May 19,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the last two days, a person by the name of Francis

Patey presented me with a book called 'The Jolly Poker', and knowing the author

of this book very well and having read the book over the weekend, it is most

interesting and in fact most entertaining for a lot of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of book that tells us about our

heritage and about the days gone by, and I would like to suggest to the

government that every consideration be given to this particular book and in fact

my hon. colleague, the Minister of Health, is from his district and I would like

the government to really consider having this book in all the schools in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, Francis and I have had detailed

discussions on this book and his other book and I would certainly join with

members of this House in extending to him congratulations. I have already

discussed with the Minister of Education about putting his previous book and his

latest one into the schools, it is not just as simple as that but it is

certainly a matter which the minister has been considering in a very in-depth

way over the past number of times and I certainly join with the member in

wishing Francis the best wishes on his past book and his second one.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of hon. members, I would like to

welcome to the public galleries today twenty-eight Grade IX students from the

Integrated Collegiate School of Carbonear, and they are accompanied by their

teachers, Mrs. Deering and Mr. Sparkes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, we have seven visitors from the Moscow

Circus. These people are seeking to be immigrants of Canada and they have been

going around demonstrating to various groups, and I am sure all hon. members

would like to welcome them here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask a couple of

questions of the Minister of Finance, the Member for St. John's Centre. The

reason for the questions is to try to get some clear answers from the minister,

and clear answers from the government, because I know there have been similar

questions asked.

Last year the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the

Government, announced publicly the postponement of the implementation of tax

reforms which he had earlier intended to introduce, I think it was in January or

something of this year. I want to ask the minister if he can state clearly: Does

the government intend to proceed with reforming the tax system as outlined

earlier and, if so, has he set a date for this implementation? Could he tell us

the date that he has in mind?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we have no date for

implementation in mind, because we have no plans to implement anything at the

moment. What we are doing is studying more carefully the ramifications and the

implications for businesses, and the Province generally, of harmonizing with the

goods and services tax.

Our previous study was broader than the goods and services

tax. We had that in our mind, but we had a whole series of things that we were

thinking about doing, and we might do, and we have narrowed it down a bit. Now

we are trying to find out some more information as to how, if we do harmonize

with the goods and services tax, it will affect a variety of businesses. What we

are doing, we are asking now for input from businesses. We are also going to be

sending officials to talk to businesses, or to meet with businesses, just to be

sure of what the impact might be if we were to harmonize with the goods and

services tax.

That is good for now, Mr. Speaker, I think.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry. I nearly dozed off listening to

the minister's response.

Can the minister tell the House: What is different about the

procedure he now is following in going out and meeting with businesses and

talking to businesses - what is different from that procedure, talking about

harmonization of the tax, than what was done earlier when we argued for a more

open process and he said, no, no. We are out now talking to businesses with his,

I do not know what it was, a white paper or a green paper or something that he

had put out. What is different about that process - in terms of the

harmonization issue? Let's keep it on harmonization.

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

DR. KITCHEN: The paper that was attached to the Budget of

the year before last was a broadly based paper dealing with issues of

harmonization, and we got a fair amount of input back at that. When we put it

all together the realization came about that if we were to harmonize and give

businesses input tax credits we would have to forego something like $180 million

of business taxes that we raise on RST from businesses, and if we were to forego

$180 million how would we recoup it?

One way, some of it might be recouped by broadening the base

to take in some of the services that are taxed under the GST, but a large part

would not be so recouped and we would have had to increase business taxes.

Perhaps we would have to increase the payroll tax even more than it is now or

other business taxes, and that was a bit much for us to do.

Even though there are great merits in this Province for

harmonizing with the GST as far as business expansion is concerned, getting

involved in international trade, because that is what we really are, an

international trading country, yet we felt that we should study the impact of

this tax much more precisely on businesses. So it is a more precise study now

then it was before because at that time we were thinking of a variety of taxes

related to harmonization. One of them was that we would just forego the business

inputs completely and just tax everything that the federal government taxed

without giving businesses inputs. So we have ruled out that part now and we are

narrowing our study down.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his very

enlightening answer. It brings me around to my final supplementary and the

purpose of my questions.

Since the minister has said, and I think his very words were

that they do not have plans at the moment to implement anything, and since I

think he said also there is no date for implementation of the plan and they are

doing further study and so on, and since it is I suppose something that this

government has often preached; the need to give the people more chance to have a

say in major policy initiatives - well certainly this would be a major policy

initiative - does the minister think he will be able to convince his colleagues

in government that the government should take advantage now of this delay,

particularly with the summer break coming upon us, with a legislative committee

to perhaps hold some public hearings around the Province to see what the people

of the Province think about the ideas that the government might have with

respect to tax reform? Do you think the minister might see that as a beneficial

move?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

question for the Minister of Fisheries.

There are some problems with the Province's crab fishery. I

am wondering if the Minister of Fisheries could inform the House what the status

of the crab fishery is now? I understand that they have stopped fishing I think

it is 3L, and it may be extended to 3K and so on. There seems to be some serious

problem with the crab fishery, coming on the back of the problems that we have

with our groundfish resources. I am just wondering if the minister could update

the House on the status of the crab fishery.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to take that question

as notice and hopefully provide an answer to the hon. gentleman tomorrow. I have

heard certain things but certainly not enough that I could fully answer that

question. So I will take it as notice and provide an answer tomorrow.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to

the minister. My understanding is that there is a real danger, because of prices

and other problems, and that there is some suggestion there may not even be a

crab fishery this year. So, as I said, following upon the heels of the downturn

in the groundfish industry and the fallout with the fishing companies and plants

around the Province, it would be quite dramatic if our crab fishery doesn't go

ahead or is in any way significantly reduced. Has the minister met with the

union or any other representatives, or processors, on the crab fishery issue?

Can he inform the House of that? Has he had any meetings within the last while

about that important issue?

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

MR. CARTER: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Another supplementary to the Minister of

Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. There is a problem in the Northern Peninsula area, I

think it is Anchor Point, with the shrimp fishery up there, where apparently,

people can't go shrimp fishing because they don't have buyers for their product.

Is the minister aware of that problem up there? Is he considering another

buyer's licence so that people can go catch shrimp and sell it?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there are two major shrimp

buyers, I guess, on that coast, namely FPI's plant in Port au Choix and Conpak

Seafoods in Anchor Point. Now, I know that there are some problems. In fact, I

have had meetings with the operators of the plant in Anchor Point, and I

understand that they are now in the process of trying to negotiate prices and

trying to get things in order for this year.

We have had requests, by the way, for other processing

licences. In fact, the company that is contemplating reactivating the plant in

Trepassey is going to be looking, I think, for some kind of a shrimp buying or

shrimp processing licence. We have had other enquiries, as well. I believe,

Clearwater Seafoods, the plant that just opened in Grand Bank, the district of

the hon. gentleman, are now looking at maybe the possibility of purchasing

shrimp, not for processing in Grand Bank, I am told, but for freezing and, I

presume, for exporting. But certainly, it is something that is very active now

and the companies are, I presume, doing their own thing, negotiating prices and

trying to get their houses in order for the summer.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and Housing. We now find that the government's amalgamation proposal of

last year is having a disastrous effect on municipalities in this region, gross

increased costs and a lot of confusion. We are also finding, Mr. Speaker, that

developments are now being held up because of these changes in boundaries. We

find that private developers are not able to continue and municipalities, in

some cases, don't really know how to proceed because they don't really know

where they are yet.

Could the minister tell us what plans he has to deal with

this and what problems is he finding as a result of this amalgamation scheme?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: It is a very general question, Mr. Speaker and

I don't know what direction the hon. member is headed in. There have been a lot

of transition problems, I guess you could best describe them as, that each

municipality and each grouping have to address and overcome. Some are relative

to developments and some are relative to various taxations and services,

combining of services, combining of administration and location of new town

halls. There are all kinds of them, Mr. Speaker. I don't know where the hon.

member is headed, specifically.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me be a little more specific for the minister. Let me ask

him, specifically as it relates to the Southlands area which was formerly Mount

Pearl and was stolen away by the previous minister and given to the City of St.

John's. That area now is intended, I assume, to be developed by the City of St.

John's, the problem being that the planning that was done in 1970 totally

incorporated all of the Southlands area, its facilities and its services, with

the City of Mount Pearl.

Can the minister tell the House, Mr. Speaker, what problems

is the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation having with regard to

integrating the services with the services to be provided by the City of Mount

Pearl? Or is the Housing Corporation or the City of St. John's proposing some

scheme to service it independently, which is technically impossible because they

would have to drain through the City of Mount Pearl? What negotiations are

ongoing between the City of St. John's and the City of Mount Pearl as it relates

to sharing of services?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I am not aware of any negotiations which might

be ongoing between the cities, Mr. Speaker, nor would I expect there to be any.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has not, as I understand it,

to date discussed anything with the City of Mount Pearl about integration of

utility services that would have to be overcome with the development of

Southlands and would have to be tied into Mount Pearl.

A number of knowledgeable people have ventured to prophesy

that there are going to be problems, but I have not heard of any problems that

might be encountered in that development as yet.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that private

developments in the area have not been allowed to proceed because nobody can say

now what the form of development will be and who is responsible for it. It is

clear that the Housing Corporation is not moving forward even though we had

thought last spring the construction would have started in the Southlands area

and there is no evidence that it is about to start now. Let me ask the minister,

is the Housing Corporation still expected to develop that area or is this

government having some second thoughts on that? Do we now expect to see the

Housing Corporation being taken out of it altogether? Will we, in fact, see the

Southlands develop?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Never, is too strong a word, Mr. Speaker. I

would anticipate that Southlands and several other major projects that the

housing people have on their plate will be, over time, addressed and hopefully

be developed. The prospect of it never being developed is somewhat negative on

the part of the hon. member. I expect, that, and a number of other in-fill

housing projects to be addressed in the very near future, but Southlands is not

in the immediate plans of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, on a

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask one specific

question of the minister. Can we expect to see development in the Southlands

this year or, is the Housing Corporation being told not to proceed with that

development? Let me also ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, what are the plans now

for the proposed golf course between the Southlands and Cochrane Pond, that

should have been proceeded with years ago, that will create some $8 million to

$10 million of construction activity, that will create about sixty or seventy

permanent jobs and also open up 400 building lots. Is the government going to

proceed with that development, Mr. Speaker, at no cost to government whatsoever,

to be financed totally by the Housing Corporation?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, we do not anticipate going ahead

with Southlands this year.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Minister of Social

Services about the Child Welfare Act. Advocates for children have long said that

there is a need to amend several provisions of The Child Welfare Act. The Hughes

Commission Report, which the government has had for a year now, pointedly

recommended that particular provisions of the act be revised.

I would like to ask the minister, if, instead of

procrastinating, instead of delaying amending the Child Welfare Act until the

fall or next year, will he bring before the House of Assembly, now, this spring,

a bill with amendments that are critically needed? For example, an amendment to

strengthen the child abuse reporting requirement, as called for by the Hughes

Commission report, or, for example, an amendment to extend protection to young

people between the ages of sixteen and eighteen? Will the minister move now on

these critically needed reforms of the Province's Child Welfare Act and get them

passed and enforced before the summer?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I might say that government have not had the Hughes

report for over a year. If the member recalls, I only announced in the House

about two weeks ago, the fact that some thirty-five recommendations had been

made in the Hughes report. It was only shortly before that, that government

received the report, it has not been a year.

The member though, makes some good points when she talks

about some items that are under consideration in the new Child Welfare Act; in

fact, a couple of those items were raised recently with the women's lobby in

Gander, particularly the age category of which she speaks, that is in-between,

of course, the Child Welfare Act and the adult acts that we have in place. Also,

she mentioned, of course, the abuse reporting mechanism. We are, Mr. Speaker,

dealing with several items that we are concerned may need immediate attention.

Now, whether or not we can bring that about in this session, or whether it would

have to wait until later, is hard to determine. We also have to make a decision

whether or not we will await the introduction of the new act in its entirety,

and that is, of course, your question.

Those decisions will be taken very shortly, and I am, at this

present time, preparing recommendations for government in that matter.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have another

question for the Minister of Social Services.

Back in October of 1990 one of the minister's predecessors,

the present Member for Port de Grave made a terribly regressive change in the

Social Assistance regulations. The previous minister then categorized

maintenance and child support as non-allowable income. That change had the

effect of drastically decreasing income for hundreds of single mothers and their

children and removed all of the incentive for people to try to get support from

absent parents or spouses. I believe government departments involved in

administering pertinent programs, Justice and Social Services, have seen the

negative effects of the removal of the incentive. Will the minister confirm what

he told the Social Services Estimates Committee, namely, that he will review the

social assistance regulations and consider reinstating maintenance and child

support as allowable income to restore the incentive.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can say that I will

confirm what I said in the Estimates, that I will look at that particular area.

It was raised as a question then, along with several other questions in the

Estimates that I am preparing answers for, in particular, this one, which is not

an answer in the category of statistics which the others were. This particular

one, of course, requires a change in regulations, and as I commit it I will

certainly look at it.

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

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

the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. As the minister must

appreciate, the women's centres in the Province, which are funded by the federal

government and staffed extensively by volunteers, provide considerable support

to adult survivors of sexual assault. Will the minister take steps to provide,

if not money, then professional resources, to the Province's women's centres

that they may better meet the growing needs of adult survivors of sexual

assault?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: In this case, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister

responsible for the Status of Women: I am not sure if the member is referring to

the questions that she just referred to the Social Services Minister or to the

type of suggestions that arose from the women's lobby, or just the question in

general. I didn't know whether you were specifically - it is just women

survivors of sexual abuse, not children and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. COWAN: If I could just get it clarified a little bit.

I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Humber East, if she will the prcis question.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, this is a new question. I asked

the Minister for Social Services about the Child Welfare Act and about social

assistance regulations dealing with maintenance. I asked the Minister for the

Status of Women whether she will have the government provide to the Province's

women's centres, resources, whether cash or kind, for example, personnel, so

that they may better meet the needs of adult survivors of child sexual assault.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for the Status of

Women.

MS. COWAN: Yes, in my role, Mr. Speaker, as Minister

responsible for the Status of Women, my job is largely to try to influence

government policy. I don't put it in place other than as a member of Cabinet. I

think the question that the critic asks is timely and appropriate in light of

the recent women's lobby, where such matters were brought to our attention, and

we certainly looked at those areas with interest. The Social Services Minister

and I have talked about them and are trying to explore ways in which we might be

able to do this. So it is certainly being explored. We had talked about it

before the lobby, in fact. Work is being done. More exploratory work began the

day after the lobby, at the official level.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

is also to the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Would the minister advise when the applicants for big game

licences will be receiving their notification of whether they are successful or

not? As the minister realizes, this time of year many people are arranging for

their vacation, so will the minister advise when they will be notified of their

successfulness in the big game licence draw?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: As far as I know, that information has gone

out. I will double check it, as the critic has brought it to my attention. If it

has not gone out, it is due to go out almost immediately.

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

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

supplementary to the minister.

At the same time the minister is sending out the notices to

the big game hunters, would the minister also advise if at the same time she

will be advising those hunters of whether they are allowed to hunt on Sunday or

not?

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

Lands.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MS. COWAN: Thank you.

This matter is still under consideration, as I told my hon.

critic in the opposition the other night at the estimates committee. It is high

on my priority list, and I would expect to have reached some sort of conclusion

about it in my own mind within the next week to ten days - in my own mind.

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

supplementary.

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

supplementary to the minister.

The minister said in the committee that it was on her short

list of priorities. I would ask the minister my final supplementary: Would the

minister advise when she will be naming the members to the advisory committee to

her department on the name for the Province? The minister said that was going to

come very shortly. When is that going to be announced?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I would think that my hon. critic is referring

to the WERAC Committee, and I am just in the process now of exploring the

possibility of getting some representation from some of our aboriginal peoples.

Once that is done, I think that I will be content to see it go forward.

I am making a special effort to try to get a good Labrador

representation on this year's particular committee, which I hope is going to

serve the Province well. That has slowed me down a little because of the

problems people often have in getting from Labrador to the Island part of the

Province, even when they want to serve.

So I am trying to get that sorted out, and as soon as I also

have some representatives of the aboriginal community that will be going ahead.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Ever since the Workers' Compensation Review Committee

reported this year, those concerned about benefits for injured workers have been

concerned as to what the government might do. Can the minister advise the House

what his plans are, and is he prepared to assure injured workers, and those who

are subject to workers' compensation, that they will not suffer reduction in

benefits as a result of this report?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the question, it is true that we have been

studying the whole issue, and all of the issues related to workers'

compensation, since we received the Statutory Review Committee's report in

October.

The plan clearly for the government is to try to bring

forward a set of comprehensive recommendations that will take the commission

from its current status, which is collapse anywhere from the year 1996 to 2003,

depending on certain prevailing circumstances; but if nothing is changed, the

actuarial assessment today clearly is that the system will be in a state of

total collapse at the earliest in 1996, at the latest in the year 2003, with the

second highest assessment rates anywhere in the country. So our plan is to bring

in a comprehensive set of recommendations and proposals. We have indicated that

we are hoping to have them in the House of Assembly, tabled - any legislative

changes that are required - before we leave for the summer, so that we can turn

that around and guarantee everybody involved in the workers' compensation system

that there will be a viable, long-term, sustainable workers' compensation system

in the Province, rather than one that is facing imminent collapse.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to give the

hon. minister an opportunity to squelch reports that say that not only is the

government planning to lower the benefits for workers' compensation but also, I

understand - and perhaps the minister would tell us - whether or not there are

plans afoot not only to lower the benefits for workers' compensation, but also

to legislate changes in existing collective agreements which provide for a top

up in certain collective agreements negotiated with this government, to top up

workers' compensation benefits when they are received? Is the government

planning to do anything about that as part of its comprehensive response they

are talking about? Is the government planning to further interfere with

collective agreements by changing provisions with respect to workers'

compensation?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated

in the previous answer, the government is planning on disclosing to the House of

Assembly before we dismiss for the summer all of the details of all aspects of

workers' compensation that need to be addressed to make sure that the workers'

compensation system is maintained in a viable state for its long-term

maintenance and for the benefit of the workers who will need compensation into

the future.

I might point out in relation to the answer as well that in

other provinces recently - in New Brunswick and Manitoba - they have brought

forward changes that dealt with all aspects of compensation in their province.

It is happening across the country. Those changes included changes in the

current levels of benefit payable to injured workers, and they also included

changes referencing the issue of top ups that the hon. member brought forward in

his question. So we in our study of it are looking at all aspects of workers'

compensation. What changes if any are needed in benefit levels, and/or top ups

in collective agreements and so on, will be disclosed as part of a full package

of changes that we will lay before this Legislature before we leave for the

summer.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Final supplementary.

Now that the minister has confirmed that they are considering it, can the

minister assure this House that they will not interfere with existing collective

agreements on the issue of top up of workers' compensation? Can he tell the

House that the government can be trusted to stand by collective agreements that

it has signed with respect to workers' compensation benefits?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is, again, our

intention to deal with every aspect of workers' compensation that has to be

dealt with to make sure that the system is preserved and maintained so that

there are benefits available in Newfoundland and Labrador for injured workers

long into the future. Exactly what moves will be made by the government will be

made clear when I guess I as the minister responsible will stand in this House

and disclose for all hon. members exactly the total components of all the

changes that we will announce. The hon. member can ask specific questions about

any one aspect of it. All of the answers will be given in a single statement on

one day once the government has made its decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I did not want to take up the time of Question

Period, although it was more appropriate that I do it that way. But I would like

to ask the Government House Leader. We had some fairly important questions that

we wanted to ask today with respect to the Royal Commission on Education.

Particularly I wanted to ask the Leader of the Government, but I understand the

Premier is away. I have no problem with that. But the Minister of Education, I

understand, may be away for the rest of this week. Does the Government House

Leader know and could he tell us, so we can properly plan?

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

MR. BAKER: I would like to point out to the hon. member

that if he has important questions to be asked, then he should ask the questions

and not mess around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: If they are important questions, he will get

answers regardless.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education, I understand, is due

back in the House on either Thursday or Friday morning.

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East, on a

point of order.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about the

scheduling of meetings of the Social Services Estimates Committee. Our Committee

has had one session with the five departments we are responsible for, but we

haven't yet completed the estimates of three of the departments, which are

Justice, Environment and Lands and Health. Now, the time limit for committee

consideration of estimates runs out this Thursday. I don't see the Chair of our

Committee in the House. I would like an indication from some representative of

government, perhaps the Government House Leader, about when the Social Services

Estimates Committee will be meeting to conclude our examination of the Justice,

Environment and Lands, and Health estimates.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As is normal, at the end of every day I point out what

committees are next scheduled and so on and I will be doing that at the end of

the period today.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has mentioned, there have

already been five sittings or four, however many departments they had, and they

have already had three hours with each department. We will try to get in as much

time as possible. Mr. Speaker, the time runs out on Friday, not Thursday, and

that would be the fifteen sitting days. So the time limit is Friday at midnight.

I just want to correct that.

Mr. Speaker, I will advise the hon. member, whenever we have

things scheduled, as to exactly when these meetings will occur.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question

concerning my travels during that period between September 17, 1991 and October

15, I want to table the answers.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition signed by 157 citizens of the Province, I

think most if all of them from the District of Green Bay.

The prayer of the petition is as follows, Petition to the

House of Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly in

protest of

Section 7 of Bill 22, The New Crown Lands Act." That was

an act, I

might add, Mr. Speaker, that was passed during the last session of this

particular House.

Where this petition came from, Mr. Speaker: I had a telephone

call there a week or two ago from a concerned citizen, one Mr. Wellman of

Springdale, who was expressing some surprise at some news he had heard, that he

was no longer free to circle a pond with his trouting pole as he saw fit, that

individuals, companies, etc. did have the right to own private property on the

waterline and restrict his access. He couldn't believe that because he thought,

as a British subject and in keeping with tradition that has been ongoing on our

land, on our Island, our Province, our Nation for many, many years, that the

right to circumnavigate a pond was a person's God given right. When I indicated

to him that such a bill had been before a committee, had received extensive

public objection but had been totally ignored by the administration, and that

had been rammed through the House in the last session, he was quite surprised

and indeed, Mr. Speaker, quite outraged. He asked me then: what can I do as a

citizen to express my concern and my outrage that such a thing was done to my

traditional rights as a Newfoundlander? I said you can always send a petition to

your member of the House of Assembly, and I am duty bound to present that

petition in this Assembly on your behalf. Whereupon he said I will be glad to do

that if you will give me the proper wording for a petition. I forwarded the

gentleman the proper wording, Mr. Speaker, and behold we have the 157 names in

front of us today, 158 with mine included.

This particular administration over widespread public

objection, in

section 7 of the Act concerned, allowed for the licensing of boat

houses and wharves but without any ancillary regulations which put limits on

length et cetera, of these facilities. There is a ten meter water line

reservation, but, Mr. Speaker, if one were to build a fifteen meter long boat

house, then the boat house would start in the water, across the entire water

line reservation and go onto private property and be able to abut onto a fence

thereby preventing someone from walking around a pond.

I have seen many boat houses around ponds in Newfoundland,

Mr. Speaker, where there is a beaten trail around the pond and there is a beaten

trail around the back of the boat house because everybody knew and everybody

understood that it was a Newfoundlanders God given right to walk around the back

of the boat house to continue his trouting along the beach as he continued to

circle the pond. But this particular administration brought in a law against the

objections of many people of the general public, a law presumably to pay off

some of their rich friends with their mansions and their pines, some of their

rich friends probably in the outfitting businesses who have contributed heavily

to the Liberal Party of Newfoundland. A law which goes against the basic

understood rights for centuries of your ordinary Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and now this person was taken completely by surprise that: number

one, a law had been proposed; number two, that public hearings and major

objections had been held on this particular matter and that the law had been

rammed through. And now if one is so inclined and one has the money to build a

fifteen meter boat house on each corner of ones waterfront property, one can

make onto oneself a private beach. The only way you can access it is either by

parachute or by boat, Mr. Speaker.

For your average Newfoundlander who walks in the woods with

his trouting pole, that means that access to all aspects of the shoreline have

been denied, a right that has always been there for hundreds of years, a right

taken away by the Wells administration, Mr. Speaker, a right that they had no

right to take away, a right that they had no mandate to take away, Mr. Speaker,

a right which they stole, Mr. Speaker, from the people. Not only can it be said

of this government that this government lies, Mr. Speaker, but it also steals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Further petitions. The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for the Minister

of Environment and Lands to respond to that particular petition, but she wasn't

listening so I am going to respond to it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member wants to revert back to

speaking to the petition. The House waited -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the Member for Torngat

Mountains, hon. members shouldn't wait, they should rise. The Chair waited some

considerable time and when nobody stood the Chair called for the next item of

business. I ask the hon. member to proceed with supporting the petition.

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

surprised that the Minister of Environment and Lands is leaving when a

particular petition pertains to her department.

Mr. Speaker, noticing just now a few minutes ago that the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture was waiting for someone on this side to get

up where he had the last word.

Mr. Speaker, the last word on this petition is going to come

from the voters of the Province. The voters of the Province will have the last

word on this particular petition and on this particular bill. I say to the hon.

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture that if he read the Evening Telegram the

last two or three weekends, he would have seen that there are applications now

coming out from all sorts of people to occupy a portion of a pond, river, lake

or salt water, and it all happened since this piece of legislation has gone

through.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this government will lay on

the Table of this House, since this particular bill went through how many

permits have been given to people around the Province to occupy portions of our

lakes, rivers and ponds. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. minister, that

more than one has gone through already and there are more to come. Because this

government now has the tool, not to cancel or to say no but to say yes. All

through our history no was always said, and now they have the opportunity to say

yes. This is what this government has done since they came into power, get

someone to put the application in, Cabinet will decide and Cabinet will say yes.

Before, Mr. Speaker, it was a rule in our Province, a rule of thumb, that there

was nobody going to stop access to our rivers and ponds. That is what is

happening.

I would say to my hon. colleague, who was so proud when he

spoke in closing the debate on this particular bill, it is going to come back -

AN HON. MEMBER: Back to haunt them.

MR. WARREN: - and it is going to come back, Mr. Speaker,

during the next election, that this minister and this government will be sorry

for this particular bill whereby they have stopped the traditional rights of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to enjoy the rivers, ponds and lakes of our

Province without being apprehended by those who want to control a portion for

themselves.

I support this particular resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I

would say to my hon. colleagues opposite that they will regret this particular

piece of legislation.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this petition, the

two hon. members, the hon. the Member for Green Bay and now the hon. Member for

Torngat Mountains, have given us the classic example, Mr. Speaker, of deliberate

misrepresentation in this House of Assembly. Worse, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: Deliberate.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, if you can recall, the hon.

minister who just spoke said that we, myself and the hon. the Member for Green

Bay, have `deliberately.' He used the word, Mr. Speaker, on two occasions,

deliberately. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that there is no need for me

to quote from Beauchesne because I know you are quite capable of doing so, that

you can see, Sir, it is unparliamentary. I think, subsequently, the minister

should be asked to withdraw those ridiculous remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, hon. members ought to

know that they are not permitted to say that hon. members deliberately

misrepresent or deliberately misled the House. So I ask the hon. minister to

withdraw, please.

MR. FLIGHT: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, and it must be

obvious to anyone who understands the legislation that is in place, that either

the hon. members don't understand it or, inadvertently, they are misleading this

House. Inadvertently!

There is evidence, Mr. Speaker, from the speech made by the

hon. the Member for Green Bay, that he is knowingly misrepresenting the existing

legislation to his constituents. That, Mr. Speaker, is unforgivable. The fact of

the matter is that prior to this government bringing in this legislation any

minister - that hon. member who presented the petition was the Chief of Staff of

the Premier, Mr. Speaker. He was aware of the law that existed in this land

before Bill 53 was implemented.

Now, Bill 53 was a bill that was devised by the last

administration, and there wasn't a comma changed. The only thing that changed

was an election. Mr. Speaker, Bill 53 would have indeed probably put the general

public's rights at risk. Because of concerns expressed by the general public and

representations made by members of the House of Assembly, Bill 53 went out to a

Legislative Review Committee and the concerns of the general public were

considered and allowances were made in the legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, prior to the proclamation of that

legislation, the minister, without any reference to anybody had the right to

allow anybody to build on any right-of-way on the reserve around the pond. The

minister had that right. What nonsense for the hon. member. Now, in order for

any person in this country, in order for any member, any individual of this

Province, to build anything - whether it is a boat house, whether it's a wharf,

whether it is anything - on the seashore, on the foreshore, or on the reserve,

they must make application and Cabinet must approve it.

I can tell the hon. member and the hon. House that Cabinet

has approved nothing since that legislation was proclaimed. So Newfoundlanders'

rights are protected more under this legislation than ever they were under the

previous government. So we rest our case. The hon. Members for Green Bay and

Torngat Mountains would do well to go out and be honest with the people they

represent when they talk to them about building on the reserve, and not try to

play cheap politics. Either he does not know what he is talking about, in which

case he is passing along his lack of knowledge to people and worrying them

unnecessarily. Mr. Speaker, the two members are doing a disservice to their

constituents and to the people of Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Extend Restraint Of

Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province," read a third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 17).

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 (Barrett): Order, please!

Bill 14.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we broke on

Friday I had risen to speak about this Bill and to use the opportunity to

discuss some of the difficulties that people who did not have sufficient income

to even pay tax had. I was referring specifically to the individuals who are

forced to rely on social assistance, and a particular category of individuals

whose only call for social assistance was unemployment. This category is the

lowest of the low in terms of the views of the Social Services Department. I am

glad the Minister of Social Services is in the House to hear this. He missed all

of the excitement last week when the Premier showed his lack of concern for the

people who have to live on $128 a month.

In making comparisons last week with the amount of $128 per

month for room and board that Social Services gives to able-bodied individuals

on social assistance, a very interesting comparison came before the Justice

Department estimates this morning, of the Social Services Estimates Committee,

and that is the cost to the government of keeping a person in jail for one day.

The cost per person for incarceration in this Province is $130 per day. That is

what it costs to keep somebody incarcerated, who is sentenced to serve a jail

term, or is sentenced to a fine and cannot pay it. If you are fined $100 and you

cannot pay it, and you go to jail for three days, it costs the government $390

to keep you in jail for three days. There is a comparison, Mr. Chairman, that

the government will pay $130 per day to keep somebody in jail, but will only pay

$128 a month for someone who is unemployed, has no job, has no unemployment

insurance, is able-bodied and does not have any other claim to social

assistance. That is the kind of circumstance that people are being reduced to in

this Province when they get to the point of running out of unemployment

insurance, and whose only claim to social assistance is unemployment.

That is happening increasingly these days when the

unemployment rate is being maintained at a very high level, and each month we

see large numbers of people disappearing from the work force. Last month, 7,000

people who were in the work force the month before were no longer in the work

force, and this is only statistical evidence. It is very difficult to go out and

count the number of people who are out of the work force because they have run

out of UI; they have run out of hope; they have run out of a job, and they have

run out of any alternative being offered to them by this government's management

of the economy or by special programs that ought to be put in place to ensure

that there be a full employment policy adopted to see that people have an

opportunity to contribute to society and to support themselves and their

families.

I was surprised, because no real effort was made by the

Premier to even determine how much a decent level of income for social

assistance recipients would cost. We don't know how many single, able-bodied

persons there are receiving social assistance. The Minister of Social Services

was unable to provide that information at the Social Services Estimates

Committee last week. Now, granted, he undertook to provide it, and we will get

that. In a few days, I would think, the Minister of Social Services will advise

us.

The Premier gave comments, and his concerns were that the

people of Newfoundland and the government could not afford it. They could not

afford to increase social assistance for a single, able-bodied person because

there were people with other needs. We don't even know yet, and maybe the

Minister of Social Services would like to speak to this issue, what it might

cost to provide a decent level of support for people who are receiving social

assistance, who have the happy circumstance, Mr. Chairman, of being able-bodied.

Now, there are those who have the view that anybody who is

able-bodied should not be entitled to anything. They should go out and eat the

bark off trees, I should think. But that is one of the issues that I think

points out the lack of a caring attitude on the part of this government towards

people who are economically defenceless.

It is not something that is going to break the backs of the

people of this Province; it is not something that would cause the government's

bond rating to go down; it is not something that would cause a major upset in

the government's finances. But rather, something that is a matter of simple

dignity for people who are unfortunately driven to circumstances where they do

not have anyone to rely on. They may have no family to rely on. There seems to

be an assumption in the government and in the bureaucracy that people who happen

to run out of social assistance have families to fall back on. That is not

always the case. Quite often, in fact, the families they have to fall back on

are families who are unable to support them, who are unable to provide the

necessities of life for them or sometimes even for the other members of the

family who may also be on social assistance.

So it is not fair to those individuals. It is not fair to

allow people to be at a less than subsistence level and being on the sole

support of the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you to my one supporter in the House of

Assembly. Mr. Chairman, I didn't intend to speak again this afternoon because I

thought other members would want the opportunity. But after listening, last week

on several occasions, this morning, and again this afternoon, to the hon. Member

for St. John's East go on with that despicable display in the House of Assembly

AN HON. MEMBER: It set you off, didn't it?

MR. EFFORD: It set me off and I had to get up to try to

set some of the facts straight about what should be done for single, able-bodied

individuals in the Province of Newfoundland. What an hypocritical statement for

an individual in his position to make -

MR. FLIGHT: That's right. Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: - when he is here renting houses to Social

Services clients, charging them $350 - $400 a month, and doesn't care whether

they have cup of tea on the table or not. It is absolutely discouraging and

disgusting for the hon. Member for St. John's East to be making those

statements.

To encourage, Mr. Chairman -

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, the member is speaking to an

issue related to social assistance and the amounts that are there. He is not

permitted to get up in the House and say things that are untrue - and he know

they are untrue - about other hon. members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order, just a

disagreement between hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me get to the

facts that are true, very, very true about the hon. Member for St. John's East.

He referred to 7,000 more people unemployed this year than there were last year.

Actually, the numbers on social assistance are 10,000 more this year than last

year. That is a fact.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member intends to

quote me, he should quote me, not misquote me. What I said was that there were

7,000 more people out of the labour force this month than last month.

MR. EFFORD: Okay, Mr. Chairman, let's get down to the

real facts. First, it is not very encouraging to sit here in this House of

Assembly and listen to a member of any side of the House, and especially the

Member for St. John's East,who should be encouraging young people to better

themselves, encouraging them to be a part of the social assistance roll. Whether

a person is getting $90 or $128, or $130 a month, there is no way anybody can

live on that kind of income. It is absolutely senseless. For anybody to

encourage single, able-bodied individuals to go down to the Department of Social

Services and apply for social assistance is even more despicable that I could

even imagine would come from another individual's mouth. I, for the short time I

was minister, did not encourage people to get on the social assistance roll

because once they become dependent on the system, then there is no question

about it, the greater majority and percentage will be on the system from here on

in, to the third and fourth generations of people.

Now, if the hon. member had said: Let us take some of those

individuals who find themselves in a position of having no education, no

training, having to turn to social programs for help, and put them into a proper

training program; encourage them to go back to school to improve their education

levels; encourage them to go to a vocational institution where they can get some

sort of training to be participants in the labour force and at least have some

initiative to do something for themselves. But to tell us that we should put

single, able-bodied people on social assistance for $128 a month - and that is

exactly what he has been saying for the last two weeks in this House of

Assembly.

He never once mentioned that it is the responsibility of the

federal government, who have destroyed the economy of this Province, to bring in

the proper programs to employ the people who should have work, Mr. Chairman.

They want to have the mentality that destroys people's initiative, they take

away their incomes, their very survival instinct and put them back on the social

assistance roll. The minister I believe, quoted in this House of Assembly about

a month ago that we had 64,000 people on social services and today, we had in

the House of Assembly, for ten minutes, the Member for St. John's East, saying

that we should encourage single able-bodied people to go on social assistance.

Now, there is a statement for anybody to be making in the House of Assembly. You

talk about despicable, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for St. John's East should

be ashamed of himself.

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

Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, if it is unparliamentary to

call someone a liar, it must be unparliamentary to tell lies?

AN HON. MEMBER: It sure is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has already ruled there is no

point of order.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to see young people in this Province have a

chance, a strong chance at education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

where the hon. the former Minister of Social Services, would get into the debt

that this Province is carrying and why it is carrying it and the $585 million

that going out in interest payments every year, let us not get into bantering

back and forth about who caused the problem. I was talking to the hon. Member

for St. John's East, on exactly what he is advocating, so let us not get it

sidetracked and get me speaking on that for the next thirty minutes.

Mr. Chairman, it is very sensible to encourage people to

become part of the labour force, but before they come to that, we have to

properly train those young people and properly put the programs in place to give

them a chance that they can become self-sufficient.

The point I am trying to make, is that I would not, for the

life of me, encourage anybody in this Province, to provide social assistance for

single able-bodied people. I think it is insulting to the individual, I think it

is a ruination of their character and what they should be contributing to

society and I do not think there is any way that you can provide them that money

through those sorts of programs, to provide an income from people.

But I can understand the hon. the Member for St. John's East,

because he has a genuine concern for the youth of the Province, so much so that

it was brought to our attention and we have said so many times, that the people,

the twenty-four victims, I think it is, of Mount Cashel, the victims of sexual

crimes whom he is representing, I mean he does have a genuine concern because he

is representing them free of charge, free of charge, which normally otherwise

would have probably brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars personal income,

so the member has to be commended for that, but to take an opposite, from doing

that kind of a thing for young people, then to go the other route and say that

we should be encouraging those same young people to go on social assistance, is

not very consistent.

So you have to be consistent in your way of thinking with the

youth, otherwise, instead of having 64,000 people on social services in a

population work force of 230,000 - What percentage would that work out to be? -

about 25 per cent of the work force, and to say that we should put another

$7,000 or $8,000 into social assistance programs, where, as I said earlier,

whether it is $128 a month or $140 or $150, you couldn't even begin to pay for

the needs of those individuals.

So, let us ask the hon. the Member for St. John's East, the

next time he rises to speak on this particular bill, to speak about something

that can be helpful to the individuals, as helpful as the free services that he

is providing to the twenty-seven victims of the Mount Cashel Orphanage.

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

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

I am pleased to again rise and say a few words on this

particular bill, Bill 14:

an act to raise the income taxes on the already over

taxed people of this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I would venture to say that 90 per cent of the

economists of this country will tell you that the more you tax people, the more

you stifle an economy, at least 90 per cent of the economists. But of course

that doesn't make any difference to these people here. They continue to tax

because of their simplistic approach to see how they can affect the local

provincial economy or improve it, which is simply to say we will cut our

expenses and we will raise more taxes, thus things will get better. That

simplistic approach, Mr. Chairman, hasn't worked since they came to office. They

tried that for two year, three years now, by laying off thousands of workers and

raising taxes on income tax on individuals and corporate tax on private

companies, increasing the paper burden which cost the corporations more to

operate.

They have done these things and that stifles the economy, Mr.

Chairman, and that is a mistake. In order to actually attempt to improve an

economy of an area, what a government should be doing is enhancing its

infrastructure to allow the private sector to provide more opportunities for

employment and thus create more wealth in an economy. This government has deemed

it fit to do the complete opposite. They make it more difficult to get into

business, they make it more difficult to operate business by increasing the

burden, and also by increasing the taxes on individuals and the corporate

corporations. They make the burden on the employer greater because they have to

pay their employees more. By decreasing government services, they force

employers to deliver government services that are ordinarily delivered by

governments in other jurisdictions, but not here. So actually by their policies

that they have implemented, Mr. Chairman, they have stifled our provincial

economy.

It is interesting to note how a former minister could stand

and suggest that by asking for an increase in a persons social services or an

improvement of the amount of money that an individual who happens to be on

social services is really a despicable act, I think he called it, that we are

attempting to promote more people to stay on social services, Mr. Chairman. It

is amazing how some people can twist things. I have often heard people say that

the measure of any society is gauged upon how well people treat those who don't

have the wherewithal or the faculties, if you will, the resources to properly

fend for themselves.

In this particular case we see this government attempting to

defend somebody, a single able bodied person, that $129 a month is enough for

that person to live on. Now there is not one person in this House who can

justify that no matter what you measure it against. If you are measuring it

against any decency whatsoever, if you have any decency whatsoever, you would

never expect another individual to live on $129 a month, Mr. Chairman.

We think that Unemployment Insurance should be increased. A

lot of people say that the people on Unemployment Insurance should be getting

more. I don't know what the benefits -- the maximum benefits on Unemployment

Insurance is about $500 or $600 every two weeks now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. A. SNOW: So the maximum benefits is $500 or $600

every two weeks, and I have heard people say they should be on the other side,

saying that should be increased, they should be getting more. They should be

dreaming up programs to give them more because that is a federal government

responsibility. Instead of attempting to solve the problem, they merely say it

is always somebody else's responsibility.

As I said, it is the responsibility of those in government -

in government. In this particular case, by some fluke of counting the votes, and

how the districts voted, that party ended up in power with more seats than the

people who had the highest percentage of popular vote. They had fewer people

supporting them than this party, but that is the way it was carved out. They did

not design it that way. They did not design that election to win in that manner,

but that is the way it came out. It is the same as when they brought down their

Budgets.

The Budget was not designed to stifle the economy. It was not

designed to make it go deeper into a depression. It was not designed to create

more unemployment. It was not designed or created to create more poverty, more

people on social services. It was not. It was designed to create more wealth. I

am sure that when they sat down and designed their Budgets, and listened to

their officials, they said, we want to make things better in Newfoundland and

Labrador. They did not say, we are going to make things worse on people. They

did not say that. They had intentions of improving the economy, but they

completely took the complete wrong tack. If they were sailing a boat they would

have turned around and went the other way. They just did not know, the people

who were changing the sails, what they were attempting to do. They changed the

direction and drove the economy in this Province in the opposite direction.

The hon. Member for Port de Grave talked about how we should

not be encouraging people to stay on social services. I do not encourage people

to stay on social services. There should undoubtedly be plans for retraining and

training of everybody who is unemployed or would find it necessary to live on

social services. It is the responsibility of the people who are in government,

these people, you people on the other side who sit back in your chairs in your

Cabinet rooms with - I do not know, the Cabinet room has carpet that must be at

least a foot thick in there, and people waiting on you like kings and queens.

You drive around in your chauffeured limousines. You have cocktail parties all

around the Province. Then they expect somebody who is on social services to be

gratified and pleased to get $130 a month. That is how quickly they lose sight

of what is really happening out there.

They still remember, I am sure. If they think back they know

that you cannot live on $130 a month. There is no way in the world, and there

should be programs available, brought in by the provincial government, to

encourage people not to be on social assistance, and these programs should be

implemented. Instead of just attempting to starve them to death, they should

have new programs available to train them. There should be opportunities for

these people to create their own business if necessary. There used to be

programs like that. Other provinces have them, but this Province does not see

fit to do it.

That is why I find that it is very difficult for me to

explain to somebody that last year, for a reason unbeknownst to them, they lost

their job through the recession that is occurring throughout the western world,

and the depression that this government created here in this Province with

cutbacks, and their unemployment ran out. They have no other method of getting

money. They spent their savings. They have worked for years - eight, nine, ten

years, and now they find that they do not have any unemployment insurance. So

what do they do? They have to go on social assistance - $130 a month. Now how

can anybody expect somebody to live on $130 a month?

Then you have people on the other side saying that maybe the

House of Assembly - I think I heard the hon. Member for

Exploits on Friday talk about the former extravagance of the Premier and how we

should cut it down to maybe thirty-five seats or something like that.

MR. GRIMES: I wasn't even here Friday.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, it says in Hansard you were here

Friday.

Mr. Chairman, that is a cop-out to suggest that somebody on

this side or the other side of the House is going to have to give up their seat

to cut down on the number of seats in the House. That is not accepting the

responsibility that you have as a member of government, which is to provide the

opportunity for people in our society to earn a meaningful wage, to be able to

perform functions in our society that contribute not only to their self-esteem

but to the productivity of our Province and our country as a whole. Because they

do want to produce, Mr. Chairman, but this group feels that for some reason if

somebody ends up on social service there is something wrong with them, they

don't want to work. There are people over on the other side who actually believe

that. Or that the lesser we pay these people, the fewer there will be on social

services. Well, there may be, Mr. Chairman, because they will be starving to

death. That is the only reason why there will be fewer people.

Yes, there should be training programs and, yes, it is the

responsibility of this government, the provincial government, to start coming in

with innovative programs to influence the private sector to hire people on

social assistance, to get them involved in their business. Mr. Chairman, these

people want to go to work. I am sure they want to go to work. The ones that

talked to me and asked me about it, they want to go to work, but there are no

programs available for them. They cannot get into the work force.

There are specific programs designed to allow somebody who

doesn't have enough stamps, if you will, to get back on unemployment insurance,

but they don't have any particular programs available to people who are on

social services. If you are able-bodied, if you are twenty-five or thirty years

or age, have worked for nine, ten or fifteen years and your unemployment

insurance has run out and now you find you have nowhere to turn but to social

services. You have spent all your savings just to keep alive, to make ends meet.

You have spent your unemployment insurance and now you are relegated to the last

resort. One hundred and thirty dollars, that is what you attempt to force these

people to live on. It is impossible to live in this day and age on $130 a month.

Yet the people on the other side stand and defend it by

saying: Well, what else can you do? Are you willing to give up a certain amount

of your wages or your expenses? Well, I am sure that everybody here would agree

to give up a certain amount of it. As the hon. Member for Port au Port

suggested, he would be more than willing to give up part of his expenses to help

support programs designed to help people who have to draw on social services.

More important than raising the level of money that these

people would be required to live on, Mr. Chairman, more important than that is

that this government has the responsibility to create the opportunity for the

private sector to invest so that there won't be the necessity to have these

thousands of people on social assistance. As the hon. the Member for St. John's

East pointed out about the thousands of people who are not looking for work now,

who have disappeared, these are the people, Mr. Chairman, who are going to

social services. This government should be creating new programs, coming up with

new ideas -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: They should be creating new programs and

coming up with new ideas, such as other provinces have. They shouldn't just be

sitting back in their luxury suite of offices -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: They need to come up with new ideas and new

programs, innovative programs, programs that are going to stimulate the economy,

not stifle the economy. They should be coming up with programs that are going to

improve the opportunity for people to invest.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) requires imagination.

MR. A. SNOW: There is some imagination left over there,

Mr. Chairman. Some people suggest that there isn't any imagination on the other

side of the House, that they are not creative. I firmly believe that there are

some people over there who do have imaginative and creative minds that are

necessary to help get us all out, because we are all part and parcel of the

problem. There are some people over there who are imaginative. The problem is,

there are not enough of them over there who are imaginative. There is not enough

to have that consensus around the Cabinet table to create the will and consensus

to change their present policy, this neo-conservatism policy that they have, of

taxing more and decreasing the expenses,

whereas what happens there is exactly

the opposite of what you would want to happen.

They need to be more imaginative and creative, come up with

new programs, so that there are not as many people on unemployment, not as many

people on social assistance. Mr. Chairman, in order to do that they have to

change their attitude. I would hope that they will after a few more hours of

debating these particular bills. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to have a few

words on this. I find it interesting, some of the discussion that has taken

place this afternoon. Particularly when the Member for Port de Grave decided to

blame the problems of this Province on the Member for St. John's East. Because

the Member for St. John's East is not the Premier of this Province, he is not

part of the government of this Province, no more than the Member for Port de

Grave. I think it is unfortunate that he decided to lay the blame for this on

the Member for St. John's East. What the Member for Port de Grave should be

saying is that it is the Premier, the President of Treasury Board, and the

Ministers of Finance, Social Services, Fisheries, these are the ones who created

the mess that the Province finds itself in today.

The Member for St. John's East raised some questions in the

House in the last little while about the amount of money that single,

able-bodied people are receiving on social assistance. Actually, as I understand

it, there are three levels, three rates of pay, that people receive: $128, if

you are living with non-relatives; and $88 if you are living with relatives.

I want to say that if there is a case in this Province - and

I know of a case -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Nothing has changed, Mr. Chairman. As unlike

the Member for St. George's, I was in his district the weekend. His popularity

has certainly decreased out there, I can tell him that. I was in St. George's

the weekend, spending the weekend in the St. George's district, I can tell him

that his popularity has certainly decreased.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: I can also tell him that the fellow that the

Premier has selected to go out and seek the nomination against him is not overly

popular either.

AN HON. MEMBER: I agree with that part (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: That's right. I'm sure you do agree with it. I

would be disappointed too (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I hope you beat him, Larry boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, I'm delighted you agree with what I am

saying, that the Premier has selected a candidate to go out and run against you.

Records will show that is what he said. We all know that.

Now how in the name of God is someone in this Province today

going to live on $88 a month, Mr. Chairman? When this Premier came into power he

was getting a salary as an MHA and wanted $50,000 a year delivered in brown

envelopes so he could live in dignity. For the Premier to live in dignity he

needed brown envelopes filled with money, stuffed with money. At the same time,

he is expecting a person in this Province to live on $88 a month.

Mr. Chairman, that is the policy of this government: look

after the rich, and to hell with the poor. That is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, thousand dollar bills

stuffed, brown envelopes stuffed. Fifty thousand dollars a year and he has yet

to lay on the Table of this House as to who paid him that money. Yet, Mr.

Chairman, $88 a month is what this government is prepared to give a person to

live on social assistance. I think that is regressive, Mr. Chairman, and

extremely sad.

How can the Minister of Employment, how can the Minister of

Social Services expect the people of this Province who he is responsible for to

live on $88 a month?

After the next election, Mr. Chairman, some of them will find

out what it is like to have to live on $88 a month because when they go out of

here there is nobody else who will ever hire them. They will never get another

job because of the incompetence that they are demonstrating in this Legislature.

Then they will have to live on $88 a month.

So how would the Minister of Social Services like to have to

live himself on $88 a month? It is not enough. I have said it before, and I will

say it again, that it is time that Cabinet support the Minister of Social

Services and the Department of Social Services when he goes looking for more

money, Mr. Chairman.

It is alright for the Minister of Employment to laugh. He

never had to live on $88. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Employment

has never had to relate to someone who has survived on $88 a month. But for

those of us who have been around, Mr. Chairman, I know where the Minister of

Social Services is coming from. Don't tell me that he is satisfied with $88 a

month because he is not. He is not, Mr. Chairman, but he can't get it through

Cabinet to get more money. And don't tell me either that the Minister of Social

Services - the former minister I guess was there when the Budget was there. Who

was minister when the Budget was brought in?

AN HON. MEMBER: Efford, John Efford.

MR. TOBIN: No, John wasn't there then.

It was either the present minister or the former minister

when the Budget was done this year, and don't tell me that it was this minister

or the other minister who were satisfied to have a $5 million cut in the total

budget for the department. I don't know if the Member for Port de Grave is aware

of that or not, but the Budget for the Department of Social Services this year

is $5 million less than it was last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: $5.5 million.

MR. TOBIN: It is true, Mr. Chairman, $5 million less. I

will read the figures for the President of Treasury Board. And I would suspect,

Mr. Chairman, that the President of Treasury Board had a lot to do with it, him

and the other redneck, the Minister of Finance. The total department budget this

year was $154,985,700. Last year, Mr. Chairman, it was 159,460,800. Now, Mr.

Chairman, that is $5 million less.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, well you are dishonest enough for them to

be the wrong figures. This government is dishonest enough they are capable, Mr.

Chairman, of packing the figures, there is no doubt about that. But how can the

President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Social Services, the Minister of

Finance and the Premier of this Province, how can they be satisfied with that $5

million cut in the Social Service budget? That is the question that I would like

to have answered. And how can the former minister, now the Member for Port de

Grave stand in this Legislature and vote on this budget in a couple of weeks

time? He talks about the big heart he has. How can he stand in this Legislature

and vote for a budget that has the Department of Social Services cut by $5

million?

MR. EFFORD: I didn't stand.

MR. TOBIN: No, no one has stood and voted for it yet.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Don't do it. Don't do it. Have the courage of

your convictions. Don't do it.

How can the Member for Eagle River support a $5 million cut

on the backs of the people of this Province who depend on social services? How

can the member for St. George's support the cut of $5 million? The Member for

Bellevue, how can he stand in this Legislature? The Member for Lewisporte? I

know how the President of Treasury Board can do it. I know how he can do it. I

know how the Minister of Finance can do it. I know how the Premier can do it -

because they cannot relate to the poor. They cannot relate to the people who do

not have a job in this Province.

This government has cut 7,000 jobs in one year. In the last

twelve months there are 7,000 less jobs in this Province. Why? Every single mine

on the Island has been closed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is that parliamentary, Mr. Chairman? Is that

parliamentary, even though he is not speaking in his own chair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear any -

MR. TOBIN: They have closed the deep-sea fishery. The

Premier of this Province has said: If it has to close for one year, two years,

three years, or five years, then close it. How does the Member for Trinity North

explain that to his constituents?

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with the bill?

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: What bill is he on?

MR. TOBIN: The one that we did last week when you were

away.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: How would the member know? How would the

minister know what bill we are at? As a matter of fact, most of us thought he

did not know the House was open, but at least he is coming a long way. Now he

knows there is a bill before the House, but he is not sure which one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Energy, when he became

Minister of Energy, Daniel's Harbour was open. Baie Verte was open. Hope Brook

was open at that time and has closed under him; and because Crosbie got $6

million from the federal government to put with the $14 million he already had,

it reopened and you had nothing to do with it except build a clinic. That was

your contribution. Baie Verte mine, St. Lawrence mine was open when he became

minister. Hibernia - what happened to that under this minister? It closed up

again. Hopefully Mr. Epp will be able to do something.

I say all of that, realizing as a person he is pretty good.

He is a good man, but in the context of this government he has not been able to

function. He has not been able to do the things that he wanted to do.

The Minister of Development: Marystown Shipyard had 565

employees when the government changed. Today they have less than seventy. That

is a record.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is my fault, is it?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, most of it. A lot of it is your fault.

Most of it is the Premier's fault.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You, and the Minister of Transportation, and

then he brought in KVAERNER as a diversionary tactic. Now he blames everything

on KVAERNER. But as he is the owner of the shipyard, him and the Minister of

Fisheries and the Minister of Finance are listed as the three shareholders of

the Marystown Shipyard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You, the Ministers of Finance and Fisheries.

Kvaerner does not own the Marystown Shipyard. The government

owns the Marystown Shipyard, and it is time that this government started doing

something for the people who work in the Marystown Shipyard.

The point I am making is that this government has cut back,

cut back, cut back - $1 million cut from the health budget on the Burin

Peninsula last year - $1 million cut from the health budget to the people of the

Burin Peninsula last year. Now I am in here trying to do some fund-raising for

the hospital. I am trying to do some fund-raising for the hospital on the Burin

Peninsula. Last year we raised $40,000 or $50,000 and this year we are going to

raise twice as much as that. I am happy to say the Minister of Health and the

President of Treasury Board and many of the members opposite that I have seen so

far have sponsored me - the Member for Harbour Grace, the Member for Eagle

River, St. George's, Trinity North, and I will get the rest of them in due

course.

The point is that there is a million dollars cut from the

health budget on the Burin Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and I will get the Member for Port de

Grave.

Well, we have that other union, what is the name, up along,

your buddies from Toronto? - but, Mr. Chairman, there is $1 million dollars cut

from the health care budget on the Burin Peninsula and one has to wonder what it

is all about. Why has this government cut basically every program -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: I will get back to it later, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was listening to the hon. member talking about this

government and its actions towards the people of this Province, and it just goes

to show, either, how ignorant the people opposite are or, how totally misleading

they want to be when it comes to the intentions of this government to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador in the area of job creation and economic

development.

I will only take a couple of minutes just to look at a small

part of this Province, one of the greatest parts of this Province, of course is

Eagle River district. I will look down through my district, to start off in

Cartwright with $750,000 put in for 125 new jobs in a crab plant this summer. I

will look at the sixteen senior citizens and single parent family units, $1.7

million that we opened up last week. Moving a little bit up along the shore and

we are looking at $1.7 million for water and sewer in Port Hope Simpson, the

first time that any government has ever put a cent into Port Hope Simpson water

and sewer.

A little further up, $1.5 million in water and sewer for the

Town of St. Lewis, Labrador. I was there on Saturday night for the graduation in

the $2 million new school in that community from the people of this Province who

gave to the community of St. Lewis. Down in the community of Red Bay we are now

in the process again, in a couple of months, of opening up another new school,

$1.5 million, another $1.5 million.

The hon. Minister of Fisheries, will be going down shortly to

open up, yes, a brand new marine centre in L'Anse-au-Diable, for $1.9 million.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, we still have a couple more places in my district, West

St. Modeste, this year again, the first time there will be a cent in water and

sewer, not fifty dollars, not $100, not $2,000, $1.9 million in water and sewer

for West St. Modeste. Of course, the Minister of Health has also been very,

very, gracious in his expenditures in Eagle River district. In a month of so, we

will be going down to open the historic chronic care unit in Forteau, another

million dollars spent on a very, very essential project for the people of Eagle

River district.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe the ignorance of the people,

so I want to take this opportunity to let the people know that for the tourism

development of the Labrador Straits, that hon. minister there for Red Bay, a

$2.9 million agreement for Red Bay, Mr. Chairman, unbelievable expenditure. We

have the second highest lighthouse in eastern Canada in L'Anse-Amour, and we

want to make sure that the tourism people go to see it in all its glory and we,

through this minister, are going to spend, not $300,000, not $500,000 but

$800,000 on that particular facility. So, Mr. Chairman, I can go on and on and

on about these things, but I think for the benefit of Eagle River in the future

that if I go proclaiming all of this, I am sure even some hon. colleagues on

this side of the House would become a little bit envious, but, Mr. Chairman,

this is the kind of commitment that this government is giving to job creation,

to economic development, to community structures on the coast of Labrador and I

can safely say, that if I were here four years ago, and had to stand up and

recount the ten years before that, I would not be able to get one million

dollars instead of the $16 million that I just talked about for the people of

Eagle River district. So, Mr. Chairman, wait till the message gets out there. I

hope at some point in the next couple of years it will get back to the ears of

the Member for Burin - Placentia West. Because what this government has done for

the people of Eagle River district is exemplary.

Now the only thing that the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains

did for us when he was in the Cabinet is he took a ride on a helicopter. Zoomed

right up, tried to get up to the stratosphere, as far as he could get, to try to

see if there would be some divine intervention in the election return of April

of 1989. He prayed, he said: put her to the floor, try to get up as far as we

can so I can get a word with him. Because April 20 the word came in from the

people. They said: we want a real change in this Province, we want a government

that is going to be committed to the needs of this Province. They said to the

people of Eagle River: we want to have the kind of dollars in that district that

the people have not been getting for the last seventeen years.

Certainly he was a good God, Mr. Chairman, he said: no way,

you are not getting the election overturned.

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

West on a point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: The hon. member is obviously getting the

truth, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I am not. But I think it is

rather selfish, to be honest, for the present Member for Eagle River to attack

the former member by saying he did nothing over the past ten years for the

district, and that you have been able to do everything. That is not something

that we usually practise in this House. I think that because the Premier got you

to go out and knock him off in the nomination is no reason for you to come in

here and attack that hon. gentleman.

MR. DECKER: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No point of order. The hon. -

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) total abuse of the rules of this

House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has already ruled there is no

point of order.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is unfortunate that

he did not give the Minister of Health a chance to respond to that point of

order. Because obviously it was a total point of foolishness by an hon. member.

The fact of the matter is that the people on the coast of

Labrador, have been so loyal to the Liberal Party since 1949, and were certainly

loyal in the worst of times, because in spite of the efforts of the previous

member, that the government of the day refused to do anything regardless of the

need. If it was not for the politics they would do absolutely nothing. You could

not get a visit, you could not get a phone call returned, you could not get a

cent put into the needs of the communities down there when that hon. crowd was

over there opposite.

So today I had to get up I guess and extol the virtues of

this administration. Sixteen million dollars in the last eighteen months in that

particular riding. A little bit of catch-up on the discrimination that was cast

against us for the seventeen years before that.

So I hope that the message is loud and clear to the Member

for Burin - Placentia West. When he ever rises again to say that this government

has not committed itself, has not made sure that the people on the parts of the

Province, like the people of Eagle River, have not had their needs met, then

certainly he would be misleading the House. So I hope that any time that he gets

up and wants to hear more of the great things that this government has done for

Eagle River district and other parts of the Province - I can certainly even talk

about some things in other parts of the Province. Like a new hospital in Port

Saunders, the Windsor - Buchans facilities -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, certainly we have never, no, we

cannot say that we came in either with the kind of vindictiveness that the

previous administration talked about day after day. We never came in on a witch

hunt and said to the poor people of Burin - Placentia West: that you are going

to be forsaken forever and a day because you happened to return that hon.

member. Now, some members might think that we just put some token money into a

district of the hon. members opposite. Some people would say, with $50 million

or so of capital expenditures, that maybe yes, with fifty-two districts, you

might get an Opposition member's riding get maybe $300,000 or $400,000. That

would be the kind of tokenism that would have been forthcoming from the previous

government.

But no, Mr. Chairman. This hon. minister got in this House a

few weeks ago and said: we are not going to give $3,000, not $50,000, not

$300,000, we are going to give $3 million to the hon. Member for Burin -

Placentia West, for the kind of needs that his people have down there, in spite

of the fact of the member's performance and in spite of the fact that he will

not get elected again. That is the kind of commitment that this government has

given the people of this Province.

I guess that is the reason that the polls are so good to us,

that the trend is saying that we are going to be brought back here again in fine

form. That is why the public opinion in Naskaupi is so high. That is why we are

going to be able to remain confident, as we go to the people in a month or two,

or six months. We will be able to go to them with confidence and say: yes, thank

you for the support you gave us in 1989. We believe we have lived up to it, and

we have shown you, community by community, dollar for dollar, that our

communities along the coast of Labrador have received their fair share for the

first time in history.

I hope that that is not all lost, and I am sure that I will

have another opportunity to continue to apprise hon. members of the kinds of

funding, the kinds of commitment, the kinds of real dollars, that have been put

into the communities from L'Anse-au-Clair to Cartwright. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for this opportunity.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

have a few words also on this particular piece of legislation. I would hope I

would keep my remarks to some of the things that have been happening in the

Province, and also on the Labrador coast. I promised myself before I got up that

I was going to refrain from making any remarks about my hon. colleague for Eagle

River, because I noticed that until three-quarters through his comments he was

not saying anything about myself. But he could not speak for ten minutes without

at least making some kind of an attempt of slandering a member of this

Legislature.

I had no intention of saying anything about the hon. member

because the record shows that - he was talking about everything that this

government is doing for Labrador. I admit that this government is doing some

things for Labrador, no doubt about that. But last Wednesday the hon. member

will go down in history for turning his back on the fishermen of the Labrador

coast. It has now gone out to the fishermen in his district, the exact count of

those who voted against the fishermen on the coast of Labrador in receiving UIC

benefits. The hon. gentleman for Eagle River can talk all he wants to about the

things that this government is doing. But the one thing that he has done since

1989 - and it was the first time, and it was last Wednesday - when he voted

against the resolution for the fishermen to get the UIC extended.

So I would say, my hon. colleague - in fact the letters that

I am receiving, and the phone calls I am receiving. About why did - and I will

say the word in the Legislature, Mr. Chairman; you're not allowed to say it, but

in the context that the people are saying it to me: why did Danny vote against

us receiving unemployment insurance? I said: the reason he did it was that he

never had the intestinal fortitude of doing what the Member for Baie Verte had,

was (Inaudible) through the House. But he wanted to make sure he would stay on

the side of the government and vote whatever way the government voted for. So

that is why he did it, and that is the best way I could explain it.

The hon. Member for Eagle River starts shouting about all

that this government has done. The water and sewerage, tourism, everything else.

But he forgot to name one thing, he forgot to say one thing. I think it would be

only fair for him to say that. I know he does not like Mr. Crosbie, that is

understandable. But surely to goodness, he could have said that a few of those

dollars, just a couple of those dollars, a couple of those millions of dollars,

(Inaudible) came from the federal government, at least some of it came from the

federal government. In fact, none of it would have been done if the federal

government hadn't paid the biggest portion, and the hon. member knows that.

These are federal-provincial agreements that the hon. gentleman is talking

about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Yes, the Labrador Comprehensive Agreement -

water and sewer, yes, I say to my hon. colleague.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) water and sewer.

MR. WARREN: Exactly, and my hon. colleague doesn't know

the difference either. It is the Labrador Comprehensive Agreement for water and

sewer, I say to my hon. colleague. So water and sewer, fisheries, all of these

things that thousands and thousands and millions of dollars are going into, is

shared 60/40, 70/30, 80/20 or 90/10 by the federal-provincial government.

He was talking about all of the things this government has

done. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they cut out the air subsidy to Labrador, that is what

this government did. What else did they do? They took money from 'Them Days

Magazine' this year, that is something else they did. Now, what else did they

do? They closed down the court house in Wabush, that is something else they did.

What else did they do? They closed the motor registration office in Labrador

West, that is something else they did. Now, I am sure my colleague knows some

other things they have done.

We have been going on now for months and months and months

with no member in the Cabinet. But I must say, I found it most interesting that

my hon. colleague - there was a graduation in Charlottetown this past weekend.

My colleague was invited to St. Lewis and Mary's Harbour, but, meanwhile, he

didn't get an invitation from the graduating class in Charlottetown, so Friday

afternoon, he decided to call somebody in Charlottetown and say: 'I didn't get

an invitation. I can't attend, but I didn't get an invitation. Surely, you could

have sent me an invitation.' Subsequently, word came out this morning from me

that he asked for an invitation on Friday, and to tell them he couldn't attend.

It just goes to show that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the guest speaker?

MR. WARREN: I have no idea.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you going?

MR. WARREN: No, I was in Red Bay.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to this government that it

is unfortunate that we need so much in Labrador. We have pride, but we need so

much, and the government is not attending to the real needs. The real needs of

the people up there are, for example, in the correctional centre in Happy Valley

- Goose Bay today there are beds for fifty people, but there are eighty-two

people in there.

Now, if the hon. member is going to say, 'We are looking

after the social concerns of the people in Labrador,' here is an example where

they are not looking after the social concerns. Let me say to my hon. colleague,

there are thirty-odd people living in the correctional centre for whom there are

no beds - they are sleeping on the floor.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) new federal penitentiary

promised last year.

MR. WARREN: Let me say to my hon. colleague, it is

amazing. I have to say this, with all due respect. On the weekend, I heard on, I

think it was Station VOCM, my hon. colleague from Eagle River saying: 'I am

going to get after Mr. Crosbie to extend the UIC benefits;' and last Wednesday

he voted against it. Last Wednesday he voted against the fishermen getting UIC

benefits, and here he was on the radio this weekend saying he is going after Mr.

Crosbie to get it. Now, you can see the hon. gentleman, honest to goodness, all

he want to do is hear his name on radio and hear his name on television.

Tomorrow VOCM will be saying the hon. gentleman voted against the UIC extension

in the House of Assembly. So the hon. gentleman, I honestly think, one thing he

does not want to do -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: In some places, yes.

One thing the hon. gentleman does not want to do, and I

noticed that, in fact, the last two or three months. Remember a while ago the

hon. gentleman would get up once in awhile and he would rap the government on

the knuckles. He would just say a few little nasty words about his own

government. But for the last three months he hasn't made a peep, he hasn't said

a thing, because he has been told: If you want to get close to that Cabinet

door, don't say anything.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He's afraid 'Clyde' would send someone up

for the nomination like he did with 'Eugene'.

MR. WARREN: Well, yes, in fact I heard this. I heard that

there would have been a problem with the nomination coming up if the hon.

gentleman did not behave himself within the Party.

Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk more seriously. I want

to say to the Minister of Development, I am concerned and I am quite pleased

that there are some positive things happening in the tourism division of his

Department. Last year I think we had some discussion on the potential of Hebron,

north of Nain. The minister had an opportunity to go up and visit that

particular spot. I think once we can get an agreement with the feds - I believe

this is a long-overdue project, a project that will bring dollars into our

economy in the Province. I want to ask the minister to plugging, keep pushing.

As for myself, as a member for that particular district, anything I can do to

help, I will be available to help in any way possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To put it mildly,

the tenure of this particular administration has been a taxing experience.

Income tax on a provincial level has gone up six percentage points to the

federal tax, which I am told by our staff people, amounts to something in the

order of a 10 per cent rise in provincial income tax since this government has

come to power.

This government, under a fancy name of a health and education

tax, has instituted the payroll tax, which they again raised to substitute for a

school tax which isn't really abolished after all, when you look behind the

scenes. Now, it applies to senior citizens who never had to pay it before. With

regard to hydro rates, for instance, they are charging the hydro corporation a

guarantee fee in addition to the payroll tax. This is the sort of thing that

drives the corporation before the Public Utilities Board, which drives up

electrical rates in the Province.

Everything that is negative in this Province has gone up and

anything positive, or even anything neutral, has gone down since this

administration has come to power. So, as I indicated earlier, the experience of

three years of the Wells administration has been a taxing experience, to put it

mildly. I really don't have to try very hard to play on that word 'taxing'.

They removed a subsidy for rural areas of the Province that

was paid to the hydro corporation to keep electrical rates down in rural

Newfoundland. We recently had the instance of a Public Utilities hearing where

the Utilities Board recommended, but, thank God, Cabinet rejected, considerable

rate increases in isolated rural areas. But the matter is going to be revisited.

A study on that particular matter has been ordered. The Public Utilities Board,

however, has already indicated its philosophical inclination in this regard, in

that pricing is about the only way they can encourage and enforce conservation

in isolated rural areas. So, no doubt, all they have done is postpone the

inevitable by overturning the PUB recommendation in this case. Sooner or later,

people in isolated rural areas are going to get it straight between the eyes

because, let's face it, this administration has no time for rural Newfoundland.

This administration believes that rural Newfoundland is a luxury that we could

do well without.

When we look at the municipal area of government again, to

put it mildly, it has been a taxing experience, both financially and in terms of

aggravation on the part of the volunteers who have to serve at that level. The

entire amalgamation - fiasco, I suppose, is about the only word to describe it,

for which they obtained no mandate from the people, but with which they went

after with a tremendous zeal first when they got elected, proposing all kinds of

absurd and crazy amalgamation combinations from the people, which they went

after with a tremendous zeal first when they got elected, proposing all kinds of

absurd and crazy amalgamation combinations, some of which they have had the good

sense to drop, some of which have shown that there is a mean, sort of nasty

streak to this administration, especially in the way they dealt with the City of

Mount Pearl, the City of St. John's and the Northeast Avalon region. To not have

the guts to put Mount Pearl in with the City of St. John's but, at the same

time, saying, `We will let you live but we will slowly strangle you to death',

shows, Mr. Chairman, a particularly mean streak in this particular

administration. So, it is taxing on those who wish to serve on a municipal level

from the point of view of who needs the aggravation.

At the smaller council level, they have changed the grant

schemes, the financing schemes for municipal capital works, the repayment

schemes for municipal capital works, etc., and we are getting to the point now

where smaller municipalities cannot afford to accept even monies that are

offered by the Crown to install water and sewer services without driving taxes

through the roof. It is getting to the point now, where it is becoming difficult

to get municipal volunteers to serve on councils. There isn't a rush in rural

Newfoundland anymore for people to serve on councils, Mr. Chairman, because you

know that if you serve on council, it is the kiss of death, that you are going

to be asked to raise taxes on the local citizenry to the point where the local

council will probably get thrown over the government wharf. So, who needs it,

Mr. Chairman, is the attitude of a lot of the citizenry of rural Newfoundland,

all because of the tax policy of this government.

It has been downloading on municipal governments, downloading

on electrical rate payers, just downloading on everybody, Mr. Chairman. I mean,

let's face it, this particular government has been a real downer all the way

around. For a government that came in on a, small `l', liberal policy platform

promising the moon and the stars to everybody, to have an ultraconservative,

right wing administration actually in charge, even in these difficult economic

times, is beyond belief, Mr. Chairman. And that they can do it with a straight

face, that they can do it without open rebellion in their ranks, that those of

them who, while in Opposition were liberals in the ordinary sense of the word,

can be either browbeaten into submission or undergo such a change of philosophy

that they would downgrade the quality of life of our citizenry, especially in

rural Newfoundland, by making taxes higher, prices higher and making life just

generally more miserable, is beyond me altogether, Mr. Chairman.

To use the phrase of a former Opposition leader we had over

here just after the last election, these people have the face of a robber's

horse. Because only a robber's horse could rob the poor and not show some shame,

I think, in so doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: A robber's what?

MR. HEWLETT: A robber's horse, Mr. Chairman. I believe

Mr. Rideout, a former member of this House - that was one of his favourite

phrases to show the audacity, the brazenness of the administration we have in

power now - the face of a robber's horse! If we weren't finished with robber's

horses, what would we get now? We would have the faces of polar bears, as we cut

back on the dental subsidy to the children of our Province and we have dental

surgery performed on polar bears, Mr. Chairman. So we go from robber's horses to

polar bears. But, in any case, Mr. Speaker, it is an insult to the ordinary

common people of this Province, especially those who voted Liberal.

That is where I find the most aggravated people of all, Mr.

Chairman, those who look me straight in the eye and admit to me that they didn't

vote for me the last time around. They voted Liberal because they were voting

for Liberals, they thought, Mr. Chairman, only to find out that they were

electing a Thatcherite or a Reaganite administration headed by a corporate

lawyer who, in his particular time, ran away from the City of Corner Brook when

Bowaters went down, at a time when the government in power moved in foursquare

and saved the city from imminent demise.

This administration, Mr. Chairman, is spending no money out

in my district, is taxing the people tremendously. They haven't given one shovel

full of pavement. The current rumour mill out there is who are they going to

find to run against me. They talked about Mr. Seabright in Mount Pearl having

once been a former magistrate. There are rumours on the go that they are going

to send him out. Most people out there who I have spoken to scoffed at that

idea. They Mayor of Springdale was supposed to be their chosen candidate. They

made him commit political suicide over the hospital issue, Mr. Chairman, and

then he couldn't even get a meeting with the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs to discuss the fact that they wouldn't give them any

municipal pavement for the city streets of Springdale even though Springdale is

a town that can afford to pay its own way.

I attended the graduation of the community college on Friday

night. The Minister of Education was on the agenda as the guest speaker, but he

couldn't make it because he was tied up with his new Royal Commission Report,

and lo and behold they sent an official from the Department of Education to

represent the minister, Mr. Mun Batstone, who happened to be a suicide candidate

against one Brian Peckford who happened to be Premier of the Province at the

time, Mr. Batstone, I do believe, having some roots in the Jackson's Cove area

of my district. So I don't know if it was just Mr. Batstone's poor luck that he

was chosen to replace the minister at this particular graduation or if it was an

attempt on the part of the administration to float another possible assailant to

go against yours truly.

I am not really sure, Mr. Chairman, but believe me, so far

from what they have put forward on that regard I must say this administration

has been tremendously easy on me. They have not been taxing on me at all. They

have not made me afraid. They have not scared me. They have not terrified me.

Instead they have beaten up on the 10,000 people I represent, Mr. Chairman. They

have raised their taxes. They have raised their electrical rates. They have cut

their hospital services. They have generally made life miserable. They have

tried to force resettlement, Mr. Chairman. They have made life a misery in rural

Newfoundland, and that is the record of this particular administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MR. MATTHEWS: Resign?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him to tender his resignation.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member for Burin - Placentia West

wasn't talking about me, Mr. Chairman, resigning. He was suggesting that you

should resign. I don't know if that is parliamentary or not. Maybe he should be

named. Maybe the Member for Burin - Placentia West should be named for

suggesting that the Chairman resign.

This is a tax bill. We are into Committee, Mr. Chairman, so

we can speak as often as we want for ten minutes. We are talking here about this

horrendous revision to the income tax bill. Horrendous tax increases again by

this administration, 2.5 per cent as of January 1, 1992, another 1.5 per cent

from January 1, 1993. A 4 per cent increase in personal income tax, Mr.

Chairman. That brings the total now to 6 per cent since this government took

office. That is what we are here debating today, Mr. Chairman. Of course a

number of speakers have referred to what it is doing to our economy, what it is

doing to the economy of the Province because the taxpayers have less money to

spend in the businesses around the Province. The economy is shrinking, but the

government doesn't seem to want to listen, Mr. Chairman to what we have been

having to say about that.

Now the Member for Eagle River, I heard some of his speech

when I was upstairs for a couple of minutes making a couple of phone calls. I

heard him shouting and bawling about all the money going into Labrador, they

never heard him say much about what the people of Labrador contribute to the

provincial economy because of their rich resources in Labrador, and it was

almost as though the Member for Eagle River was suggesting that the government

was giving the people of Labrador something that they do not deserve, almost as

though they were making a special case, that he was so beholden, so beholden to

his own government for doing what they are doing in Labrador, that is what the

Member for Eagle River was going on with while I was out of the House.

The people of Labrador should be beholden to this government

for giving them the two or three or four things he named there, like a new

school - you would not know but they were giving them a new school, Mr.

Chairman, and they did not need one -

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - you would know but they were giving them

a new school and they did not need one down in Labrador -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, obviously, the member is

trying to mislead the House because the point that I was making was that, for

seventeen years that government, of which he was a member, did nothing for the

people on the coast of Labrador and I talked about not only the two or three,

but the fifteen and twenty projects of millions of dollars that we had, that we

deserved, but we deserved then seventeen years before that as well, Mr.

Chairman, and never got it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no point of

order and once again we see that amateurish, childish, immature behaviour by the

Member for Eagle River, again. The only thing he knows how to do when he gets in

his place is to shout at the top of his lungs; you do not need the monitor on

upstairs to hear him because you can hear him right through the four or five

floors going up, and he is speaking as if the people in his district are getting

something from the government that they do not even deserve, that the government

is so good to them that they are giving things that are not needed in his

district, like a new school, and a marine service centre, you would not know but

that the government went out and built - but of course, they did not build the

marine service centre, that is the other thing he is not telling the House and

the people, is that his government did not put the marine service centre down

there, so you see, the hon. member only tells half truths, because where does

the majority of the money come from for his marine service centre, I ask him?

Where did it come from? Not from this Minister of Fisheries, I tell him -

MS. VERGE: The cat has his tongue now.

MR. MATTHEWS: Ah yes, yes, so that is what is happening -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: We do not care, Mr. Chairman, how often the

member speaks, but there is only one thing that I will ask this time and the

next time that the member speaks, Mr. Chairman, is that he say something, we

want him to say something for once instead of being so patronizing, so

lapdoggish to his Premier and his ministers because all is not well in Labrador

I say to the member. There are many more needs in Labrador which need to be

addressed and slapping them all with another 4 per cent on personal income tax I

would suggest to the member is not going to help them -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that?

MR. MATTHEWS: Putting another 4 per cent on personal

income taxes are not going to do too much -

MR. DUMARESQUE: You do not know anything about Labrador,

you were never down there.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was down there and

yes, I do know something about it, yes I do but adding another 4 per cent on

personal income taxes to the people whom the member gets up here and talks about

day in and day out, about how bad things are in Labrador and how poor the

fishery is and how people are not going to survive, but yet he stands with his

government and supports another 4 per cent on personal income tax for people in

his district, now that is the kind of member that this member is! That is the

kind of member he is, if it is no good for the people in your district, get up

and say it is no good for them. Stand in your place and be a man and say it is

no good for my people in my district. It is no good for the people in mine, I

say to the member, another 4 per cent on personal income tax is not good for the

people in the district of Grand Bank and they are not all millionaires down

there, I say to the Member for Eagle River, they are not all millionaires in the

district of Grand Bank -

AN HON. MEMBER: Therefore they won't have to pay them.

MR. MATTHEWS: They won't have to pay it says the Member

for Carbonear. Oh, they do not have to pay it if they are not millionaires?

Well, that is very interesting, that is very interesting. If that is the case,

there won't be too many in the Legislatur