reasonably prudently, as prudently as ever as

possible, but the fact remains that the economy is not as strong as we would

like it to be. So we cannot bear a great deal more debt. That is the basic

problem that we have been facing in Newfoundland for a long time, and which we

are facing even more seriously now than we did a couple of years ago. This is

exacerbated by the federal government having to come to grips with their

budgetary deficit. The latest reports are that the federal budgetary deficit

will probably be greater this year than they had anticipated a month or so ago,

so it does not seem that the federal government will be able to give us any

great relief also.

We have had no alternative but to bring back, to increase the

payroll tax slightly. My reading of events is that there are some businesses who

will be hurt somewhat by that, but I do not think anyone will be hurt severely.

The fact that the tax is 1 per cent in the case of most businesses, and 2 per

cent in the case of other businesses, means that businesses will still hire

labour. It is still profitable for businesses, if they are going to hire

somebody, to hire them to increase their business. The fact that there is a 1

per cent tax on payroll is not a sufficient disincentive for that to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Any mouthings by the people opposite to

indicate that the unemployment situation of this Province is caused by the

payroll tax is sheer nonsense. It is sheer nonsense. The payroll tax is smaller

than it is in Quebec. It is smaller in rate than in Manitoba, it is similar to

what it is in Ontario. It is lower on some parts. There are 10,000 businesses

out there which do not pay any payroll tax at all and also, for the first time,

do not pay any school tax.

So this move is not against business. It is a prudent move

and one which we should support. If there are any questions that members

opposite have to raise about it, I would be glad to try to get their answers.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. This payroll tax is a

ridiculous tax which is causing the exact opposite result to what the government

says is their objective. Now they talk about their objective in boosting the

economy and increasing employment. This is a tax that is a disincentive to

either. It is a disincentive to do business in Newfoundland and Labrador when

the maritime provinces do not have a payroll tax, and when increasingly

businesses have a choice of setting up an office in St. John's or in Halifax, in

Corner Brook or in Moncton. It is a discouragement for businesses that are in

the Province to add to their employment rolls.

This administration brought in the payroll tax before they

made a decision about abolishing the school tax. Last year they introduced the

payroll tax, this year they are expanding the payroll tax. This is a tax which

has no relationship whatsoever to a business' profitability. Now not very many

members opposite have ever been in business. The Member for Baie Verte would be

one of the few exceptions, and I am sure he can understand what I am saying.

Because of the modus operandi opposite, he is no more likely than the Member for

Eagle River or anyone else to speak publicly in opposition to the government.

Privately they are all grumbling, complaining, and backbiting, but out in public

you will not find any one of them differing with the Premier or the Minister of

Finance.

Now this payroll tax has no relationship whatsoever to a

business' ability to pay. It is a tax on a business' payroll. The more a

business' payroll, the more employees paid by the business, the greater the tax

take. So why would a business that has a choice of setting up an office in

Halifax versus St. John's choose St. John's? There is no payroll tax in Nova

Scotia, but we have had a payroll tax here for the last year or two. Ever since

the payroll tax came in the economy has been in decline in this Province.

Because the payroll tax has come on top of the increases in

the personal income tax rate, the business income tax rate, the retail sales tax

rate, and of course, the federal GST. This payroll tax has come on top of the

drastic municipal tax increases, the electricity price increases, the increases

in fines and licenses. So it is one more measure that is eating into business

revenue, that is taking away from businesses' profits. Of course, many

businesses in our Province haven't had an operating profit over the last couple

of years, in particular, but nevertheless, they are expected to pay the payroll

tax. They are expected to pay the income tax. They are expected to pay retail

sales tax.

As I was saying earlier when I was speaking to the latest

bill increasing the personal income tax rates, these revenue measures that have

been chosen by this government have been necessitated because of their

mismanagement of the government, and because of their failure to improve the

business climate in the Province. In terms of government operation for matters

directly within their control, they are failing, and failing miserably. This

government is in charge of a multimillion dollar construction budget, highway

construction, municipal capital works construction.

Now the government, after having made campaign promises for

early tendering, for maximizing our short construction time, and for allowing

orderly planning and construction activity, has allowed most of the month of

May, 1992 to go by with very few tenders called. Now there have been millions of

dollars worth of projects announced, but there have been delays because of lack

of will, or because of bureaucratic inefficiency, in getting the tenders out,

and getting the dollars out, and generating employment and producing

construction.

The Member for Humber Valley has drawn this to people's

attention over recent weeks. He has pointed out that despite announcements of

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, for millions and millions of dollars worth of

municipal capital projects and road work, hardly any tenders have been called.

Every Saturday we check the want ads in The Western Star and The Evening

Telegram, and what have we seen so far? Hardly any tender calls.

What about the $50 million of municipal capital works funding

the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced a month or so ago? What happened to

all that? Is that another con job? Can the municipalities slated to get the

money afford to take advantage of it with the onerous cost-sharing formula, and

with the slashes of operating funding? Perhaps not, but out of that $50 million,

a fair bit of it must be affordable to the municipalities for which it was

pledged. Why have their projects not been tendered yet? In cases where

municipalities cannot afford to take advantage of it, is the government going to

face facts, admit to the truth, and reallocate that funding to municipalities

who can afford to use it? This is May 21st. There is not a lot of time left for

getting these contracts awarded and getting construction activity under way if

we are going to take advantage of our short construction season. We have had

good weather for the past couple of weeks. Or are we going to see tenders

appearing in the papers in August and September? Are we going to see desperate,

cobbled together attempts at construction in October and November? Is that what

we are in for?

This is a government that presents itself as being orderly

and logical. The Premier poses as a good manager, but the evidence on the ground

is dead opposite. The government has not planned properly, or else the

government is deliberately fooling people. There are two possibilities. Either

they are mismanaging, failing to do their homework, neglecting research, and

allowing things to happen in a haphazard fashion, reacting to crises as they

develop, using their PR people to do damage control. That is one possibility,

and that is what it looks like to me.

The other possibility involves a rather Machiavellian

approach to governing. It involves a fairly elaborate, devious plan to announce

multimillions of dollars worth of projects, and lead the people to believe that

something is going to happen when in fact very little of that is happening. That

is certainly the approach they took to providing university campuses.

So now the government has mismanaged the government. Point

number one. In the case of the government capital works budget the government is

not spending what is available to employ people and to get construction activity

under way. The government is not allowing municipalities and other government

funded agencies to proceed in an orderly way to operate efficiently.

In the case of school boards, to cite another example,

another type of government funded agency, the government decided on drastically

changing the financing arrangement by eliminating school taxation, but did not

make that decision or announce it until partway through a school year and

partway through a budget year. Then waited until the last minute to tell

everyone how they were going to replace the lost revenue. This spring school

boards are having to borrow large sums of money to get by during this interim

period while school taxation is being phased out and the new funding arrangement

begins. School boards are incurring hefty costs to borrow, and there will be no

reimbursement for those interest charges.

School boards should not have to be spending money for

nothing. Every cent a school board spends these days should go directly for the

benefit of the students the school boards are charged to educate.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Carbonear.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk for a few minutes

about the payroll tax. I want to do this publicly, because I want my colleagues

on this side of the House, as well as the other side of the House, maybe

together we could pressure my colleague, the Minister of Finance, into being

maybe a little lenient towards, let's say, municipalities, for one.

I don't know if you realise it or not, but with the

introduction of the payroll tax and the reduction from $300,000 down to

$100,000, you are looking at the first of July. I would dare to guess there are

around 200 communities in this Province that will be hit with that extra burden

of having to pay 1 per cent on their payroll, now that it is set at $100,000.

Whereas a lot of communities in the Province, because it was up to $300,000

before, were exempt from it. But now there are a number of communities that will

be hit.

The problem with that, of course, is that with the - and I

agree to a certain extent - that with the road component grant being

discontinued this year and the grant system being changed somewhat for

municipalities in the last couple of years, I would think that that was going to

add an extra burden to a lot of communities in this Province on July 1. The

problem with that is that municipalities have not budgeted this year for that

increase for that payroll tax.

So what they do, I am not sure. They will have to come back

to the minister I guess and readjust their budgets accordingly. But smaller

towns in my area that are up above now the $100,000, one in particular, Small

Point to Adam's Cove, was hit seriously with the changes in the component grant

structure this year, and they lost $20,000. Now we are going to hit them again

with another possible cost of... I don't know, maybe $2,000 or $3,000. For a

small community that size $2,000 or $3,000 means a lot of money to them.

I would like to ask the minister to consider the possibility

of relieving the municipalities in the Province, because they are on a budget, a

budget that has been approved by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. At least relieve them for that six month period and give them a chance

then, as of January 1, 1993, to be able to cope with the increase in the tax and

be able to budget accordingly for it. I hope that some of my colleagues over

here as well as my colleagues in Opposition will maybe agree with me. Maybe the

minister, from what he is going to collect in that period of time from

municipalities, he could look at it and maybe change it for their benefit to the

first of the year rather than bring it in in July.

A couple of brief comments. I never got a chance to speak on

the Income Tax Bill. But it is relevant as far as I am concerned to a lot of

Newfoundlanders. My hon. colleague for Humber East spoke about school taxes and

income taxes, the taxes that people in the Province are paying. The hon.

minister spoke before her and talked about the amount of tax, the overall tax,

that communities have to pay and people living in communities. So I want to make

just a few brief comments as well.

I have been listening to Opposition members rant and rave, I

suppose, about the school tax disappearing and the increase in income tax. I

took the time, I guess, some two months ago to get a breakdown - and I

circulated it in the House - of exactly what it would mean to the ordinary

resident of Newfoundland. The conclusion that I found and verified after,

through finance and through income tax, was that basically anyone would have to

be making in excess of $30,000 in order to be affected by this increase in the

income tax, the changes in the income tax which would be affected by bringing in

that 4 per cent.

Now, I have to say this to my hon. friend and to you, Mr.

Chairman. I guess, Mr. Chairman, you are basically in the same situation I am

in. There are very few people in my district and in rural Newfoundland who can

honestly say they make $30,000 a year. You take the teachers, the doctors, the

lawyers, the dentists, those people, out of that group in rural Newfoundland,

you have a large percentage of people left who make less than $30,000.

If you are working in a mall in Carbonear or Clarenville

chances are your hourly wage is somewhere between the minimum wage and six or

seven dollars. I know people working in Carbonear, Mr. Chairman, who have worked

in large chains in Carbonear and have been there for the last fifteen years and

they are still only making seven dollars and seven dollars and fifty cents an

hour. Now, if you multiply that by their wage per week and then by month, of

course you end up with much less money than $30,000 a year. In fact, if you add

it up you will find out that somebody who works for ten weeks a year and gets

half decent unemployment stamps and then goes on unemployment insurance, usually

ends up with even more money per year than somebody who is working for twelve

months.

So, Mr. Chairman, I can honestly say that in my district,

when it was announced by this government that the school tax had disappeared,

and even when the announcement came in the budget that the personal income tax

would increase, people still realized that there was a great saving to them. In

a lot of cases, the saving was the amount of the school tax. So that is gone,

that burden is gone. That affected too, Mr. Chairman, all the business

community, I suppose. It didn't affect the municipalities as such, but it

affected communities, businesses in the communities, because of the tax that was

on property.

I have to honestly say that I am going to support this

particular bill, Bill 16, because I really don't think that anyone in

Newfoundland and Labrador today expects that we, as a Province, can afford to

keep our schools, our education system at the level it is at or our health care

system at the level it is at right now, without having to increase our revenue.

In order to increase our revenue in the Province it basically means that we have

to raise taxes. It is probably the most deplorable thing that an MHA or any

member of the House, in the Opposition or government, has to do and has to

argue, I guess, that raising taxes is a cardinal sin, when it comes to politics.

In this particular case and in this Province, at this

particular time, when we are in such a dire economic state, I guess, Mr.

Chairman, and the fact that the federal government has continuously in the last

number of years decreased our transfer payments, our equalization payments and

other payments, someone has to pick up the slack.

I do hope that the Minister of Finance, my good friend, will

seriously look at the possibility of exempting municipalities in this Province

from this payroll tax until the 1st of January, 1993 which would then relieve

them of having to come up with extra dollars in the middle of the year, for

which they did not budget and that will cause all kinds of headaches around the

Province, and it will also cause headaches for my hon. colleague, the hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, because budgets are going to have

to be re-adjusted, re-examined and most of our municipalities out there today

cannot, at this particular point in time, afford to lose one cent let alone a

dollar or $5,000 or $10,000. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Humber Valley, it being a little after four, I will announce the questions for

the adjournment debate at 4:30.

Number one: I am dissatisfied with the answer from the

Minister of Health on the Cardiology Unit - the hon. the opposition party whip,

the hon. Member for Harbour Main.

Number two: I am not satisfied with the answers by the

Minister of Environment and Lands to my questions regarding the opening and

closing dates of provincial parks - the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

Number three: I am not satisfied with the answers given by

the Minister of Fisheries in response to my question, re the Fisheries Loan

Board - the hon. Member for Fogo.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to make a few comments on Bill 16, and in

particular I would like to, I suppose echo some of the comments made by the

Member for Carbonear, especially as it pertains to municipalities in the

Province and small businesses as a whole, but more specifically to

municipalities.

Mr. Chairman, in late 1990, the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs changed the MOG system, the Municipal Operating Grants, in

late- well really it was after Boxing Day, the 28th of December, 1990.

Municipalities in the Province are supposed to have their budgets in by December

31st, and they are supposed to present a balanced budget. They are not supposed

to submit a budget with any deficit whatsoever, but most municipalities had

their budgets sent in early in December of 1990. Then to add insult to injury,

Mr. Chairman, they came out in late 1991, and I mean late 1991, with more

changes to the Municipal Operating Grant to take effect in 1992. No I think it

was January or February 1992 that was changed, telling municipalities that their

roads component was knocked down from $1,949 per kilometer to $1,269 or

something like that, and furthermore, in the next year it will be down to $859

or $849. Now, this is going to be done retroactively.

Municipalities who had their road components for 1991, were

told in early 1992, after submitting a budget in December, the budgets submitted

for the second year in a row, and told that there was going to be a cut for that

year, and a cut for the previous year, so automatically, the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, went and cut the roads component and took it

out of the monies that they were allocated for 1992. Every municipality in the

Province that was hit with the roads component, they were told that they were

cut and any adjustments made would be taken out of their cheque, and it was done

after two budgets. Can you imagine?

There are three levels of government. There is municipal

government, the provincial government and the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is right, because I can remember in

Gander when poor old Hazel Newhook dropped the five cents, dropped the fifty

cents on the dollar to forty-five cents. I tell you, the hon. the Member for

Carbonear -

MR. WINSOR: He danced on the table.

MR. WOODFORD: I guarantee you, there was fire under his

feet.

MR. MATTHEWS: He never cut back on his spending though.

MR. WOODFORD: I guarantee you, that was a memorable day

in Gander. The poor lady was up on the stage there and, I guarantee you, if she

ever got a grilling she got it that day.

Now, how anybody can sit down in another level of government

in this Province - I mean, municipalities in the Province are pretty well all

volunteers, the majority of them - and do the like of that to them and expect

them to come up with dollars after the fact - it is bad enough when they are

trying to bring in a budget. I know members opposite must have mentioned this to

their colleagues around the caucus table. They had to, because they have

municipalities in their districts that are bringing those concerns to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a word.

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, yes! Oh, yes! I say to the hon. member,

now, he may not, he only has two or three. He just might not. But the Member for

St. Barbe, the Member for the Straits, the Minister of Health, the Member for

Carbonear, anybody out in rural Newfoundland, guaranteed it had to be brought to

their attention. It had to be because of the roads component in Municipal

Affairs and some of the adjustments made to the municipal operating grant

system, and when it was done after their budgets were in.

Now to come with the payroll tax, and not only to increase it

but also to lower the ceiling from $300,000 down to $100,000, again, Mr.

Chairman, after the budgets were submitted, after the fact. Now, it is one thing

to do it and give people time to adjust. The Province itself obviously wanted

time to adjust. They brought in changes to the registration fees, like Crown

Lands, Department of Health inspections and so on. I agree with it, changes to

drop the fees. But some of them are not applicable 'til April of 1993. So they

needed time to adjust their budgets. Is it that hard for members opposite to

afford municipalities the same kind of courtesy and give them time to submit

their budgets and be able to do something, whether it be to raise taxes or not?

Municipalities around the Province have a tough time of it

today, Mr. Chairman, a very tough time. It is one thing for the former Minister

of Municipal Affairs and the current minister - I must say about the current

minister today, at least he has a soft spot in his heart for municipalities in

the Province. He has it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Who?

MR. WOODFORD: The Member for Placentia.

MR. MATTHEWS: A soft spot for what?

MR. WOODFORD: For municipalities in the Province.

MR. DOYLE: And that is the soft spot right there.

MR. WOODFORD: I will guarantee you, he has his hands

full. It is a good thing he is a big man, I will guarantee you that, because he

has his hands full when he sits down around the Cabinet table with hon.

colleagues opposite. I can see the Minister of Finance -

MR. WINSOR: The old slasher.

MR. WOODFORD: The old slasher, getting up and saying: No

way, Hogan. We are not changing it.

MR. DOYLE: The only soft spot he has is on the top of his

shoulders.

MR. MATTHEWS: You may be Hulk Hogan but I am not afraid

of you.

MR. WOODFORD: And Hulk Hogan, Sir, I'll tell you will

look over at him and give him some hard looks.

MR. MATTHEWS: Did you hear that they are setting up mud

wrestling up in the Cabinet room now?

MR. WOODFORD: No, I didn't hear that.

MR. DOYLE: Hulk Hogan is like a sumo wrestler.

MR. WOODFORD: I tell you, the biggest job he is going to

have is trying to convince his Cabinet colleagues, especially the St. John's

members -

AN HON. MEMBER: How would the (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, the St. John's members are going to be

the hardest. I can see now they are going to be the hardest to convince. There

is no way in the world of getting through to them. They haven't had a call from

council since they got elected. Never got a call from council. I venture to bet

that the members opposite don't know what it is like to get a call from council.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did last Friday.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, you did get a call from council last

Friday. They all went down and had a cup of tea and a sit-in and a love-in at

City Hall. Mr. Chairman, they have one municipality to deal with. The council

looks after water and sewer, the streets, the lighting. They haven't got a

worry. The Member for Windsor - Buchans - well he is not too bad, I suppose, but

he still got it bad. The Member for Bonavista South, the Member for St. Barbe,

they know what it is like to get calls from their constituents about water and

sewer, I will guarantee you that, and about roads not being done.

It is all right for the Minister of Finance to get up and

talk about property business and so on, but if there is ever a time when any

government administration needs someone to help them out with jobs today, it is

today. Who is going to help? Who is going to create the jobs in the Province? Is

it going to be the businesspeople who are in business today, and there is going

to be potential; the people who do get into business? Government is not.

Government is getting out of the job of creating jobs, out of the responsibility

of creating jobs, and how is a businessman today going to create a job when the

first thing he looks at, right off the top there is 2 per cent for every man,

woman, and child that he hires, because automatically by hiring someone he is

going to add $20,000 to the payroll - automatically - so that goes up. Right

away he pays a tax because he hired someone to go to work.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. WOODFORD: Two per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Two per cent on the ceiling, anything above

$100,000. I have had businesses come to me, one in particular in Deer Lake now,

a small business - I was surprised. He is a small businessman. Right now he is

hiring seventy-five people. I consider it a small business, especially in the

service industry. His payroll tax this year is going to go up $3,800. Now he is

expected to hire another ten or fifteen people this summer, for summer help and

so on, so before ever that is done he has to take into consideration the fact

that he has to pay the extras. Now it is not only the 2 per cent, from 1.5 to 2,

but to add insult to injury, they have the ceiling lowered. The ceiling is gone

from $300,000 down to $100,000; making it tougher and harder on business people

in the Province. That is regressive, when you are looking to businesses in the

Province to try to take us out of the economic slump that we are in. That is

regressive.

In municipalities, the same thing, only it is worse. It is

worse because now they cannot go to the people. The government can go to the

people. The government introduced an increase in income tax. Automatically that

was kicked in in January or February month. When you go to file your income tax

return, when you get your cheque on Friday evening, that is taken out. Have

municipalities got that right? No. The only two levels of government that have

the right and the access to take that out of your cheque are the provincial and

the federal governments. The municipalities do not have that. Yet you are

expecting them to put their mil rate up to cover the expenses in a municipality.

They have to go to the people. They are the same people living in that

municipality who almost have to go door-to-door to collect that tax, their own

friends. 'Proper thing' the Minister of Finance says. I can see the mentality. I

can see it now around the Cabinet table what is happening. I suppose there are

not enough of the members from other areas to try to take them on and put the

boots to them and tell them: look, enough is enough. Municipalities just cannot

absorb it, and let the people out in rural Newfoundland explain to the Minister

of Finance that a property in St. John's, if you put the mil rate up half a mil,

or a mil, you could collect all kinds of money. Put it up in rural Newfoundland,

in a municipality where the average property is around $38,000 or $40,000. You

do not get it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: You can put the mil rate what you like. If

you only have seven or eight -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Let me explain to the minister, because

obviously he does not know how it works. I will explain to you.

If you have a municipality in the Province where you only

have six or seven or eight properties that are worth a lot of money, we will

say, most of the properties are down around $25,000 or $30,000, you can put the

mil rate to the sky, you are not going to collect any more, you are only going

to hit the five or six people in that municipality. Can the members understand

that? Obviously, they do not. The minister does not -

MR. MATTHEWS: He does not know property is assessed

(inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: - and the only way you are going to collect

from people like that, Mr. Chairman, is to put up your poll tax. That is the

only way, and I have a municipality now in my area where, we have to put the

poll tax to $300, for a poll tax. You could say you will have to put a minimum

on your property tax and that is usually carried out with regards to a

(inaudible). Now, Mr. Chairman, it baffles me sometimes when I see some of the

recommendations which come from Municipal and Provincial Affairs, because, I

said it before, the member for Carbonear, the Member for Gander, the Member for

Fortune - Hermitage, they are all people who understand municipalities -

MR. DOYLE: How can you do it?

MR. WOODFORD: - and they know how hard it is to collect.

It is one thing to put it on, collect, is another matter, Mr. Chairman, and they

cannot do it especially in those times and I am right, they know I am right in

what I am talking about. The Minister of Finance might not know, I can see that,

I can see him not understanding how it works but I can tell you, Mr. Chairman,

that if there was ever a time when a payroll tax - it is one thing to bring it

in and there is another thing to collect it and at the same time I wonder, did

they do any surveys? I wonder how many polls were done to find out how many

businesses are going to go out and how many businesses are not going hire

anybody this year because of that regressive tax? I bet you not one. How many

phone calls were made to municipalities around the Province asking them, are

they going to be able to pay the payroll tax without - especially in the middle

of the year, when their budgets are done, submitted, accepted and that's it.

Where will they get the money? They cannot put their mil rate up in the middle

of the year, they cannot put their poll tax up in the middle of the year, so

what do they do?... they leave something. Something has to be left by the

wayside. Maintenance, someone laid off, something has to stop and it should not

be - I have two municipalities which were going to hire two people this summer,

they are not doing it now, and that is not just because but is one of the

reasons, the other reason is because their road components were cut and the

other reason was because in their local revenue, there were changes in the

Municipal Operating Grant altogether. Now that is the reason and that is only

two of the small municipalities with two people talking about two councils.

Now how many more if you went through this Province, there is

no trouble to pick up 300 or 400 jobs just on that, and I say to the minister,

especially to the minister responsible for Treasury Board, I asked him the other

day and he knows quite well what I am talking about. Any monies that are not

spent or not even allocated, he should make sure, instead of money going back to

the Treasury, I have a funny feeling, something tells me and I could be wrong on

this one but I would say now that I am pretty dead on, that whatever funding is

not spent in transportation and capital funding this year or municipal affairs

is going back into the Treasury to make their credit rating look good. Now that

is the only reason I can see for it, to look good -

AN HON. MEMBER: And what's wrong with that?

MR. WOODFORD: Nothing wrong with it, sir, but there are a

lot of people out there today looking for bread and butter to put on the table.

They are not worried about the credit rating. Municipalities provide jobs if you

have the monies allocated, your credit rating was there when you had it

allocated when you put your capital funding in; spend it. Spend it.

MR. DOYLE: He says no!

MR. WOODFORD: I know, he just admitted what I said was

dead on. They are going to take the $20 million or the $15 million and put it

right back into the Treasury. I know what is going to happen, I can tell him

now, and you venture to bet, every member of the House take note of it today,

unless the Minister responsible for Treasury Board changes it, I can venture to

bet, you are going to come into this House next Spring, at Budget time and he is

going to (inaudible) right here and the same Minister of Finance there, and I do

not know (inaudible) because I will say he has that big an ego now, he won't be

able to get a new pair of shoes to put on his feet when he goes out there, but I

would venture to bet he is going to bring in a document where there was $59

million allocated last year in municipal affairs and municipal infrastructure.

The minister can argue all he likes. Fifty-nine million dollars allocated this

year, right here for anybody to see, is $43 million in municipal infrastructure.

The Budget does not lie. Now whatever minister said otherwise, it is right here

under municipal infrastructure, $48 million - revised estimate $48 million,

spent $36 million. Now don't hon. members get up and tell me it was committed. I

am committed to run again. I am committed to do a lot of things -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are committed to run again?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is right sir, and I cannot wait

to get at it.

There is only one man in this House today. The other one is

gone. God is gone, and God the Son is sitting here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Little God.

MR. WOODFORD: Little God is sitting here, and that is the

minister responsible for Treasury Board. He is the only one who can change this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bud Hulan.

MR. WOODFORD: Bring over Bud Hulan. I am just waiting for

him to start knocking on doors in Humber Valley, I can guarantee you that. There

is nothing like a professor running against a farmer, brother, I tell you that!

If you want to see something fly...

It is like I told Mr. Barry one time when I got in the House.

The first speech in the House when Leo Barry - the Member for Gander will

probably remember that. I got up one day and gave a speech not long after I got

in the House, and Mr. Justice Barry got up and said: Mr. Speaker, I am some glad

the member is sitting down. He was up long enough. He has been shooting off long

enough. I said: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you. I just stopped shovelling

what the hon. member has been shooting for years. He never said it anymore, I

can assure you.

Anyway, there is only one person who can change this, and

that is the Minister responsible for Treasury Board, because he has the clout.

Around the Cabinet table they listen, and around the caucus table they listen.

He has the clout, no question, and he is the only one that the Premier is going

to listen to - guaranteed.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Ed Roberts?

MR. WOODFORD: No, including Ed Roberts - including the

minister, Roberts, because he is carrying the load. He is the one who has to

bring in all this legislation. He is responsible for that. He is responsible for

getting all the members on committees. He is responsible for getting everything