Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 3 April 1992 (41st General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLI No. 19)
1992-04-03
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April 3,
1992 HOUSE
OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLI No. 19
The House met at 9:00 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!
Before proceeding on with our routine business, on behalf of
hon. members I would like to welcome a couple of groups of students to the
public galleries this morning. Firstly, we extend a welcome to sixty Level II
students from Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts, in the district of Port de
Grave. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Edward Neil and Mr. William
Drover. Secondly, fifteen students from First Baptist Academy, Mount Pearl, in
the Waterford - Kenmount district, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Kirk
Pickett.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have
a question this morning for the Minister of Finance. The government again this
year has frozen the public sector pensions for 1992-1993. That will be three
years in a row that the pensions have been frozen and the value of their
pensions has gone down about 12 per cent to 15 per cent. I ask the Minister:
will he reconsider the freeze on the public service pensions this year and see
if there is some kind of an increase that can be allotted for the pensioners for
this year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, this Province at the moment is
in a pretty desperate situation with respect to many people's incomes next year.
The public servants' wages have been frozen, the fishing industry looks bad. We
all have to share the pain. Even I will acknowledge what the hon. member has
said. Yet our public pensioners are being paid according to their pensions. We
have ceased ad hoc indexing. We are looking forward to an appropriate indexing
program for all public servants, teachers and others, but these programs have
not been put in place this year because of the financial situation. Hopefully
they will be put in place shortly.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
According to the Auditor General the average salary or pension of the public
service pensioners is about $8,000 a year. If you include teachers in that
average, according to the Auditor General, it is about $10,000. Doesn't the
minister think that these pensioners would be a special case and they should be
exempt from the wage freeze that is going on in the public service, or the
freeze on pensions?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the member's figures are quite inaccurate and I
should point out that any pensioner whose earnings are less than $11,000 is not
subject to income tax or anything of that nature so that is something to keep in
mind but, the figures that he quotes, I am sure are inaccurate. What happens is
that sometimes people have very short service with the public service; they may
have five years or six years or ten years and they go out on pension, they may
go off to other jobs and other work and that brings down the average, but the
usual public servant who is out there after serving a lifetime service with the
government is not on such low pensions unless it happened many, many years ago.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
These figures are not my figures, they are the Auditor
General's figures. I did not make them up, I got them from the Auditor General's
Report.
Mr. Speaker, this year the government provided a small
increase to recipients of social assistance of 2.2 per cent, and it is
well-deserved, they needed to get it; they needed more than that, but because
the average pension of $8,000 or $10,000, whichever figure you want to use for
the public service pensioners in this Province, is so low, do you not think that
they are equally needy of a raise as the social service recipients? Even a 2 per
cent raise would help to keep up with part of the inflation for last year, at
least.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is distorting
things. Anyone who is sixty-five and over, in addition to getting his public
service pension gets his old age pension and there are other benefits as well.
It is time for the hon. member to put the facts out rather than to distort the
picture by quoting inappropriate
statistics no matter what the source.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a
supplementary.
MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the
Minister of Finance of this Province does not trust the figures of the Auditor
General, so, I will try to get a figure that is probably more accurate. Does the
minister receive a pension?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I shall not discuss my personal
affairs in this House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm
that the Minister of Education is receiving a pension?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of
discussing anyone's personal affairs in the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
Order, please!
MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The public service pensioners in this Province are receiving
$8,000 to $10,000 and from my information, we have at least two ministers in
this House receiving pensions from that same fund who are receiving another
$100,000, no wonder they cannot relate to a raise of -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. R. AYLWARD: - 2 per cent for the pensioners in this
Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, but the hon. member is
now giving a speech so I will ask the hon. member to get to the question please.
MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: since he
is so concerned that the figures I am using are inaccurate, just tell this House
of Assembly what his pension is and what the pension of the Minister of
Education is, then maybe I could get some better figures and, maybe while he is
at it he could suggest why this government is so callous towards the pensioners
in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.
This government is not callous towards pensioners. This is a
Liberal Government and in our last Budget, the Budget we delivered last week, we
did a lot of things for pensioners, a lot of things for senior citizens of all
kinds. We opened up hospital beds for senior citizens, we opened up eighty-six,
was it? Eighty-six new beds in various parts of the Province for chronic care
which the Province so desperately needs, in a time when we are so poor. Not only
that, Mr. Speaker, we have a drug program in this Province by which senior
citizens pay the cost of the pharmacist's services, but the government picks up
the cost of the medicine.
We will be opening up soon, extra senior citizens apartments
and things like that, which the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is doing. Even
in these hard times we are doing an awful lot for senior citizens in this
Province. I might also mention to the hon. member that every senior citizen in
this Province, every person, receives a special tax break from the Government of
Newfoundland via the income tax system by which senior citizens get a break of
$3,482 and another $1,000 for any pension income they might get of $4,482 tax
exemption which no other citizen gets and that costs this Province virtually
$500 a year for each person. That is another little break we give every senior
citizen in this Province.
AN HON. MEMBER: For each person.
DR. KITCHEN: Every person.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong for hon. members opposite to try
to pin this government as being insensitive to the needs of civil servants and
pensioners. So what we are doing -
MR. SPEAKER: Could the minister clue up in a half
sentence or so?
DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, Mr. Speaker, it would be completely wrong for the hon.
members opposite to try to paint this government as being insensitive to the
needs of pensioners.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, will the minister also
confirm then that while he is saying this government has done so much for
pensioners that the school tax, which is being eliminated this year come June,
is being replaced by an increase in income tax, and for the first time in the
history of this Province people over 65 years of age will have to pay a school
tax or a tax in substitute of a school tax?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we have eliminated the school
tax and that is a good thing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
DR. KITCHEN: I know the hon. members want to reinstate
the school tax. I know they do. If it should ever happen, and God forbid they do
get re-elected, we will get the school tax back.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask
the Minister of Finance a question, but I will have to go to the Minister of
Employment because I enjoy him when he is answering.
Mr. Speaker, last fall when the UI rate was at around 17 per
cent, the minister then chose to implement a job creation program for this
Province. This year with a projected UI rate of over 20 per cent the minister
has chosen to do nothing. Can the minister explain why he chose to implement a
program last fall at 17 per cent, and now this year when it is 20.4 projected he
chooses to do nothing?
AN HON. MEMBER: A good question.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and
Labour Relations.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As has been mentioned
before that very same question has been asked in this House on a number of
occasions, and has been answered on a number of occasions. I will try to give
the same answer. It is not a matter of doing nothing. It is a matter of
planning, which the members yesterday in their speaking in the House were
suggesting that the government should do. We have been in consultation with the
federal government to make sure that anything that is done in this Province is
done in a complementary fashion so that we do not have two levels of government
competing with dollars to try to have a positive impact on the people in this
Province. We are now in the process of identifying more definitively by region
and location where the real problems might be throughout the year, and at an
appropriate time we have indicated that we feel that, as, when and if necessary,
we will find a way, as we did last year, to implement any appropriate program.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister has
to look very far to find where the need is, with a 20 per cent UI rate in this
Province.
The minister has been talking about this for some time now,
about a joint proposal with Ottawa to implement a job strategy. Mr. Speaker,
where in this Budget does the minister address this by putting some dollars into
this program, or is it going to be taken from another aspect of this program, or
are we going to look for the same thing as last fall - special warrants? What
kind of plans, and how much money is the minister prepared to put into a job
creation program?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and
Labour Relations.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the same question was asked a
couple of days ago and it was indicated quite openly to the group there is not,
in this Budget, any heading or any line that says there will be a special job
creation program for people in Newfoundland and Labrador this year. It is not in
the Budget. There is nothing at this point in time that could have been put into
a Budget. Much as the members opposite would know, when the federal government
were faced with many of the same considerations on a provincial, on a country
wide basis, when they brought down their Budget, indicated even though there
were indicators that there was still going to be difficulties, they could not,
within the Budget document, spell out exactly what was going to be done as the
year went on. But they have indicated, and have indicated in meetings with us,
that as they continue to monitor the situation, and as we continue to monitor
the situation, as, when, and if appropriate means and methods will be found, as
they were last year, in this Province where we put in place a $13.5 million
program to adequately address the problems.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Budget shows a reduction of nearly $4 million in job
creation. Included in the $14 million there is some, I think, $3.1 million in
the employment generation program. How much of that $3.1 million is going to be
for projects that were started last fall, and how many new jobs will be created
from this employment generation program?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and
Labour Relations.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If you want the exact
numbers, I will have to take the time to get them, because I do not have them
here available at my fingertips. We have analyzed and accessed that program on a
couple of occasions in a preliminary fashion and the final numbers are still
coming in. I will undertake, Mr. Speaker, to get the exact numbers, as indicated
in the question, for the hon. member if that is what he would like.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A final supplementary. This program has been in place now for
nearly four years. It replaced a previous similar type program. Can the minister
tell me now how many full-time jobs have stayed as a result of this program that
was introduced first in 1989?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and
Labour Relations.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, yes, we will be able to do that.
I will have to get the numbers, as I indicated, but there has been, in the first
sixty-week program - which members opposite probably wouldn't understand because
they never did anything that lasted that long; it was always a few weeks at a
time. Because it was a sixty-week program and because it ran over three
different fiscal years, the impact of even the first experience is only now
being finally detailed within the department. We will get you the numbers,
because the final impact of a sixty-week program, as members opposite would
know, does run over three fiscal years for the government. I will get the
information for the hon. member on the analysis of the very first sixty-week
period and even give as much information as we can about the subsequent periods.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the teachers can't understand
either, how the member turned on them so quickly.
I have a question for the Minister of Social Services. Today,
65,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, or roughly 12 per cent of the
population of this Province, are struggling trying to make ends meet, on some
form of assistance, and the department's own estimates show that there will be a
significant increase in the numbers this year. In view of the crisis, why has
the department's budget been cut by $4.5 million, 3 per cent below the actual
expenditures last year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.
MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in my ministry, we have to
deliver services wherever in the department they are necessary. Those services
have to be delivered. They are in place. The regional and district offices
throughout the Province all have professional people, welfare officers and
others, who are capable of delivering the services that are in the department,
and we will have to speak to those needs throughout the year. Granted, we have
an increase in caseloads. The social workers have demands upon them that are
ever-increasing. We are, as I said in this House last week, 30 per cent over in
caseload, over a year ago, so we will have to respond to the needs as the needs
arise, and if, in fact, the caseloads continue to increase, we will have to
respond.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West, on a supplementary.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know what the minister is
saying, but last year the Budget estimated expenditures of $146 million but the
department spent $159 million, that is $13 million more than was budgeted last
year. So, given the rapidly increased demands for social assistance and
services, does the government seriously believe that it can keep spending this
year below the amount they spent last year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.
MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we are budgeted on current
account, and on capital account for that matter, for the needs as we see them in
the forthcoming year. The budget, of course, has to be looked at as we proceed
through the year, and we are doing that month by month. If we see that the needs
are increasing - of course, as you know, we are in a cost-sharing arrangement
with a lot of our programs with the federal government - the federal government
and the provincial government will have to respond to those needs.
In many ways, the services we provide are open-ended to the
extent that we have to provide assistance and we have to provide programs and
benefits for our clients, whichever department they happen to be in or whichever
division of the ministry they happen to be in. Those programs have to be
responded to. So, if our caseloads increase in social assistance or in any other
area of assistance, we have to respond with dollars in the budget, whether it be
strictly provincial dollars or a combination of federal and provincial dollars.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West, a supplementary.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt it will be a
combination of federal and provincial dollars, because under the plan it is
shared 50/50 in any case.
Mr. Speaker, the minister says that his caseload has
increased by approximately 30 per cent over last year. The big cut in the
department's budget is in the employment opportunities funding which has been
cut by approximately 30 per cent. The caseload has increased by 30 per cent, yet
they have cut the budget for employment opportunities by 30 per cent, Mr.
Speaker, down to $16 million from $22 million. Is the government giving up on an
effort to keep social assistance recipients attached to the work force, or would
they rather see people on social assistance and not working, Mr. Speaker? What
is the situation? When your caseload increases by 30 per cent and your revenue
drops by 30 per cent for employment opportunities, how do you propose to handle
that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am answering is it
is not a question that relates directly to something that happens in social
services, but is a -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BAKER: - but is a budgetary expenditure measure.
Mr. Speaker, we have come to realize, and it took us a while
to realize what was happening, that what the previous government used to do was
put a certain amount of money into this program, certain numbers of millions of
dollars, and announce all this money for social assistance recipients and so on,
and instead, they would then hire permanent staff in the Department of Social
Services. For years, I believe the salaries of over a hundred full-time
employees were being carried in that particular vote. We have discovered that,
and what we have done is simply taken that salary vote that was hidden away in
the heading the hon. member is talking about and moved it into the regular
salary component. Therefore, there is no drop in that program, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. FLIGHT: You were the minister, Tobin, (inaudible).
MR. BAKER: You don't like the truth.
AN HON. MEMBER: You're learning from the Premier
(inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: You were afraid 'Eric' was going to tell the
truth, that's why you (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East
Extern.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My
question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I think we all
know, when Metro Board was disbanded most employees were transferred to the
City, I think, with one exception. One employee was transferred to St. Thomas'.
They were part of CUPE. Even some of the management people received severance
pay packages. There were about twenty people from NAPE who went to the regional
services board and they were disqualified from receiving severance pay. I want
to ask the minister to tell this hon. House why.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, they were not denied
severance pay. The details of the arrangements that were made in each individual
case I can't recall but, generally, what happened was that when the employees
went from the employ of the managers of Bay Bulls - Big Pond and the water
treatment plant out there, when they were transferred to one of the other
incorporated bodies, their benefits transferred with them. I have had
representation from a number of employees who indicate this is not so and that
there is a problem with it from CUPE and NAPE. I have undertaken to ask
officials of the Department to get together with NAPE or CUPE or the employees
in question, examine it and come up with a resolution to it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East
Extern, on a supplementary.
MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We know there
is sort of a rare circumstance here, in that it was not in the contract of the
people who were employed by that water service; because they thought it was
ongoing, there was really no need for it to be in their contract. I want to ask
the minister: Since this is a rare circumstance, and it was not in their
contract, would he consider giving them their severance pay?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. HOGAN: I thought I explained that quite well for even
my good friend from St. John's East Extern to understand but I cannot seem to
get it through to him, that there are anomalies in this situation with the
transfer of employees to different situations from those they were in.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HOGAN: Can I have protection from the rabble, Mr.
Speaker? Interruptions, when you are trying to explain something -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
MR. HOGAN: - to the hon. the Member for St. John's East
Extern -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to get on with the
answer, please.
MR. HOGAN: - you need all the silence you can get.
Because he can't understand stuff anyway.
Anyway, where was I? For employees who have been transferred
to different jurisdictions, there are different mechanisms to put in place to
handle the transfer of employee benefits. That is what we are attempting to do.
I know the problem, I am dealing with it, and the department is talking to both
unions and the employees involved to see if it cannot be resolved in a mutually
satisfactory manner, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East
Extern, on a supplementary.
MR. PARSONS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, but a
different subject. I want to ask the minister what I have asked him these past
couple of days - to change the MOG. The Town of Pouch Cove has suffered $68,678
in lost revenue. I ask the hon. minister this morning: because of what that is
doing to those small towns - in particular, I speak of a specific case this
morning in Pouch Cove, where that is lost revenue, revenue that they cannot get
back. Would the minister consider some help for that town and, indeed, again
change the municipal operating grants system?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the hon.
member privately and in this House, all programs in the department, including
the new program or whatever he calls it, are under review constantly, and if
there are hardships experienced by various municipalities and if it is a
universal hardship we are taking a look at it.
I mentioned to the House, I believe yesterday or the day
before, that the department is working in conjunction with the Federation of
Municipalities and with the Administrators' Association and we have these
programs under constant review. If what the hon. member says becomes obviously
true, then corrective action will be taken, but if it doesn't become true, then
we will not touch it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.
MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of
Mines and Energy.
My sources indicate that we are getting down to the crunch on
Hope Brook as to whether or not that mine is a go or not. I am wondering if the
minister could indicate whether there is indeed any hope for Hope Brook at this
time?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there was further progress this
week but as of now, when I stand on my feet, it is not all finalized yet. I am
still quite hopeful. Personally I hope it can be resolved and we will see people
back to work next week, but we are not quite there yet. So we have to wait and
see if everything is going to get finalized.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
My question is to the Minister of Health. In the 1991 Budget
an amount of $800,000 was provided to plan and undertake the design work for a
new hospital in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. Would the minister advise if the
design work has been completed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains,
on a supplementary.
MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I tried to look through this year's Budget, Mr. Speaker. I
will ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Are there any monies committed to the
completion of this design work and the start of construction of the new
facility?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health, in
co-operation with other departments, is preparing a five-year plan and I have no
doubt that the Melville Hospital will be included in that plan.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder would the minister advise this House if he is
waiting for the by-election call in the Naskaupi District for Mr. Ed Roberts to
make some of these announcements?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with
the by-election. If we could have saved the $100,000 that the hon. member wasted
on the brass faucets in the washroom, Mr. Speaker, we would be able to do more
with hospitals in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The
Capes.
MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is to the Minister of Education. I wonder will
the Minister tell us if he expects tuition fees at Memorial University and the
other post-secondary institutions to increase again this year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the institutions make these
decisions. I have not been informed of any increase, but I would expect that,
consistent with the last few years and consistent with what is happening across
the country, that there may be increases this year in tuition fees at these
institutions.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The
Capes.
MR. HEARN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The enrolments at the university have been growing around 8
per cent a year and with the frozen budget that means government funding has
been effectively cut by $100 per student. Is it not a fact that to make up that
amount of money tuition fees will have to increase by approximately 15 per cent?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to correct
the information that the hon. member gave to the House about what is happening
to budgets this year. The university budget has been increased slightly. The
university budget has been increased in the area of operational funds by
approximately $1 million and, Mr. Speaker, in the capital area the university
gets $6.5 million, $2.5 million more this year than they got last year. They got
$4 million for furniture and equipment. So we feel, Mr. Speaker, that the
university has been treated fairly this year. I would not anticipate what their
decision will be with respect to increases in tuition fees this year.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The
Capes.
MR. HEARN: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The budget increased, as the minister said, the operating
grant by 1 per cent, virtually all of that increase will be taken up with the
higher payroll tax, higher workers compensation premiums, higher Unemployment
Insurance premiums, not to say the cost of living - inflation. How will the
university cope? Will there be further cuts in programs or will there be
limitations on enrolments?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must understand
that the university is like every other institution, agency or department of
government in these difficult times, we have to live with less. We have to spend
smarter. All educational institutions must do it as well as health and social
services, and all governments in Canada are doing it. I am sure the university
will do what is right without impacting negatively on the lives of students. We
believe education is vital to the future of this Province and the university
authorities do, and they will do the right thing I am sure.
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.
Before going on to the next item of business, in view of the
fact that we have a large number of students in the gallery the Chair would like
to clarify an awkward utterance made a little earlier in Questions Period. I
advised the hon. the Minister of Finance to finish in a half sentence. The Chair
was thinking of saying was would the minister finish in a half minute. It was a
matter of the motor skills getting ahead of the cerebral skills, and I could not
pull back. What the Chair obviously meant was for the minister to finish up as
quickly as possible, with precision and economy of language.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, on January 27 the government
appointed Mr. John Clarke, Chief of Security in the Department of Works,
Services and Transportation, to investigate some complaints at MCP. I am pleased
today to table Mr. Clarke's report for the information of members of the House.
You will note that some references in the report have been
deleted or highlighted to replace names and references which, if made public,
could infringe upon the privacy of certain individuals, private business
concerns, or upon security and confidentiality, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
Motion, the hon. the President of Treasury Board to introduce
a bill, "An Act To Extend Restraint of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The
Province", carried. (Bill No. 17).
On motion, Bill No. 17 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR. BAKER: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act", carried. (Bill No.
18).
On motion, Bill No. 18 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR. BAKER: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1. I think that is the continuation
of the adjourned debate on the Budget.
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When I was so rudely interrupted by Question Period yesterday
I was just starting to get into full flight, exposing the fraud and the deceit
in the Budget. I am having a great time showing the people of this Province some
of the things that are hidden in the depths of this particular document - the
fraudulent manner in which the Minister of Finance tries to foist these tax
increases on the people of the Province while taking away some of the most
essential services in the Province.
I can understand why the Premier would leave. My stomach
churns every time I think about the Budget too, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: There is a little good news in everything,
Mr. Speaker.
Just to start out by reiterating the basic thrust of what I
was saying, this particular document fails in meeting its own requirements. It
identifies the problems in the Province well. It identifies the weakness in the
economy. It identifies the fact that the economy is declining. The minister
projects that the economy will decline this year, and he fails to do anything
about that. The minister projects that unemployment will increase by 2 per cent,
and he fails to do anything about that. In fact, he fails badly to do anything
about that. My colleague mentioned a few moments ago, funding in all of the
employment programs have been decreased drastically this year.
Having looked at those factors, being aware that the Province
is faced with just those two alone, you would think that this government would
come up with a positive plan to react to that. They have told us once again that
there will be a great economic strategy plan unveiled in the near future. How
long have we been waiting for that? For three years we have been waiting for a
great economic strategy plan. To date this government has failed to produce such
a plan. They have spent tens of millions of dollars on economic recovery
commissions, on strategy commissions, on economic advisory councils, a whole
host of agencies and groups and advisory committees that they put together to
study the economy. Well, Mr. Speaker, they can study it to death, it will not
change the economy. It is time for this government to stop studying and start
acting and doing something to improve the economy of this Province.
We are all aware that we are involved in a national
recession, but we cannot blame all of our problems on Ottawa or the national
recession. This government has to take it squarely on its own shoulders, that
they have failed miserably, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the economic situation in
this Province. In fact not only have they failed to deal with the problem, they
by their own actions are largely responsible for making these problems even more
serious. At a time when unemployment is up, at a time when businesses are weak
this government brings in the worst tax it could bring in, a payroll tax. Now
again this year they have increased that payroll tax and added it to tens of
thousands of small businesses that have payrolls between $100,000 and $300,000 a
year.
You try to tell us that there are thousands of businesses now
that will not pay any school tax. That is not correct. I think we showed
yesterday quite clearly that there are very few of those 10,000 companies the
minister referred who will not pay school tax, will not pay more tax.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Because they did not pay school tax, or they
paid less school tax than - what did you say?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: No, they did not pay school tax as an
individual. They were better off. There are companies in this Province, small
companies, proprietorships that own very little if any property, that based on
the assessment of the property value paid less than $150 a year school tax.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: No. But because they paid that they did not
pay the personal school tax.
MR. GRIMES: That is not true.
MR. WINDSOR: It is true.
MR. GRIMES: That is not true.
MR. WINDSOR: It is absolutely true.
MR. GRIMES: That is not true! He would not know that. You
should check that out again.
MR. WINDSOR: I checked it out with the School Tax
Authority, and I am told by the School Tax Authority that there are individuals
in this Province who paid no school tax because they had a proprietorship and
were paying business tax and paid less than $150 a year.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the minister says it is not true
does not make it not true. I prefer to take the word of the School Tax Authority
than the word of the minister.
AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: That is right. He should know. Yes, former
NTA president. You think he would know what was going on in school tax, but he
does not know.
MR. GRIMES: You have to pay as an individual, and you
have to pay as a business (inaudible) -
MR. WINDSOR: If you are a proprietorship then you are
exempt as a person. That is from personal taxes.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair wants to make hon. members aware that the Chair is
aware of what is going on and wants to make hon. members aware of that. Hon.
members know that it is not permissable to be asking questions in the nature
that is now going on, but the Chair has to be guided by the member. If the
member does not seem to object then the Chair permits it to go on. So the Chair
just wants to make it clear to the members of the House that the Chair is
totally aware of what is going on and is more or less being guided by the member
himself.
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate Your Honour's protection, but this is the only
way that we can get ministers opposite to give us some information, to speak and
to comment.
AN HON. MEMBER: And you love it.
MR. WINDSOR: I'm loving it. Yes, I love it. The minister
will find out. I challenge the minister to check with the School Tax Authority
and ask the School Tax Authority. If he finds out that I am wrong let him come
back on Monday and tell us I am wrong. If he finds out I am right will he come
back on Monday and apologise?
MR. GRIMES: Absolutely.
MR. WINDSOR: Alright. I will be waiting for that.
AN HON. MEMBER: He put the teachers on strike.
MR. WINDSOR: Yes, he put the teachers on strike, and then
he -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) since he became a minister.
MR. WINDSOR: That is right.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Neither did I. I was going to say something
that would be unparliamentary, but I will not say it. I will not be drawn into
that sort of tactic by the hon. Member for St. John's South.
Mr. Speaker, talking about the payroll tax, my friend for St.
John's East Extern confirms what I just said. He is a small businessman. He pays
the payroll tax, or he did, as a small businessman, and therefore he does not
pay the personal one. You only pay it once. If you are a sole proprietor.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: School tax, yes, school tax I'm talking
about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: School tax I'm talking about. I would not
send you to the School Tax Authority to find out about the payroll tax.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, that's not the point. You won't send
me to the School Tax Authority for anything in a couple of months because it
won't be there.
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, where did we get them this
morning? Friday morning is not good for the ministers. It's too early in the
morning for them. They are not used to getting out of bed before lunch, I can
tell.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Yes. Mr. Speaker, what this government has
done is eliminate the school tax, and replaced it with increased taxation. Let
us be very clear to all present. They eliminated $20 million of school tax on
private individuals and increased it by $30 million of personal income tax. A 50
per cent increase. They have eliminated school tax on private businesses and
they have increased that - they have eliminated $10 million school tax paid by
private businesses, and they have replaced it by $15 million of payroll tax
increases. In total they have replaced $30 million of school tax by $45 million
of other taxes. That is the bottom line here.
The Minister of Finance can shake his head all he wants. It
is good. Whenever he moves his head and says 'no,' we know he is not comatose
over there. So that is an improvement. The fact is, taxation has increased
dramatically.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: A million dollars.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Six million dollars - this year. Yes, $6
million this year, and an extra $15 million next year, Mr. Speaker. That is how
this government reacts to an economic crisis, to an unemployment rate of 20.4
per cent, the minister predicts. It is 20.1 per cent today. So he is pretty safe
in predicting it will go to 20.4 per cent. To combat that he raises personal
income tax, he raises payroll tax - which is a tax on employers for employing
people - and in so doing he will eliminate thousands of jobs this summer,
particularly for students. Thousand of jobs for students.
My friend for St. Mary's - The Capes told me he was talking
last night with a fish plant owner in his riding who paid $2,500 last year in
school tax, and that little fish plant will pay $7,000 this year. It doesn't
matter that that company is losing money. The minister is going to take another
$4,500 from that company. I quoted one last week that I checked with, a much
bigger company, that paid nothing last year. It will pay $28,000 this year.
MR. GRIMES: Why did they pay nothing last year?
MR. WINDSOR: Because the fish plants were not taxable
under school tax. Will the former president of the NTA go read something about
what used to be the school tax?
MR. GRIMES: That's just the whole point, that is part of
what was wrong with all (Inaudible) paying no tax.
MR. WINDSOR: No, but, you know, that -
MR. GRIMES: Other people paying taxes (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: - that was a conscious policy decision to
exempt resource based industries, because they are having enough trouble. We
depend on our resource based industries to drive the economy of this Province.
They are in enough trouble as it is without governments taxing them out of
business.
AN HON. MEMBER: We put in place (Inaudible) -
MR. WINDSOR: When you put a payroll tax as you have now
on the paper mills of this Province, that will cost those paper mills probably
$500,000 a year, and those paper mills are barely surviving, and the local
management are in the boardrooms begging the boards not to close down the paper
mills in Newfoundland, when they are closing down other paper mills in their
organization, that $500,000 could indeed cause that board to decide to close
down that paper mill.
Now what kind of economics is that, Mr. Speaker? What kind of
logic is it?
MR. NOEL: Do you think other business are not having
problems too?
MR. WINDSOR: What kind of logic is that, Mr. Speaker? How
does this government propose to get us out of the economic situation we are in
with that type thinking? Where is the incentive for the paper companies to
invest more in this Province? Where is the incentive for them to expand? Where
is the incentive for them to close down another paper mill if their markets are
declining and leave the paper mills in Newfoundland operating? Where is the
incentive for them to modernize even further the paper mills?
MR. NOEL: (Inaudible). If Mount Pearl paid their fair
share of taxes we might be able to reduce them elsewhere.
MR. TOBIN: Are you speaking on behalf of Government?
MR. NOEL: I am speaking on behalf of the people
(Inaudible)
MR. WINDSOR: The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, speaks on
behalf of no one and after the next election he will speak on behalf of no one.
MR. NOEL: The people of Pleasantville are nobodies, are
they?
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind interjections
from the opposite side when there is an intelligent comment that relates to the
debate but when you get that kind of guttersniping from the Member for
Pleasantville then I find that very disruptive and it adds nothing to the debate
or the decorum of the House. I advise the hon. member that I have no intention
of getting involved in that kind of foolishness with him.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member entertain
a question?
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly entertain a
question from the Minister of Education.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to his main
point. He made a good point, there are additional funds being raised this year
to replace the school tax. His numbers are wrong, as the Minister of finance
indicated, but there are additional funds being raised to replace the school
tax. We are not only replacing the school tax but we are adding additional
funds. Now, these funds, Mr. Speaker, are going back into education. Most of
these monies are going back into rural parts of this Province which have
suffered for years and years and years inequity as a result of school tax. Now,
does the hon. member understand that he is right-
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am serious. This is a serious
question. The hon. member and I have had some good exchanges in the House and we
are fairly frank with each other.
AN HON. MEMBER: Fairly frank.
DR. WARREN: We are. He is right, that we are this year at
the same time we are replacing the school tax money, which is about $30 million
a year, and for nine months is about $27 million, we are adding an additional
tax to level up so that all schools in this Province will have basically the
same amount of money available for operation and maintenance. Now, does the hon.
member understand that we are levelling up so that every school board in the
Province will get for operation and maintenance basically the same amount as the
highest school board will get next year? Does the hon. member understand that?
MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. member to answer
the question I just want to point out the procedure that is going on here. Again
in this matter I have heard hon. members shouting out: what is the hon. minister
doing? Normally, in that situation the Chair leaves it to the hon. member who
has granted the leave. Since the hon. member is the one who granted the leave,
as long as the hon. member stays satisfied the Chair stays satisfied.
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, another wise ruling
from Your Honour. I thank the Minister of Education for his comment. I am quite
aware that equalization grants have increased. It is a program that was started
by the previous administration in very difficult times. I think we put in $2
million the first year when my colleague for St. Mary's - The Capes was the
Minister of Education and we increased it each year. We were up to about $4.5
million in 1988 when Governments changed.
DR. WARREN: We will put in $10 million next year.
MR. WINDSOR: Ten million next year.
DR. WARREN: (Inaudible) it will be for the full year, Mr.
Speaker, about $22 million for equalization.
MR. WINDSOR: So you are putting in an extra $5.5 million
this year?
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, $9 million extra for nine
months, and that is equivalent to $12 million a year extra funding for rural
schools to improve operation and maintenance of schools, to buy computers, buy
books, and all these things, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we welcome that. I have already
commented on it as the Minister of Education knows. I have welcomed that
additional equalization fund but that is a decision Government has made, but it
does not alter the fact that we have eliminated a school tax of $30,000 million
and replaced it with a tax of $45 million. Those are the facts. You cannot
change that. The fact that Government is adding an extra $8 million of
equalization funding, we welcome that, but the Minister also forgot to tell us
that they cut $7 million from the school construction program so where is the
gain? You had $27 million a year for the last three years, you are down to $20
million this year -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) answer.
MR. WINDSOR: That is the answer, I would love to have an
answer.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy this debate because I
think it is very important that we explain these questions.
When the present government took office, Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is well aware, because he was, I guess Minister of Finance
previously or the President of Treasury Board, the former government was putting
in $20 million a year into capital -
AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-two.
DR. WARREN: - twenty-two; that included insurance and
other amounts, we increased that by $7 million a year for three years - Mr.
Speaker, I am trying to provide information, the hon. member and I, please let
us do this.
We added $7 million for three years, we guaranteed $7 million
more, that would have been $29 million in his figures, for three years, that is
$21 million extra for capital; we did not guarantee it beyond that. This year we
reverted to what the former government was putting in, $20 million or $22
million, because we are doing two things. We have the most exhaustive and
comprehensive study being completed into the future of education that has been
undertaken, there may have been one exception, we had one study some twenty
years ago, a pretty good study -
AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five, wasn't it?
DR. WARREN: - twenty-five years ago yesterday in fact it
was released, but we have, being completed the most comprehensive study ever
undertaken of Newfoundland education and I am pleased to indicate that it has
been completed and secondly, we have being done, and the hon. member will
support this I am sure, a long range capital plan. The hon. member I think, was
interested in doing that some years ago, put together what this Province needs
for the next five to ten years in school buildings and what we are going to do
then, is try to fund it in a long term.
In the interim between the completion of the Royal Commission
Report, which is vital to the future, and the completion of the long term
capital plan, we are spending a lot of money this year evaluating schools all
over the Province because we believe in equality, in the interim, we are going
to revert to what the former government put into capital. Now that is the
honest, Mr. Speaker, I use that word, I do not try to be dishonest at any time,
but that is the explanation for the $20 million this year.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, a lot of words, and I am
pleased to see the study is ongoing but it does not alter any of the facts. It
does not alter the fact that this government, last year, put in $27 million in
capital and this year they are putting in $20 million. The minister wants to
compare it with the $22 million that we allocated in my Budget in 1988, your $20
million this year with inflation is worth about $16 million as compared to the
$22 million I spent in 1988, so you are spending considerably less -
DR. WARREN: (Inaudible) $21 million extra over three
years.
MR. WINDSOR: $21 million extra over three years,
wonderful! That covered inflation and maybe a little bit more. I am not arguing
with that, that was good but it does not alter the fact that you are spending $7
million less this year. You tell me on one hand we are spending an extra $8
million on equalization, I am simply telling you yes, you are, but you are
spending $7 million less on capital, and does that not approximately balance
out, and on the other hand, you are picking up an extra $15 million on taxation,
trying to say that: we eliminated the school tax, we are not adding any new
taxes, we eliminated the school tax and we are picking up the payroll tax and
the personal income taxes instead of it. Now that is simple addition.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, this is, if you will permit one
final -
MR. SPEAKER: I do not know that the hon. -
MR. WINDSOR: I will let him one more time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: This is the final comment, Mr. Speaker,
because I think we are understanding each other and now we are getting close.
Capital is different from operation. We have schools being
built, Mr. Speaker, we are putting $12 million in per year in operation and
maintenance this year. We decided that we would put extra money into the
operation and maintenance of schools where it is desperately needed for
computers, books and all of these things which are important, and we reverted to
the $20 million for capital. My final comment is, we expect that when the
studies are done, we will be putting into school buildings extra funding to make
sure that every Newfoundlander, irrespective of where he or she lives, has the
same quality of facilities in the future. We will do that, Mr. Speaker. I won't
debate it any more with the hon. member, but I wanted him to understand our
position.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not said
anything that in any way alters anything that I have said. He is trying to make
his explanations, he is trying to defend his budget as he should, but it does
not alter the fact that this government is trying to convince the people of this
Province that they have eliminated the payroll tax. It was a great election
promise of the Premier, and he has finally fulfilled it. They have eliminated
the payroll tax, or the school tax rather. I wish they would eliminate the
payroll tax. But they have eliminated the school tax. I am simply pointing out,
Mr. Speaker, that in so doing they eliminated $30 million of taxation and they
have imposed $45 million of taxation. That is a 50 per cent increase. So they
should stop trying to convince the people of this Province that they eliminated
the school tax. They replaced it with a 50 per cent increase in taxation. Now,
what they decide to spend it on, whether they spend it on equalization or they
put television sets on every desk in every school in the Province, is their
business. But the fact of the matter is they increased taxation by 50 per cent.
In so doing, as it relates to the payroll tax, they have
increased taxation on many, many businesses in this Province. They tried to tell
us there are 10,000 businesses that paid school tax that will not now pay school
tax. I am telling them that most of those 10,000 businesses did not own any
property, therefore they did not pay business tax. They were renting. I am
telling him that many of them that did own property owned such small amounts of
property that the tax that was paid was less than if the individual had been
paying the personal school tax. So now, Mr. Speaker, that they are paying the
payroll tax they will be paying far more than they paid before, not less. We
have all of those companies that have payrolls between $100,000 and $300,000
that did not pay any payroll tax before, that will now pay it. Certainly anybody
over $300,000 will pay much more because the rate has increased.
We have thousands of individuals in this Province who will
pay more personal income tax.
AN HON. MEMBER: And thousands will pay less.
MR. WINDSOR: Very few will pay less, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: Tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders will
pay less.
MR. WINDSOR: Very few will pay less, Mr. Speaker.
I showed yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that a person with a $20,000
income will pay more income tax next year, fifty-one dollars more. And there are
not a lot of people in this Province with family incomes less than $20,000 who
are paying any income tax. So there are very few, if any, who will pay less
income tax. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, there will be none who will pay less income
tax. Certainly there are 20,000 senior citizens who did not pay school tax at
all because they were exempt who will now pay 4 per cent more personal income
tax. That is a fact of life, Mr. Speaker.
This government, Mr. Speaker, has increased personal income
tax in the few years they have been in office by 6 per cent, from 60 to 66 per
cent in three or four years. That is a 10 per cent increase in the amount of
provincial income tax paid by every Newfoundlander and Labradorian who pays
income tax, a 10 per cent increase, Mr. Speaker. Not to mention the fact that as
salaries increase government automatically gets increases because it is a
percentage. That is how normally those sorts of tax rates rise to meet
inflation. That is how the revenue is kept up to meet inflationary requirements
because it automatically takes place. This government, on top of that, has
increased it by 10 per cent.
Corporate income tax, corporate taxes in total, Mr. Speaker,
have been increased by 250 per cent since this government came into power, 250
per cent, 150 per cent increase in corporate taxation by this government. That
is how this government is responding to a recession, 250 per cent increase.
AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you said 150.
MR. WINDSOR: One hundred and fifty per cent more. It is
increased to 250 per cent of the former amount. That is how this government is
responding to high unemployment, to an economic recession, to a decline in
economic activity, to a decline in the gross provincial product, by taxing jobs
- by taxing those who create a job - not a tax on those who are making a profit.
AN HON. MEMBER: Where would you get the money?
MR. WINDSOR: I would not penalize a company for creating
a job.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Well there are many innovative ways, and you
will see them in due course when I am sitting over there where the hon. Member
for St. John's Centre is sitting. When I am Minister of Finance again you will
see the creative ways.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WINDSOR: You will see them.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) one we ever had.
MR. WINDSOR: Well we are disappointed that this
government, Mr. Speaker, has not shown any imagination - no innovation at all -
in finding the solution to the problems here.
Their colleagues in New Brunswick brought in a Budget that I
do not totally agree with it, but at least they were trying. They did not sit
back, wipe their hands clean and say, well, the economy is declining,
unemployment is going up and there is not a thing to do about it. We do not know
what to do. That is what this Budget says. That is the bottom line here. We do
not know what to do about the problems with which we are faced. That is what
government is saying.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: I am sorry. The President of Treasury Board
is making a comment?
MR. BAKER: You cannot borrow $700 million.
MR. WINDSOR: You cannot borrow $700 million, no. No, but
you could have spent the $65 million you left on the table last year. You could
have spent the $65 million. That would have only cost you $14 million, because
it was cost shared. That $65 million could have created 2,400 jobs last year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WINDSOR: And you could spend the same amount this
year that you spent in your first Budget, which was $60 million more than you
have in your Budget this year. That would create another 2,000 jobs this year.
Your capital Budget has decreased by more than $60 million in four years.
AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.
MR. WINDSOR: Not true?
MR. TOBIN: Our last Budget for roads was $40 odd million.
Yours is $20 (inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board
says it is not true. I am not going to waste my time. He has enough staff to
tell him how much he spent in the Budget in 1989. He can look up the Budget, as
I did. I am telling him what he has done. The capital Budget is cut by $60
million this year from the level that this government had in their first Budget
in 1989. That is how they respond to a sagging economy and a construction
industry that is almost stagnant.
The fact of the matter is, this government is totally devoid
of any ideas as to how to deal with the situation. We all know it is a serious
situation when they put wage freezes on public servants. Perhaps they did not
have a lot of choice in that. I do not think that we need to debate that aspect
of it, but they also put tens of thousands of public servants on notice that
there may be more layoffs last year. So they do not know who might be laid off.
So they do not spend any money.
That is only one component of how this government has
destroyed confidence in the economy, of individuals, people who spend money, of
consumers. People are scared to death to spend any money, if they have any to
spend. Even those who do are scared to death to spend it, because they do not
know what is going to happen next.
Private investors, private companies, are scared to move. I
have spoken to dozens of them - business people who have ideas, who have
projects on the drawing board with which they would like to proceed, but they do
not see any hope. There is no light over the horizon saying, now is a good time
to invest. Anybody who is in business knows that the best time to invest in
business is when the economy is weak - when the economy is weak. This is the
right time to invest. Interest rates are low. The cost of financing an
enterprise today is as low as it probably ever will be in the foreseeable
future. If you are going to start a business, this is the time to do it. If you
have any money at all, and if you have identified an opportunity, have any
expertise, this is the time to start a business - but there are very few. I
spoke to a Bank Manager a couple of days ago and he said, all I am doing is
putting out fires, trying to keep people's businesses going so they do not lose
their homes because most of them over the last year or so have had to put their
homes up as collateral against their business in order to maintain their line of
credit.
That is what the banks are doing today. Banks are making a
good profit, I do not deny that, as banks always will. When you are in trouble
they charge you more and make things worse. When you do not need the money they
trip over themselves to pass it out to you. How many times have we seen that.
How many times have I said that in this House. I said it when I was Minister of
Finance. I said it to the vice-presidents of the banks when I was Minister of
Finance. That you guys are ripping off companies that are not able to defend
themselves and do not have any alternative. Their reaction was that they were a
bad risk now. Of course they are a bad risk now, and you are going to make them
worse because you are going to tack on another 2 percentage points to their
interest rate because now you are scared that you might lose something. You
might lose it all.
I recall when the Bank of Nova Scotia came down here, five or
six of them on their Lear jet and came to a Cabinet meeting in Deer Lake. They
called down and said: Can we meet you on an emergency basis because the fishing
industry was about to crumble and the Bank of Nova Scotia financed 90 per cent
of the fish companies in this Province. They came in pleading saying: Here is
what we are going to do. We said: No, you are not. We have news for you. If we
had not stood up to the banks then it would have been tens and dozens of fish
plants shut down in this Province at that time. They want to cut back on their
line of credit. They want to cut back on financing for everything. They want to
increase interest rates. A company that is in financial trouble will now have to
pay more for their line of credit. Now what kind of economics is that?
That is the same kind of approach that this government is
taking. When businesses in this Province are in trouble this government is going
to take more out of their pocket and put them deeper in trouble. That is the
kind of economics that this government is practising. That is the kind of
economics that is going to put this Province into recession for a long, long
time. Anyone who was hoping to start a new enterprise this year, anyone who was
planning to hire on students for the summer, anyone who was planning to hire on
additional permanent staff are now going to have to rethink that. Because the
more they increase their payroll, the more this government takes money out of
their pocket, penalizes them for employing people without regard for whether or
not that company is making a profit.
Now how do you say to a fish plant that lost money last year
that we are now going to impose a payroll tax on you and take $28,000 from you.
Is the government doing anything to help the 350 people who are employed in that
fish plant? You are jeopardizing their jobs. A real possibility that fish plant
may not open. It is not only $28,000. I am not suggesting that on a payroll of
$2.8 million, $28,000 is going to be the sole cause for that fish plant to shut
down, but it is a big factor. I will not name the fish plant, but it is one of
the larger private fish plants.
AN HON. MEMBER: FPI.
MR. WINDSOR: It is not FPI. FPI is a public company, I
say to the hon. gentleman. This is a private company, one of the larger ones. I
will tell the minister privately if he is really interested. They had a payroll
last year of $2.8 million which means at 1 per cent they will pay $28,000 this
year payroll tax. They did not pay any school tax last year.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: No. They have 350 employees, and that
company lost money last year. In reward for that this government is saying we
will tax you an additional $28,000. It does not matter that you have lost money.
On the other hand we may well have a company next door to it that paid more last
year for school tax than they will pay this year for payroll tax because it may
be a small company that has a large amount of property and a very low payroll.
There are examples of that, there are companies that will pay less because being
taxed on a property value basis for school tax, they would have paid more last
year than they will pay on payroll tax this year based on their small number of
employees. Mining companies in Labrador are an example of that, by the way. They
have a huge capital investment up there. The percentage of the school tax they
paid will be quite a bit more than the payroll tax that they will pay this year.
Interesting. My researchers have just sent me in some notes
here. Increases in general business tax since 1989. These are no doubt factual.
Corporate income tax has actually declined. Not the rate. But it has declined,
from $55 million in 1989 to $48 million now. Simply because corporations are not
doing the business. That is the reason for that.
The payroll tax has gone up from zero, of course, in 1989, to
$66.8 million this year. Sixty-six point eight million dollars is what the
payroll tax will take out of corporations' pockets this year. The total has
changed from 1989 of $55 million to $115 million. Right? So I was wrong. It is a
209 per cent increase, not 250 per cent. Gone from $55 million to $115 million.
So it is 109 per cent addition.
That is what has taken place in four years since this
government took office. Sixty million dollars additional corporate taxation.
That $60 million in the pockets of corporations could do a lot to stimulate this
economy. We could forgive the government, Mr. Speaker, if they were taking that
$60 million and putting in place infrastructure, incentive programs, some sort
of subsidies on transportation, or something that would help business prosper,
that would cause more businesses to come to Newfoundland. That would remove some
of the disadvantages inherent in doing business in Newfoundland. That would help
us be more competitive with those that are operating in the larger marketplace
in central Canada and worldwide.
We are not seeing that. Five per cent of the total government
dollars is all that is being invested into natural resources to try to stimulate
activity in the resource based industries. Five point one per cent is all that
is going into it. Admittedly, we have social problems that have to be dealt
with. I sympathize with the government. No question. You are always torn, as I
said yesterday, by all these groups that are coming in saying: we need more. By
the need to improve health care, education, and social service programs.
Health and education are going to increase. Those costs are
going up every year. There is not much we can do about that. We can try to
streamline it, we can economize, we can take advantage of economies of scale, we
can modernize. We can do all of the things that any corporation is doing to
improve the efficiency of its business. We can apply the same to school boards
and hospitals and things of that nature.
But you cannot deny the fact that social programs, social
services, can be reduced, by creating employment. So we have to take more into
the resource based areas. Into creating business, into creating job
opportunities. Into letting private enterprise operate on an even basis in this
Province. We have to somehow find a way to let private enterprise move forward
to turn the wheels of the economy. Because government alone cannot do it, and
government should not try to do it alone. Government will need private
enterprise. Government's funds should be used to provide infrastructure to
create that economic climate and should be used to leverage private capital to
invest in this Province to try to get things moving. In the short-term,
unfortunately, we have to rely on short-term make-work projects, and we have
seen how this government has cut $10 or $11 million from the Budget this year, a
year when we know that the problem is going to be more severe than last year,
and I know they will put it back in later on in the year. I would prefer if they
had been more honest with the people and said, We have to do it now because it
will have to be there before the year is out and it will affect your Budget. You
can get some cost-sharing programs but they will not all be cost-shared. Mr.
Speaker, that is the kind of Budget it is. It is a deceitful Budget. It says we
are not increasing taxes, not adding any new taxes, but you are increasing taxes
by $15 million. It said we are eliminating 171 fees and licenses when it is
eliminating seven licenses only and some of those not for a full year. It is the
kind of Budget that would have people think this government has not imposed any
additional burden on them when it certainly has. It would have them think they
are spending more on all of the social programs, but when you discount for
inflation, when you take back payroll tax that even the Crown corporations and
government departments, themselves, will have to pay - and the Minister of
Education says there is over $1 million additional for Memorial University,
$400,000 or more of which, Mr. Speaker, will be paid back as payroll tax to the
Province. And when you have inflation of 1.8 per cent as predicted by the
minister, it could well be more, but even if it is 1.8 per cent, then Memorial
University has less to spend this year than it had last year.
So, Mr. Speaker, you can try to deceive the people, and you
may well deceive some of them, but you can't alter the facts that this Budget is
a negative Budget, it lacks imagination and innovation, it does nothing to deal
with the declining economy and with rising unemployment except to make them
worse. We would have hoped that this government would have come forward with
something a little more innovative than that.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to stop there. I will have other
opportunities. We will awaken the Member for Carbonear. He is next on the agenda
to speak, I believe. I will have many more opportunities and many more questions
to ask as we go through the Estimates Committees and the various subheads in the
Budget. I choose not to go through that now because there will be a more
appropriate time when we can do that, a better forum with questions and answers
back and forth, as the Minister of Education and I got into today, but it is not
the appropriate format for the Budget debate, itself. So I will leave those
questions for the Estimates, but there are many, many more questions that I will
have on the details of the Budget and I know my colleagues have many questions
to ask, as well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Pleasantville.
MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are in a very serious situation in this
Province and in this country. We have just listened to the finance critic from
the Opposition nitpick about the Budget, talking about minor amounts of money
and minor policies. He doesn't seem to appreciate the seriousness of the
situation we are in. We have to begin making fundamental changes. There is no
point in dealing with small issues like you are in a process of re-ordering the
deck chairs on the Titanic, and that is the situation that we are going to find
ourselves in if we do not start dealing with the major challenges we face. All
we hear from the other side of the House is: why don't you spend more, why don't
you raise taxes, why don't you borrow more, why don't you increase wages for the
civil servants and for other people who are employed by government? But where is
it going to come from, Mr. Speaker, where is it going to come from?
The previous speaker said that we should not impose the
payroll tax on resource companies, then who will we impose taxes on in order to
get the revenues we need to carry out services in this Province? Who will we
impose taxes on, should we expect other businesses to pay more tax so the
resource companies, most of which are owned by wealthy national and
international organizations, owned by shareholders outside this Province like
Fishery Products International, like the forestry companies owned by
shareholders outside this Province. Should we not put taxes on these companies
so that these people can make higher profits; should we not put taxes on the
regulated companies like Newfoundland Light and Power and Newfoundland
Telephone?
We are in a situation in this Province today you know, where
the only people who are making any money are the people who are regulated. The
Newfoundland Telephone company last year made more profit I think, I just
glanced over a news report a few days ago, more profit than Sears Canada, higher
profits than Sears Canada. We are in a situation in this country today, Mr.
Speaker, where the people in the competitive business world are not making it
for the most part, where we are losing the ability to create jobs because
businesses are falling by the wayside.
We see regulated industries like the Telephone companies,
like Newfoundland Light and Power imposing new charges on the population through
our regulatory authorities, new charges so that they can have good returns for
their investors so that they can provide incomes for some of their managers and
employees beyond what other people in our Province are able to earn, and we
cannot keep doing that. The few cannot keep prospering while the many find
themselves in economic decline. That situation will not continue very long, Mr.
Speaker.
The other day the finance critic for the opposition said that
the economy was improving in Canada. Well he is probably the only one who
believes it along with Prime Minister Mulroney, who says it periodically but it
is not what the statistics indicate. The economy is not improving significantly
in the United States or in Canada and it is continuing to decline in
Newfoundland, and I suspect it is going to get worse as the year progresses -
MR. R. AYLWARD: Because of your policies.
MR. NOEL: - not because of our policies but because of
federal government policies I tell the Member for Kilbride, and you know, the
one good piece of news I saw in the past few days was an indication from Prime
Minister Mulroney that he might be considering an early election and I cannot
think of any one single action that would do more to give a boost to the
Canadian economy than to have the federal government resign, so that we can
adopt new economic policies, so that we can deal with the constitutional
question in a way that shows some promise for this Province and for the country.
The Mulroney government has mismanaged our economy. They have
doubled the national debt since they came to office, from about $200 billion to
$450 billion, it will be at the end of this year. They have increased all forms
of taxation in the country substantially, Mr. Speaker. They have adopted and
practised unjustifiable economic policies.
One of the reasons that we are in such a mess in this country
today is that during the boom years of the mid-eighties the federal government
employed the wrong fiscal policy for this country. Instead of reducing
expenditures when times were booming in Ontario, when times were booming in
Toronto, when the unemployment rate in Toronto was practically nil - something
like 4 per cent, which is regarded as full employment by most economists - we
never saw the federal government cut back on its expenditures in central Canada,
which is what they should have done. If this country operated properly, if we
adopted proper economic policies, when they saw the economy booming in central
Canada fiscal expenditures should have been cut back. Fiscal policies should
have been changed in order to cut back expenditures in central Canada and
increase expenditures in the parts of the country that were doing poorly.
Instead, that did not happen. The federal government did not
do it, the Ontario government did not do it. So what did they do? They
overheated the economy in Ontario. Drove up values, inflated values,
unjustifiably. Fabricated values, even. Overheated the Canadian economy and had
to drive up interest rates to the destructive levels they have been at over the
past few years in order to try to control inflation, in order to preserve our
international trading position.
Now that was just plain poor economic policy. We would have
seen different policy in this country if the Parliament of Canada operated
differently. If the smaller provinces had more say in how the national
government operated. That is the only hope for the smaller provinces, for the
poorer provinces in Canada. To change the national government so that we can
have more say in how it functions.
Now the government of this Province has advocated the
implementation of a Triple E Senate as a way to accomplish this. While I have
reservations about what a Triple E Senate will accomplish today, it offers some
hope. This country would be a far different country if we had a Triple E Senate
from the beginning, as we were supposed to have. When this country was set up it
was on the condition that we have an effective Senate that would give the
regions equal say in how the federal government operates in order to
counterbalance the population densities in the central provinces. If the country
had operated that way from the beginning we would have a far more equitable
standard of living throughout all the provinces.
If we create a Triple E Senate now, if we ensure that the
regions have more say in how the country is governed, what we will do is enable
the smaller provinces to prevent the federal government from adopting policies
favourable to Ontario and Quebec. We would be able to do that. But the House of
Commons, which would still be governed by those two provinces, still be
dominated by those two provinces, would also continue to be able to prevent the
federal government from adopting policies that would be favourable to the
smaller provinces.
So while I see a Triple E Senate as some progress for the
less powerful provinces, it is certainly not a panacea for all our ills. But it
is something we need to try to accomplish, and it is something for which we need
the support of everybody in this Province, and of all the other smaller
provinces, in order to accomplish.
We in the Liberal party have succeeded in persuading our
national party to adopt, as a cornerstone of national policy, a plank calling
for the creation of a Triple E Senate. I would encourage the other parties in
this House to try and persuade their own national parties to do likewise,
because if we are to make any real change in how this country is governed, and
in the economic prospects for our Province, we have to take important actions
trading relationships that favour our Province - not relations that favour the
most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec as well.
A good example of that is in the current GATT negotiations
taking place to try to liberalize trade, to try to free trade in the country, in
the world. To try to free trade in the world to the advantage of Canadians.
As the Leader of the Opposition himself indicated a few days
ago, one thing we need to do in order to expand the economic potential of our
fishery, is to ensure access to large markets for our fully processed fish
products. We have exported thousands of jobs over the years because we have had
to ship fish out in cod blocks and that sort of thing. That does not create jobs
in our Province, but it creates jobs in other provinces. We have had to do that
because we have not had access to foreign markets of sufficient size for our own
fully processed products - the United States for instance.
The situation is changing with the United States now because
of the free trade agreement we have with that country, but it is not changing
with other countries. We still have tremendous difficulty gaining access to the
European Common Market for our manufactured fish products. One way we can
hopefully improve that access is through these international trade negotiations,
but we cannot expect to gain advantages ourselves without accepting some costs -
without making some concessions.
One concession Canada has to make is to increase free trade
for agricultural products. Now the Member for Kilbride some weeks ago called on
the provincial government to endorse the federal government's position against
the freeing of agricultural trade in the world, and that is the position being
taken by the federal government. Of course we all realize that the federal
government hopes their position does not win. The federal government is being
two-faced in these international negotiations. They are pretending to Canadian
farmers that they are supporting their supply management policies while at the
same time hoping that negotiations are going to reduce the impacts of those
policies, because they are unnecessarily maintaining high costs of food for
Canadians, and because they are preventing proper access, or increased access,
to export markets not only for our agricultural products, although for our
agricultural products as well, but for everything that we produce, including
fish products. That is why increased liberalization of international trade would
be much to Newfoundland's advantage.
So I wish the people on the other side of the House would get
sensible about some of these challenges that we are facing, and support policies
that will be truly productive for this Province and stop supporting programs
favoured by particular interest groups who are concerned only with their own
vested interests.
Mr. Speaker, it disturbs me to see how many Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians are unemployed these days. We talk about having an unemployment
rate of 18 to 20 per cent and we all know that the real rate is greater than
that. We all know there are thousands of our people who are unemployed and
thousands more who are under employed. One of the ways everybody is talking
about these days that offer the most potential for developing our economy is
through improving education for our young people. I have to support that.
Everybody agrees that improved education is essential in order to compete in
today's world and the world of the future, but that is not going to be any
panacea either because we are not the only society in the world trying to better
educate our young people. That is being done everywhere.
Today we have many well educated Newfoundlanders who are
unable to get jobs. In some cases it is because they are educated in the wrong
disciplines, but in other cases they are educated in disciplines that are
supposed to be in demand in the world today, but they certainly are not in
demand in our Province.
So we cannot expect education in itself to solve the problems
we face. We have to do more than that. We have to improve our competitive
strength. We have to increase our access to foreign markets. We have to reduce
the cost of living in our Province and the cost of production in our Province in
order to make us more competitive. One way to reduce the cost of living without
reducing the standard of living is to reduce the cost of food. That is why I
have been advocating a review of our supply management policies and marketing
boards. We can substantially reduce the cost of food for a lot of
Newfoundlanders in this way without losing too many jobs, in my view, and
perhaps even increasing jobs because as we reduce the cost of living in this
Province and make this Province more competitive we will improve the economy, we
will increase the gross provincial product, and hopefully we will create more
export jobs and put our people in a position of being able to supply more of our
own needs ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, we are developing a tremendous welfare culture
in this Province and in this country. Canada's labour market programs today are
not solving our problems. Of all of our labour market programs Canadians spend
75 per cent of total expenditures on income maintenance. That is compared with
50 per cent in Germany and 30 per cent in Sweden, for example. What that means
is that we are paying people in order to ensure they have income rather than
paying them in order to ensure they get properly trained for the economy of the
future. We have to do more of that, Mr. Speaker. We have to ensure that more of
the money we spend on income maintenance goes to people who are improving their
ability to produce in our society, improving their ability to make our society
more competitive. We cannot continue transferring income from people who are
unable to be productive, people who are provided jobs, people who are out
earning incomes. We cannot continue taking from them and giving to people who
have not been enabled to earn their own incomes. That cannot go on indefinitely.
The time for that has to stop pretty soon, Mr. Speaker.
Now Canada as a country has to make some difficult decisions.
Throughout the constitutional debate in which we are going to be enmeshed for
the rest of this year many of us will have to be prepared to review the kind of
country we want to have. It has become easy for Canadians to talk about what a
great country Canada is. Is it such a great country if we have so many children
who are hungry? A newspaper report the other day said one child died of
starvation in Canada. Forty per cent of the people who depend on food banks for
an adequate diet in this country are children. One out of every ten children
depends on a food bank.
Canada is in serious decline, and we have to be prepared to
make serious changes, to make changes in our perception of the kind of Canada we
want. Bilingualism, for instance, is an example of the kind of program Canada
has to reconsider whether it can afford. The official cost of bilingualism is
put by the commissioner at something like $1 billion a year. We all know it is
substantially more than that. One of our local columnists a few weeks ago
contended that it has a cost of about $4 billion a year.
What we have to decide is whether that is a cost we can
afford. We would all like to be bilingual, we would all like to be part of a
bilingual country. Everybody is enriched by being able to speak and understand
extra languages, but are we in a position to pay the price? If we are going to
look at saving money in this country, if we are going to look at making the
country more competitive, some costs have to be cut out. They are going to have
to be costs that people do not want to cut out. That some people do not want to
cut out. But you are not going to make this country any more competitive if we
do not look at some programs that are very close to the hearts of some people.
Another thing is defence expenditures in this country. Our
defence expenditures have continued to increase over the past decade, over the
term of the present federal government. In spite of the increasing peaceful
sentiments that seem to be developing in the world Canada is budgeting a
substantial increase in expenditure on defence for this year and projected for
next year. We have to look at cutting these expenditures if we are to save money
and make the country more competitive.
Then we have to look at the role that Canada is trying to
play in the world. We see that Canada is contributing an extra $1 billion to the
aid package for the former Soviet Union. Russia in particular, I believe, in
this case. I believe that Canada is living beyond its means internationally. I
believe that we are doing so because Canadian national politicians and
bureaucrats like to play in the big time, like to go off to international
conferences, like to be one of the major players in the world today in world
politics, in the world economy.
AN HON. MEMBER: So we are.
MR. NOEL: We are not a very major player, I say to the
Member for St. John's East Extern. We are only twenty-six million people. But we
are spending more money than we can afford in order to sustain a national role.
In order to enable Prime Minister Mulroney to go off to these meetings of the
Heads of State of the greatest countries in the world. I think we are playing
outside our league. I think we are spending more money on trying to maintain a
national posture in the world than we can afford.
If we want to improve the standard of living for our people,
and if we want to make our economy more efficient, we have to cut in some
places, and we all have a responsibility to say where we would be prepared to
cut. It is no good coming in here, or wherever you operate, and saying, we have
to make cuts, we have to economise, without being prepared to say where you
would do so. That is what I try to do when I speak in this House. When I have
some views on political matters, I try not to just say what is wrong. I try to
say also what we should be prepared to do in order to improve things.
One of the important challenges for this Province is our
fishing industry. There, again, we have to accept responsibilities ourselves.
One of the main causes of the destruction of the fishing industry has been
overfishing - not only overfishing by foreign countries, but overfishing by
Canadian companies, as well - and not only overfishing, but bad fishing. They
have gone out and torn up the fishing grounds. They have fished in spawning
seasons, and we all know the problems.
I think that we have been successful in the past few months
in increasing awareness of the problems in Canada and abroad. We are getting a
little more action these days, thanks to all of the groups in our Province, in
particular, and some people from outside our Province. We are drawing world
attention to the problem, and hopefully, that will lead to some improvement; but
it has been hard for us to get the attention of the federal Government of
Canada, the level of attention that is required. That has been difficult. They
have only done it now that it has become such a high profile media issue.
Hopefully, the Prime Minister is serious in following through on what he is
promising at this point. Hopefully, he will go to the Rio Environmental Summit
and make a strong case for the country. Hopefully, also, the Members of
Parliament from this Province will start making a stronger case for Newfoundland
and Labrador. I have been very disappointed in the federal Member for St. John's
East. How much do we hear from him? How much does he speak out?
AN HON. MEMBER: Who is it?
MR. NOEL: Who is it? That is a good question. Who is it?
It is a young man who does a very good job of going around to meetings within
the district, being seen cultivating goodwill on behalf of the expenditures of
the federal government,which are paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, in
general, and Newfoundland, in particular. But where is he?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?
MR. NOEL: If I could have a
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. NOEL: Where is he on the high profile issues we are
dealing with in this Province? Do we see him in the media making Newfoundland's
case throughout the country? Do we see him making Newfoundland's case with the
federal government of this country, or do we see him trying to make the federal
government's case in Newfoundland on the constitutional issue, trying to sell
Newfoundlanders on agreeing to the Mulroney package for constitutional reform,
which would be contrary to the interests of Newfoundlanders?
Mr. Reid was down at the Cabot Institute just a few weeks
ago, threatening the students of the Institute with the consequences of failing
to resolve Canadian constitutional problems, telling them that if the country
breaks up, Newfoundland will be devastated, Newfoundland will be doomed.
A few weeks ago, we had some visitors to this Province who
demonstrated that it is not necessary to be doomed just because you are a small
country. We had people from Iceland, a country half the size of Newfoundland, a
country with half the population of Newfoundland, a country with less resources
than Newfoundland, a country that speaks a language that is not as common as the
language we speak in the world today and a country that has been very
successful, very successful economically, a country that has a higher standard
of living than Newfoundland and Labrador.
We heard the leader of the Fishermen's Union when he came
back in his flotilla the other day, saying that if Canada cannot solve our
problems, Newfoundlanders have to reconsider the benefits of Confederation, and
I think he is right, Mr. Speaker, if this country has not been able to
substantially improve our earned income since we have been part of the country,
since we have been Canadians. They pretended to do so through all of these
economic games they have played, through the ACOAs and the DREEs and that sort
of thing, and all it has done is funnel money through Newfoundland companies
back to Ontario businesses, back to Quebec businesses.
Only enough has been left in this Province, Mr. Speaker, to
maintain a minimal standard of living and we have to say that that is not
enough, and in this year of Constitutional discussions, we have to be prepared
to stand firm and to say that unless we get a deal that is going to improve the
economic situation in Newfoundland, we are not going to agree to it. We are not
going to agree to any deal just to appease Quebec, just to appease Ontario.
We have the Premier of Ontario now, the spectacle of the
Premier of Ontario, telling the smaller provinces, those that have suffered most
in Confederation, that they should be prepared to compromise to get a deal,
while he said he would not compromise one iota! Great Ontario can't be expected
to make any concessions, they want concessions from the people who have given
concessions too long. They want concessions from the weak and the small in this
country and this time I do not think we are going to give them.
Mr. Speaker, I guess I have overstayed my leave long enough
and I thank members for giving it to me. Thank you very much, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East
Extern.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly would like to join in this debate. There are
several things that my hon. colleague and hon. friend from Pleasantville made
that I certainly need to respond to. He talked about the problems we are having
in Canada, but I didn't hear him say at any one time that the problems in Canada
are not unique to Canadians, it is a global problem, and, certainly, we are part
of that problem. The other thing I didn't hear the hon. gentleman mention is
that although we didn't get all we wanted from Ottawa in transfer payments - but
that is done by a formula and because of Central Canada's dilemma, where the
jobs are almost as scarce as in Newfoundland today, compared to what it was two
years ago
MR. NOEL: They are only scared because of the
mismanagement of the federal government.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, go away, boy!
MR. PARSONS: That is not true. Look at the unemployment
rate in the United States, the great country to the south of us. The
unemployment rate there now is around -
MR. NOEL: They have 7 per cent. That is a 50 per cent
higher unemployment rate (inaudible) the United States.
MR. PARSONS: They have 8 per cent, which is unthought of
in the United States.
MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: Yes, but seven point something per cent.
MR. NOEL: No, six point something.
MR. PARSONS: No, it isn't.
MR. NOEL: Our's is 50 per cent higher.
MR. PARSONS: It is not 50 per cent higher. What is our
unemployment rate Canada-wide?
MR. NOEL: Our real interest rates are 40 per cent higher.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we received more money from
Ottawa this current year than we did last year. Hundreds of millions of dollars
more. Let's put that to bed. We are receiving more money. We are not receiving -
MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: What money is Newfoundland really paying
into the Canadian economy? Mr. Speaker, very little. I want to touch on
something that the member said, too, when he spoke about Iceland. He said that
possibly we could do it on our own.
Mr. Speaker, on April 1 there was an anniversary, for me,
because I remember 1949, the first day we were Canadians. I, at that time,
thought it was a grave mistake, for us to join the Dominion of Canada.
MR. NOEL: That's when you were young and intelligent
(inaudible)!
MR. PARSONS: I did, I thought it was a mistake. But it
didn't take me very long, when I saw what people that I cherished received in
benefits - our children, our parents. Old age pensions went up by 1,000 per cent
- the baby bonus, which was unheard of. When I saw all those things happen then
I saw, perhaps through a thick skull that I had, but I then saw what a great
country we had joined. I have never for one minute felt any different in all the
years since. I believe that this is the greatest country on earth.
MR. NOEL: How come kids are starving here?
MR. PARSONS: Is there anyone really starving here?
MR. NOEL: Yes!
MR. PARSONS: Well, I mean, Mr. Speaker, if there is
anyone starving here, I say to the Minister of Health, who is in this
Legislature now: Does he know of cases where people are starving in this
Province?
MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) worse in other provinces.
MR. PARSONS: I ask the Minister of Health: Can he
truthfully say today that there are people starving, that this government knows
of, and would not help through Social Services, health-wise, or whatever?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. NOEL: There was a newspaper story about a kid in
Manitoba.
MR. PARSONS: What? There are really people starving in
this Province?
MR. NOEL: In this country, I said, in this country.
MR. PARSONS: And our governments are not doing anything
about it? Our provincial governments, with what social programs are out there,
that there are people going to starve in this country?
MR. NOEL: According to a newspaper report a few days ago
it happened in Manitoba, yes.
MR. PARSONS: There are isolated cases that were not
caused by the system but rather by the individual or individuals. There is no
way in this country that you can starve. There is no way that you would be
permitted to starve. If people out there, if governments knew. Look, as much as
we talk to the people on the other side and tell them what they should do and
what they shouldn't do, I know that you people over there are just as
responsible as any of the rest of us. There is no way that that government would
let Newfoundlanders starve. There may be people who are not affluent with
respect to money and the (inaudible) of life, but glory be to goodness, I don't
think there is anyone actually going to starve here, unless they, themselves are
at fault in some way, shape or form.
MR. NOEL: Forget about the starving. What about the
people who are having very difficult times?
MR. PARSONS: They are, yes, I agree with you. There are a
lot of people out there having difficult times. There are people out there whose
wages, salaries, whatever, can't make ends meet. There is no mistake at all
about it. They are going to have - I suppose - the Minister of Finance said the
other day they are going to have to cut the garment, and that is sad in many
cases. There are people out there who don't have enough money for clothing or
for basic needs. That is true.
AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't make the recession.
MR. PARSONS: But we didn't cause it. I mean a recession
is worldwide, it is global. It is in England, it is in Europe. People blame it
on everything. I am surprised sometimes, and I must give the Minister of Finance
a little bit of credit that very rarely does he get up, very rarely, of all the
things he says that I disagree with, but very rarely does he get up and place a
lot of emphasis of blame it on the feds syndrome, very rarely. He would get up
and at least tell the truth. He would say it is a global thing, it is a national
thing, and we are just part of a nation. We are part of a nation that is having
problems, and as such we would have to try to straighten up our own house until
such time as economic conditions change.
I want to go back to what the hon. gentleman said about
Iceland. He said Iceland was small. I am going to tell the hon. gentleman
something. Iceland GNP is made up of 80 fish and fish products - 80 per cent.
Out of their work force only 10 per cent of their work force works at that
product - 10 per cent. There are fish plants in Iceland being run by less than
three people. Everything is automated. Everything in that little country as it
pertains to fish is automated.
We can look at Iceland and we can think along the lines of
look what Iceland did when you talk about the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks
and the overfishing by foreigners.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: Yes, there is no mistake at all about it,
are talking oranges and apples. How could Canada as a nation of the world go out
there and do the things that Iceland did. It is ludicrous. When I hear the hon.
Member for Port de Grave, and I wish he was here, go on with all this old
blarney about going out and taking on those countries, about bringing out the
warships and, I suppose, shoot them if necessary. What are they going to be
doing while we are doing all of this? While we are taking the pot shots what are
those people going to do? Will they defend themselves? Will we cause another
war? These are situations where wars were caused many time over and over in our
history.
I think there are other ways to settle it. No one ever
thought that there was any big problem. I remember about three years ago I was
up one day and asked some questions of the then Minister of Environment, the
hon. Member for Naskaupi. Simple questions I asked him. Did he thing that the
dragging during the spawning season would affect the habitat of the codfish? I
asked him was it an environmental issue, and I saw people in this House with
smiles on their faces. What is he talking about? He was crazy. But he was not
crazy. The point remains that is what happened. That is where the start of our
problem began. If we had stopped then.
Now people say we are not doing it now and I agree. Why we
are not doing it now, two trawlers left here about three weeks ago and one of
them came back with three fish. There is nothing out there to trawl for. Did not
get enough for a stew. There was nothing out there. What we are saying now is we
have to deal with the situations that are presently before us. The only reason
why we are dealing with them now is because there is none inside the 200-mile
limit or none in that particular area with the habitat of our northern cod. And
why we are placing so much emphasis now on the foreign draggers is because there
is still some fish out there. So they must not have raped the grounds as bad as
we did ourselves or there would be none out there either.
Now we have to draw attention to those people out there
fishing now because I think if we let them rape the grounds like we did
ourselves, and we did it, the big companies did it, and if we let the foreigners
rape it to that extent then it will be finished. There will be no fishery. There
will be no straddling stocks because there will not be any stock outside the
200-mile limit no more than there is inside the 200-mile limit right now.
Mr. Speaker, we talk about the seals. I made a resolution
here in the House the day before yesterday about the seals. Mr. Speaker, let me
put up another scenario. Let me just say to you like this, just look at the map
of Newfoundland. Since our seal herd has increased by millions of animals I was
asked by one individual: did you ever see seals eat fish? I said no, I did not.
I had to be truthful, I did not. Did you ever see them in a school of caplin? I
said, yes. He said: what did the caplin do? I said they vanished, swam away from
the seals.
Mr. Speaker, did we ever think about all those seals up
north? When they move down over the cod stocks they move the fish in front of
them. It is like a wave. Norway now is catching a fine lot of fish and I believe
that that fish is being pushed towards those countries from the habitat that
they had, by the seal population. I believe that the seals out there are so
plentiful that they are driving the cod from our grounds because you can look up
at the Northern Peninsula, you can come right down through and see it just like
taking down a window blind, all the fish are moving and as the seals increase it
is going to move further to the south and eventually if the seal population is
allowed to continue as it is, where once cod swan now will be completely
controlled by the seal population.
I am a firm believer that something has to be done. I do not
think, and I have said it before in this hon. House, I do not think that our
tactics, as it pertains to those conservationists, that has to cease, we cannot
go it that way, they can beat us. They have money to put up there, they have the
sentiments of the European population, and they can finish our cod sales if they
put an effort in it. They played a major role before and I do not think we can
take them on, so there must be another answer to it. What I suggested the other
day in the House in that resolution was very simple. Again, when the member said
today there were people hungry in this Province I do not think that is
necessary. I think every Newfoundlander and Labradorian should be allowed to
kill a seal. I think every Newfoundlander and Labradorian has that right, it is
their moral right, it is their traditional right, it is their historic right.
When we all sit down in this hon. House how many times do we think about what we
are sitting on, the chairs we are sitting on? Those beautiful chairs are made
from seal. What better furniture? What material could we come up with that would
serve us better? We talk about diversification, we talk about being diversified.
There is room in this Province to diversify. Let us see what leather crafts can
be made from seals, apart from the food aspect of it. Let us utilize every part
of that seal. I think we can have a new business. I think we can diversify in
that area.
Mr. Speaker, to go back to the Budget, we talk about the
school tax authority. I had been a member of the RC school board for St. John's
when the school tax authority was brought in. I had mixed feelings on it then
and I had mixed feelings on it all along, but I am not sure that the way the tax
is going to be collected now is doing it in the right manner, in a just manner.
People who never paid the school tax before are paying it now. The Minister of
Finance this morning talked about the old age pensioners and I agree with him in
saying that there are old age pensioners out there who have large amounts of
income and they should pay income tax. They should pay their fair share, but we
have a great number of pensioners out there who are below the poverty level. We
have a great number of pensioners out there who are anywhere from $6000 to
$12,000 and I think the poverty line right now is $19,000 so we have a great
number of those people who are now going to be forced to pay a small portion of
that pension towards our school system, and I think that is wrong.
Again, we look at the resource industries. We speak about the
resource industries - the resource industries were exempt from the payroll tax
but now they have to pay that 1 per cent. Mr. Speaker, where a company is on the
borderline of being in the black or the red, borderline cases, an extra
$100,000, because there are a great number of those companies, Mr. Speaker, with
employees up to 300 and 400, and their payroll tax now, even at 1 per cent could
be in the thousands and thousands of dollars. Mr. Speaker, it could spell their
doom and I do not think that government, this government, was responsible in
their line of thinking in bringing in that 1 per cent on resource industries. I
think that was a mistake.
MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: I do not know. I am not the government. If I
were in government -
MR. NOEL: You must have some ideas.
MR. PARSONS: If I were in government I perhaps would have
come up with some kind of a formula, but what I am saying is that the Premier
said the school tax has to go.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: Well, we are not the government. You are the
government over there. You make the rules and regulations. I am saying that
there are parts of this new system that are a disaster - that are a disaster on
poor people. There are a lot of pensioners out there, I told you before, in the
$6,000 to $12,000 bracket. Granted, there are pensioners out there who receive
$100,000. There is no doubt at all about it, but they are the few. The many are
the people under $12,000 and there is a great number of those people,
ex-policemen, ex-firemen, ex-government workers who are out there on the poverty
line - they are two times below the poverty line. Mr. Speaker, I do not think
that those people should have to pay any more. Those were the backbone of the
country, especially our senior citizens, and I think that every method should be
tried before those people are taxed any more.
People say that it will only cost an extra $25, but $25 to
most members of this House is peanuts. Peanuts - it does not matter to them -
but for pensioners who are on that fixed income, who are budgeted every day for
everything they eat and every bit of money that they spend, $25 or $30 or $50 is
a lot of money, and I think there should be some other way.
I heard the President of Treasury Board saying on the radio
that Mr. Reid from the NTA said that there was a tax grab here on this new tax
of about $75 million. My old friend across the way, the hon. House Leader, the
old biologist, came on and said they should get an accountant. Well I am sure
that the NTA would have an accountant, and perhaps half a dozen accountants. I
am sure that they were not that far out; that this is, without a doubt, a way of
increasing taxes and telling people: look what we did. We eliminated the school
tax. But they brought in another tax, and in many instances this tax is
regressive.
I heard the Minister of Education this morning too, as my
hon. friend from Mount Pearl was speaking on the Budget, saying that the $7
million that was extra, was put in there for capital expenditure, was not taken
away. That was right. It was put in for three years. Now those three years are
up, and I hope that when that new study is brought to the House, or the minister
will explain perhaps some of the finer points of it, that there are provisions
in there to increase this expenditure on capital programs. The minister and I
have, on several occasions, discussed the sharing in the schools, and I think
that is a good idea. I think it has to come. I do not think we can afford not to
be part of it. In fact, I am a strong proponent of sharing, and I think the
minister is on the right track.
In sharing, I think perhaps we are going to have to build new
facilities in many areas or expand what we have to facilitate that type of
school. Because what we are talking about, especially in the rural areas, are a
lot of small schools with very, very few facilities, very, very few aids. What
we are going to do now, with the sharing, is hopefully improve the situation
whereby those people will have access to the needs of today's schools.
MR. HEARN: (Inaudible) very good teachers.
MR. PARSONS: Yes. I was reminded by my hon. friend from
St. Mary's - The Capes - and I want to get this one across to the Minister of
Education - he said, "and very good teachers," and so they were in those small
schools. "Very good teachers," he said, in the small schools. I agree with him,
there were a great number of fine teachers. The conditions that they taught
under sometimes, you would look back today and say: How, in the name of God, did
they ever do it?
Mr. Speaker, again going back to the Budget, there is a great
need in our Province today for work programs, and the government places great
emphasis on long-term programs. Mr. Speaker, there is an interim there. I ask
the Minister of Employment: What is going to happen now when we have the 20.4
per cent unemployed? What is going to happen tomorrow? What is going to happen
this summer? I mean, can the minister tell us there are going to be some
programs brought into play this summer to help the people who are unemployed
with no stamps? I hate, Mr. Speaker, to use the word `stamp' but it is a part of
life in Newfoundland today. There are people out there without sufficient stamps
to get UIC, and there are no programs ongoing.
I thought that this Budget would bring in some new
initiatives, some new incentives, to make some work programs for the poor people
of the Province, for the people who need it. In the councils we did have a
social services component there which has been eliminated. That took up some of
the slack in many areas throughout the Province when municipalities were hiring
people. Mr. Speaker, that program is gone now so we don't have that component
that town councils could utilize.
Mr. Speaker, I have been asking questions for a number of
days now, and I have spoken with the minister in private, about municipal
operating grants. I must say, and be truthful in saying it, that the minister
has been receptive. He has been receptive to the questions that I asked and has
answered them honestly. Mr. Speaker, I can see light at the end of that tunnel,
because - and I stand to be corrected - there is not one council, one complete
council, in any part of this Province, perhaps including St. John's, that
understands the scheme of things. They do not understand what the components are
made up of.
There is $318 for every household in Flatrock. I went to a
specialist and asked: What way is it kept? How are they paying? Well, he said,
you would have to have the budget of every council before you to evaluate it.
Mr. Speaker, I attend council meetings regularly and I have not been to any
council meeting where all councillors knew how this system worked and I think
that is a shame. I think sometimes we get confused and tangled up with
bureaucratic advice by bringing in some of those rules and regulations which I
doubt very much they understand themselves, and the minister as I said, he was
not listening but he was receptive to the questions I asked and I did speak to
him in private and I think he is going to do something about it because, as I
said, there are avenues and I believe that this minister will certainly approach
those avenues, because what we are doing is very simple.
We are downloading, there are no ifs, ands or buts about it.
The Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board can get up and say
what they like, they can get up and say: oh look, we are holding the taxes down,
but that is not the truth because what they are doing is downloading on the
councils, they are forcing the councils to increase their mil rate to get more
money out of the people. No matter what way you pay taxes, taxes are taxes. If
you pay it at the municipal level, if you pay it at the provincial level or you
pay it at the federal level, it is all taxation and what has to be looked at,
Mr. Speaker, is what comes out of the dollar you make and, there are a number of
things that can be done about that Municipal Operating Grant system as far as I
am concerned.
There are a number of things that can be done with that
system and I hope, and I feel justification in saying here in this hon. House
today, that I think that we have a minister now, who is going to address the
problems that we do have with that system and I hope he does and I think that
every Newfoundlander and Labradorian out there will be grateful if the minister
changes some of those archaic - it is a new program but it is archaic as far as
I am concerned, it should never have come across in the first place, we are
being penalized, rural Newfoundland in particular is being penalized by that MOG
and I think that it should change.
Mr. Speaker, I only have a coupl