November

3, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 56

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding to our routine business, on behalf of hon.

members we would like to welcome a couple of groups to the House of Assembly

today. Firstly, in attendance are the participants of the R.E.A.D.Y. Centre of

the Community Services Council and their instructors: Bernadette Galgay, Rick

Engram, Dana Diamond and Sarah Walsh, and program co-ordinator Darlene Scott and

twenty-four students. Secondly, we would like to welcome to the House the

following officials from the Town of Port Saunders: Mayor Tony Ryan, Councillor

Gloria Parsons, and Town Manager Sean Park. We would like to extend a warm

welcome to these groups.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Premier today, first of all dealing with the Atlantic Provinces Procurement

Agreement which this province entered into and signed, I think, on September

10th of this year. At the time of the signing the province committed to reducing

the local preference protective barriers that were in place by at least 5 per

cent, and then perhaps eliminate it, as I understand, by June of 1994. The 5 per

cent, in fact, has already been eliminated with another 5 per cent to take place

I think on March 31st of next year, a few months away.

That was done, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the level of

taxation in the four Atlantic provinces already sloped the field greatly in

favour of the three Maritime provinces. We already have higher taxes in just

about every single tax category, and we are the only ones with a payroll tax.

I want to ask the Premier if he would not now admit, having

had a couple of months to review this, that this agreement as it now stands, as

it presently exists, not only puts local business at a disadvantage for

government contracts here at home, but also ensures that they remain at a

disadvantage when competing against the Maritime provinces. Why would any

company want to get involved in this new $2 billion worth of business set up in

this province in order to compete? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to go

somewhere else, to Halifax, as it exists now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am happy to tell the Leader of the

Opposition that he could not be more wrong, and for the good of Newfoundland he

could not be more wrong. The simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, the first immediate

benefit that came out of this procurement agreement when we signed it, was on

condition that Newfoundland bidders would have access in an unrestricted way now

to construction and government work in Nova Scotia, and Premier Cameron issued

an instruction to amend a particular tender call right at the time and the

Newfoundland contractor came in as the lowest bidder in Nova Scotia on a fair

competing basis on a major contract, a major contract, so I just say to the

Leader of the Opposition, he could not be more wrong. The construction industry,

the manufacturing industry, the people of this Province are quite capable of

competing and I have full confidence in their ability to compete.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: As usual the Premier tries to camouflage the

issue.

The point I am trying to make is that with respect to this

procurement agreement Newfoundland companies presently are at a major

disadvantage, because in every single tax category taxes in this Province are

higher and we are the only Province that has a payroll tax, that is my point

and, obviously, Mr. Speaker, it makes it more difficult not only for companies

to compete here but also in the Maritimes.

I want to ask him then: how will this remaining 5 per cent,

which he intends to leave in terms of the local preference policy, help locally

based companies here in Newfoundland compete on the contracts in the other

Maritime provinces, notwithstanding the one example that he gives? I mean how

can it be easier for local companies to compete on contracts offered in the

other provinces when they have to compete with things like tax breaks that exist

in Nova Scotia? Why would a business, which wants to set itself up and establish

itself in order to compete for this new $2 billion worth of business, bother to

set up here in Newfoundland with our taxes the way they are, as high as they

are? That is the question I am asking the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, just how wrong the hon.

member is, is clear from the fact that the preference policy protected less than

3 per cent of the total amount awarded, less than 3 per cent. It was a useless

tool, largely useless in terms of building the economy, it protected less than 3

per cent of the total value awarded. Those are what the figures indicated, Mr.

Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we put this into effect, this agreement

into effect on the basis of phasing out, 5 per cent first; next March another 5

per cent goes; and after next March it is reduced to 5 per cent. That does not

go unless and until the equalization formula takes into account needs and cost,

and so provides for more generous equalization to Newfoundland and Labrador so

as to enable us to lower our tax and put us on the same tax basis as the

Atlantic provinces.

Now that was an intelligent way to do it. That is exactly

what was done. It is working and will work, I believe, terrifically to our

benefit. There may be an instance here or there where it may not be beneficial -

I do not know - but on the overall I am very encouraged by what I see ahead for

us.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier continues to avoid

answering the question. The question is: The taxes on the businesses in this

Province far outweigh, in nearly every single category, the taxation regime in

the other Maritime provinces. Plus, we have a payroll tax. No other Maritime

province has a payroll tax. Surely you do not have to be brilliant to realize

that puts the Newfoundland companies at a disadvantage.

I would like to ask him this, Mr. Speaker: Will he provide

the House - we asked for this information before, by the way, and did not

receive it when this matter was being debated in the House last spring - with

the reservations that the business community provided to the government? Would

he table in the House any submissions they received - the reservations that they

received, and the concerns they have - so that we would be able to make a better

judgement and a clearer judgement, and consider the points that he makes in his

answer to the question?

Would he be prepared to consider, as businesses have

requested us to ask in this Legislature, withdrawing Newfoundland support of

this agreement until there is a more level playing field with respect to

taxation? Would he consider that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me just correct this misstatement with

respect to the taxes.

Mr. Speaker, if a Nova Scotia or a New Brunswick company

comes and bids a contract to work here, they pay the same taxes as competing

contractors here - exactly the same.

Now if you are looking at supplies from Nova Scotia or New

Brunswick, and their level of taxation in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, maybe

they do not have a payroll tax, but they ruddy well have school taxes to support

schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is right - property taxes to support

schools; and the hon. members opposite do not like the fact that we abolished

the school tax. I understand their aversion to our success in abolishing the

school tax. I think everybody in the Province knows that they want school tax. I

know that. Everybody in the Province understands it. Now we found a way of doing

it fairly, and it is too bad that after seventeen years they couldn't do it but

we have corrected it.

Now, the second part of the Leader's question, Mr. Speaker,

was: would we table the exchange of letters and the representation? The answer

is: yes, we will. And when that is done, it will be seen very clearly that we

met every request and had the basic support of a broad sector of industry to

carry out this program, and we will benefit from it in Newfoundland in the end.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't believe my ears. The

Premier is now telling this House that a company in Nova Scotia that gets a

contract here in Newfoundland pays the Newfoundland corporate income tax and

pays the payroll tax in Newfoundland? That is totally misleading, and that is

what he just said to this House, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Now, I want to ask him this: Does the Province

of Nova Scotia, which has a 10 per cent break for small businesses, have a

better advantage over a Newfoundland business when competing in this market?

Wouldn't he agree with that, or is that wrong, too?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I now have some figures, some

statistics - the policies.

MR. TOBIN: Tell the truth this time.

PREMIER WELLS: For the 1990-1991 fiscal year, a total of

205,419 contracts, with a procurement value of $603 million, were awarded by all

organizations covered by the Public Tender Act. That was everything the Province

did, everybody covered by the Public Tender Act - 205,000 contracts totalling

$603 million. During the same year, a total of 384 out of 205,419, worth a total

of $16.3 million, were awarded as a result of the provincial preference policy.

Now what value is that? What does that do for us, if it prevents bidders from

Newfoundland from bidding in Nova Scotia at all?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: They can't see the forests for the trees.

It is no wonder the economy is in the mess they left it in. It has taken us a

long time to correct it, but we will get there, Mr. Speaker. In the end we will

do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, as is typical of the Premier, he

didn't answer the question at all and went off on some other area altogether.

Let me ask him some other questions related to an exchange we

had in the House yesterday and what he said outside the House. Yesterday outside

the House he said I was telling half-truths and using deceit, something that he

often resorts to, by the way, when he can't respond in substance to an argument.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with the question.

MR. SIMMS: He said it was half-truths that I said the

payroll tax was hurting the economy and costing jobs, because I did not mention

that the school tax had been abolished this year. Now, the fact is, Mr. Speaker,

it is the Premier of this Province who is trying to fool the people of this

Province, by suggesting that the payroll tax simply replaced the school tax. It

did not. The payroll tax was introduced by this government two years before the

school tax was eliminated.

Now, I want to ask him this: This year, under the payroll

tax, the revenue is estimated to be somewhere in the area of $69 million. Will

the Premier tell the House how much of that payroll tax, how much of that $69

million, will come from businesses?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't have it off the top of my head,

but I will get the information and pass it on.

Mr. Speaker, I don't like taxes any more than the Leader of

the Opposition does. I wish we could abolish them all, but we can't. We have to

provide for the public service and the needs of the public of this Province. We

have to repay the $4 billion worth of debt that they built up in sixteen years.

We need tax revenue to do it. We can't ignore that, we can't wipe that out, we

have to deal with it.

We also, Mr. Speaker, have to try to find a fair balance

between the tax burden on the individual and the tax burden on the business

sector. We can't just place the burden totally on one sector. But - and this is

the thrust of the Strategic Economic Plan - we have to be prepared, all of us,

for the greater good of the Province, to start diminishing the taxes on the

business and commercial sector so that they will be able to generate more

economic activity. This is exactly what the Strategic Economic Plan has in mind.

Mr. Speaker, in due course the government will announce in its budgets in the

years ahead exactly what we intend to do to achieve that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely incredible that the Premier

of this Province is not able to tell the House how much of that $69 million,

that they forecast in the last six months during their budget process, is going

to come from business. He can't tell the House that. I find it incredible that

the Premier wouldn't be aware of that. I understand from government sources that

it is somewhere in the area of only $10 to $15 million out of that $69 million.

I want to ask the Premier this, because we have tried to find

out the answer to this question and we can't get anybody over there to be

straightforward with the answer: How much of that payroll tax is collected, in

fact, from businesses; how much is collected from the federal government; how

much is collected from government agencies, municipalities; and how much is

collected from the non-profit sector? Will he provide the House with those

figures in the next couple of days? Because surely the people in the Department

of Finance must have that estimate broken down in those categories.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Of course they do, and I may even be able

to get it before the day is out. If I can, I will, but I do not have the precise

figures, I am not prepared to throw things out just to pretend that I know every

single figure. I will get the figure and bring it before the House, of course I

will, and provide the information.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier told the

media outside the House that he would like to cut the payroll tax and the

corporate income tax. Very strange comments indeed because if you want to do

that to stimulate economic activity, why on earth did you and your

administration introduce the payroll tax in the first place and in addition

increase the corporate income tax and the corporate capital tax? Is this not

really an admission that the payroll tax is, in fact, a tax on jobs and does not

do anything to create economic activity - something that we have been arguing

for months - if he is going to help businesses in this Province if he wants to?

If he does not want to do anything else, would he at least get off their backs

and give them a commitment now, that yes, he will cut the payroll tax on

business? Will he make that commitment here today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

commitment here today. The business community is quite satisfied with the

commitments we have been making. I made a speech yesterday to the Associates

Round Table, a collection of the major business sectors of this Province, they

say: It is encouraging to see that the Premier clearly recognizes the challenges

we have and his solutions to the problems are not political solutions - they

recognize that we have the right economic and financial solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Let me read on: I think we are very

fortunate to have someone who seems to understand that we have to take some

long-term approaches to the challenges that we have in the Province. That is the

judgement of people who know and understand business; that is the business

community. That is quite contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition is

saying, Mr. Speaker, and I could go on and on, but modesty prevents me from

doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, people know the basis on

which the payroll tax was brought in in the first instance. When the federal

government cut back on the transfers to the provinces, when they cut back on-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If the Member for Mount Pearl listens only

to his own voice -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - he will remain as ill-informed as he is

now, on a permanent basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that when the

federal government cut back on these transfers, many provinces, led by Ontario -

Ontario designed the tax in the first place, responded and got the substantial

transfer from the federal government by putting in place a payroll tax. This

Province did exactly the same, I think a year or two after Ontario did it. Then,

Mr. Speaker, that was two years ago or two and a half years ago, then, Mr.

Speaker, in this last Budget, when we abolished the school tax, we increased the

payroll tax to in part make up for it from the business sector, and in fact, Mr.

Speaker, many in the business sector were totally relieved from tax burden for

schools altogether.

Anybody with less than a $100,000 payroll had no burden at

all and if I recall correctly, any business is relieved for the first $100,000,

so, Mr. Speaker, we are managing the economy as it ought to be managed in a

sensible and responsible way.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, Moody's today, dropped Quebec's

credit rating.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dropped it today?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, dropped it from AA to an A. Moody's

dropped it today in Quebec, but Newfoundland remains fairly stable because, Mr.

Speaker, this government has the political courage to act responsibly and we are

not, like the former government were, toadying to political opinion from time to

time, just to get political support.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries.

The Minister announced late summer this government's plan on

how they were going to deal with outstanding loans to fishermen affected by the

cod moratorium. The President of the Fishermen's Union at that time, rightfully

said it was a disincentive for people to work and for fishermen to fish. Why did

the minister require fishermen, who are trying to make a living to keep a

presence in the fishery by fishing species other that cod, to use 20 per cent of

their earnings off the top to make payments to the Fisheries Loan Board, why did

the minister do that, and has he since reconsidered dropping this 20 per cent

requirement?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the 20 per cent assignment of

catch is something that has been in effect for quite some time. In fact, I

believe it is there at the request of fishermen who are tied to the Fisheries

Loan Board, because it makes it a lot easier for them to meet their commitments

that way, rather than having to pay it out in one lump sum.

Under the forgiveness program, Mr. Speaker, fishermen who

have only a groundfish licence and who fish for northern cod, and who are not

taking

part in any other fishery, will get a complete forgiveness of interest.

If the need is there they will also get consideration with respect to deferring

their payment on principal.

Now in cases where a fisherman who is receiving compensation,

sometimes as high as $406 a week, in cases where that fisherman has a licence to

fish other species - lobster, caplin, herring, or lump roe - then the government

will be looking to that fisherman for a continuation of the assignment of catch,

which amounts to 20 per cent of the harvest, the landings, as it relates to the

amount of interest owing.

That is the policy, Mr. Speaker, and I have not had too many

complaints about it.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: The minister did not answer the second part

of the question, whether or not he was giving consideration to eliminating the

20 per cent requirement, so I guess that he is not.

Can the minister confirm that the Fisheries Loan Board has

recently invoiced fishermen for the principal amounts outstanding on their

loans? Is that a fact, or can the minister confirm that for us, that they have

invoiced fishermen for the principal amounts owing?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not addressing

the second part of his question.

The Fishing Industry Advisory Council met with government a

few days ago. Representatives from the union were in attendance, and others. We

have agreed to sit down with the union and the federal Department of Fisheries

and Oceans and take a look at it, and if it can be proven that what we are doing

is a disincentive - as is the clawback, by the way, being imposed by the federal

government, that we did not endorse.

AN HON. MEMBER: You endorsed it.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, we did not endorse it, in fact

the province was strongly opposed to the clawback as it applies to fisheries

related income.

With respect to his last question, I do not know if they have

sent out invoices. It seems to me that if a fisherman or anybody else owes

money, it is not unusual for a statement to be sent out updating them on the

balance owing. I do not know what action is being taken. I suspect there has

been no firm action taken against fishermen who can prove that they have no

income from the fishery and that they need help.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No wonder the minister smirked when he talked about not

supporting the clawback, when it was his own Premier who started the very word

clawback, and was referred to throughout the Province as 'clawback Clyde', as

you recall.

As the minister is aware, there are fishermen who borrowed

directly from the banks without seeking a guarantee from the Fisheries Loan

Board. They went out on their own, took responsibility, borrowed money, and now

of course they are left in a bad mess, not because of their own problems, but

because of the cod moratorium, the same as those who had loans with the

Fisheries Loan Board.

Has the minister given any consideration to offering the same

assistance to those fishermen who went and borrowed directly from the banks

themselves - to offer them the same package as he offered those with loans from

the loan board?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yes, we have thought about it

and I have to say that the government is not prepared to offer people who have

negotiated private loans through private lending institutions, without any

involvement on the part of the government - we are not contemplating taking any

action in that regard at all.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the hon. the Minister of

Education. Since the parental contribution tables for student aid have not been

revised since the 1980's, and because of this there are considerable hardships

being placed upon students, because their is a difference between their assessed

need by this division of your department and between what they actually receive.

What is the hon. minister going to do to overcome this shortfall and ensure that

the students of this Province are not at a disadvantage because of that?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member will have

more luck with his cousins in Ottawa than his predecessors did. The student

loans, Mr. Speaker, are provided by the federal government. This province simply

administers them. The hon. gentleman is quite correct, the amounts have not been

revised since 1984 and I would suggest that he get after his cousins in Ottawa

and tell them to rectify this problem immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When a student appeals

the decision of the Student Aid Division, the Student Aid Division applies an

inflationary factor to make up for the shortfall in income, and they apply this

inflationary factor, your Student Aid Division, to the Canada Student Loan

portion, but they do not apply this inflationary factor to the provincial grant

portion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Consequently, there are students

experiencing shortfalls of up to $1,500 in a year, shortfall to meet the needs.

And in one particular family there is a $2,700 shortfall. Is your department

going to accept its share of the responsibility, follow the regulations that are

set out here in the Newfoundland Student Aid Program and stop gypping the

students of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the province is simply

administering a student loans program which is supplied by the federal

government. This province does not have to take -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this province does not have to

take the backstage to anyone when it comes to the co-operation and the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: - way we treat the students in this province.

It is unfortunate that hon. members opposite continually try to back up their

colleagues in Ottawa where the real problem rests. The reality is this: The

student loan system is such in this province that a student cannot borrow enough

money in order to pay his full expenses and go to university. The province has

done all it can to try to help to make up this, but the reality is we cannot do

it on our own. I would appeal to the new member, who is yet unscathed by the

political realities that his friends are engaged in, to rise above this

political nonsense and get on side with this administration and every other

Minister of Education in the country, Mr. Speaker, and tell the federal

government to straighten out the mess that they have caused in the student aid

of this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is just as well

to tear up the Newfoundland Student Aid Program because the minister is not

following the regulations. It states the first $80 per week is in the Canada

Student Loan, the second $70 per week is in a grant, and the remainder up to a

maximum in student loan of $105. His department is giving students $105 per week

in loan and no grant whatsoever. It is his department that is gypping the

students of the grant portion of his loan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some quick study!

MR. SULLIVAN: I advocate, and it is specified here in the

regulations, and I ask him what is he going to do to correct this grave

injustice that has been inflicted on the students of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the way to solve the problems

with the Student Loan Program, I regret having to say this because I don't want

to make this a political statement, but I regret very much to have to say that

the only solution I see, a solution which is shared by ministers right across

the country of all political stripes, the only solution is to flick out his

cousins in Ottawa and put in place a government that is prepared to deal with

the problems of students from Vancouver to St. John's, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Yesterday in the House the

minister said that the Emergency Employment Response Program would provide 3,500

jobs. My question, Mr. Speaker, is in relation to the other 90 per cent of the

40,000 people who are unemployed in the province at this time. Yesterday the

minister said that the government could not alleviate or deal with the problem.

Is the government - and I ask the minister - throwing up its hands and

forgetting the needs of the 90 per cent of people unemployed? Of the 40,000 only

3,500 are being helped. What about the other 90 per cent?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again, I

appreciate the question because it gives us the opportunity to address what is

recognised to be a very serious problem.

We indicated yesterday, and I state again today, that when we

talk to people directly about their particular circumstance they understand that

the situation that individuals find themselves in in this Province today is not

the fault of this particular government. There is, and everybody understands

that there is, an economic recession in the Province, in the country, throughout

North America and globally. They recognise that the government will make sure

that no individual is left in want or need or left destitute. There is always a

social network that will take care of their basic needs.

From time to time, when there are people who have accessed

some work and need a little bit of help from the provincial government on an

emergency basis to make sure that they can qualify for funding for the rest of

the year through another source of income, which is the unemployment insurance

system, that we have put in place a program to the extent that we can afford at

this time. We announced publicly and for everyone - not to try to disguise

anything at the time - that this would not answer all the need. This, however,

would help some people.

We're very proud of the fact that we have helped 3,500 people

immediately. We've recognised that there is some great need for others. We've

recognised the shortcomings, that we can't address all the problems through

employment. But we have not left them destitute, we have not seen them thrown

out of their homes and so on. They have been taken care of. It's just that they

have not been put to work right away.

MR. SPEAKER: Time for a brief question and a

correspondingly brief answer.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the 20 per cent unemployment in

this Province is not reflective of Canada's situation. The Premier suggested

that his government had the political courage to act responsibly and bragged

about Moody's bond rating service. I ask: is this government working for Moody's

bond rating service or for the unemployed of Newfoundland? Let's hear the answer

to that one.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the question

deserves an answer in the sense that everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador

knows exactly who we are working for. We work on a daily basis in the best

interests of the people who are our constituents, not only for members on this

side of the House but for members on both sides of the House. They know that any

time they try to contact us to make sure that we understand on a personal basis

what their circumstance and what their need is, that we are accessible and

available. We don't dodge tough questions. We answer directly and honestly. They

know that if there's anything that's within our control that we can do we will

do right away.

Other things have been spelled out. That for the long term

we've indicated to the whole province that we have a plan that we intend to stay

committed to for the long-term that will make sure that the best interests of

the individuals are taken care of. Also, to point out, as was mentioned

yesterday, that in the current short term the negative impacts of this recession

have been less severe in this province because of the good management of this

government than they have been in other provinces much more wealthy and with a

much greater capacity to take care of their individual needs.

So we're not at all ashamed of what we've done on behalf of

the people in Newfoundland and Labrador in the three and a half years that we've

been here.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Again, the Chair wants to make a couple of brief comments on

Question Period. As hon. members know, the Chair tries not to intervene during

Question Period unless it becomes absolutely necessary in order to maintain the

crispness and the fluidity of Question Period. However, hon. members are falling

into some bad habits, and the Chair wants to ensure that that doesn't happen.

As hon. members know, Question Period is not a period for

debate. It is a period to solicit information and questions are very important

in that respect because if questions get into debate they solicit a similar

answer.

So I would ask hon. members, please, to observe the rules of

the House knowing that it is only with the first question that we really permit

a

preamble, and after that members should get into the question. Invariably, I

am finding members debating the answers and that is not permissible under our

rules. It is the job of the Chair to enforce the rules but the duty of hon.

members to follow them.

Thank you.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, as required under

Section 14 of

the Fisheries Loan Act, I table herewith the audited financial statement of the

Fisheries Loan Board for the fiscal year 1991-1992.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table, to meet the requirements of the Financial

Administration Act, copies of five Special Warrants issued in the recent past.

They relate to one Special Warrant of $4,560,000 to provide funds related to

transfer of responsibility for school tax from tax authorities to the Crown.

This was an interim financing amount which we will recover from the school tax

collections, approximately $4.5 million.

Employment and Labour Relations, a Special Warrant for $5

million to cover expenditures for job creation initiatives; and a Special

Warrant for $2.5 million to provide additional funds for employment generation

strategy; Municipal and Provincial Affairs, a Special Warrant for $1 million to

provide additional funds for job creation initiatives; and Social Services, a

Special Warrant for $5 million to provide additional funds for job creation

initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to table these Special Warrants.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to submit the report of the Privileges and Elections

Committee on the mandate that we were given last spring to deal with the issue

for the disabled. I would like to thank the members of the Committee, Mr.

Speaker, for their work: the Member for Port au Port, the Member for Kilbride,

the Member for Pleasantville and the Member for Carbonear.

In a minute, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the

Committee recommends that we use the special ballot in our Elections Act, but we

recommend against doing anything with the leadership conventions and nomination

process. We also recommend highly, Mr. Speaker, the introduction of a training

must accompany the training of the new officers associated with the

implementation of the Elections Act.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that if the special ballot is

introduced, it will certainly enhance the progressive legislation that we have

put forward in the new Elections bill. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we do Motions 2 through

8, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 2 through 8, yes.

Motion, the hon. the Ministers of Finance; Works, Services

and Transportation; Health; and Environment and Lands to introduce the following

bills:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Uniform Services Pensions Act,

1991." (Bill No. 44)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991." (Bill No. 43)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act, The Horse

Racing Regulation And Tax Act, The Liquor Control Act And The Retail Sales Tax

Act." (Bill No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act (No. 2)."

(Bill No. 41)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Licensing And Inspection Of

Health And Social Agencies." (Bill No. 46)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act;." (Bill No. 40)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act (No.

2)." (Bill No. 42)

On motion, Bill Nos. (44) (43) (45) (41) (46) (40) and

(42) read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Order No. 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 1.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

Bill No. 26.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. ROBERTS: This is liable to take all day.

MR. MATTHEWS: All day, all night, maybe all week.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I tell the Government

House Leader that we are in no big rush to clue up this bill. It is an

opportunity for us, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair has recognised the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I understand the Government

House Leader needs some refresher courses in the House. As a matter of fact,

after Question Period today, I think the Speaker was helping out the new members

and the not-so-new members in terms of how to continue the debate in the House.

I want to get into some serious business today as it relates

to this government. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations stood today

in this House and what he said, Mr. Chairman, was insulting to the intelligence

of every Newfoundlander. No one, including himself, believes what he had to say

today. When you see $30,000 spent for job creation and not one job created with

that $30,000 or with $50,000, that is what he should be explaining to the House.

That is what should be explained to this House.

The Minister of Social Services stood yesterday - I asked him

the question: In making comparisons, will you tell us, Mr. Minister, how much

the caseload of the Department of Social Services has increased in three years

since this Administration came to power? He said: by 50 per cent. Now, if that

is not a reflection on this Administration, what is? It is a total failure.

Fifty per cent - and while the caseloads continue to rise, there are social

workers in this Province who have been laid off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I will get to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. I will deal with the Minister of Municipal Affairs in due

course. As a matter of fact, I wasn't sure it was the same fellow who was here

the last time, when I had a look at him. The new hairstyle of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs threw me off.

Mr. Chairman, there are other areas in this Province, in

particular, Social Services - I know what the minister is going through. I know

it is not easy for the minister. But it is time that his Cabinet colleagues gave

him the support that is needed. It is time that the Cabinet say yes. Because I

understand that every single region in this Province has asked for increased

numbers of staff from the Department of Social Services. And I am just wondering

what type of support the minister will have in Cabinet when it comes to getting

additional social workers. I am just wondering, I am at a loss to know what is

going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Oh, go down and build your dump, boy, go

on! Go and build your toxic dump down (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there's a lot - and if the

Minister of Municipal Affairs has his way there will be a lot of people losing a

lifetime. That is why he is having such trouble in his district. That is why he

is going to be easy pickings come the next election.

I want to talk about the economic conditions of this

Province. If it were not for John Crosbie today, and the moratorium package, or

the compensation package, there would be between 50 per cent and 60 per cent

unemployment statistics showing up in this Province; and this government, and

this Minister of Fisheries, in particular, have not done one iota for the

Department of Fisheries or the fisherpeople in this Province since he became

minister three years ago. He has not done anything, and there are probably a lot

of reasons. One reason might be the former Minister of Finance - the old ultra

conservative Minister of Finance. Now, hopefully, the new Minister of Finance -

and I want to say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, if I could get

his attention, instead of him listening to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation -

MR. MATTHEWS: The minister of ditches.

MR. TOBIN: The minister of ditches - he is the only

fellow who dug a twelve-foot ditch and then, when they wanted guard rails,

filled in the ditch again.

Let me say to the Minister of Finance that I am disappointed,

for one, that the Premier fired him as the Government House Leader, because he

was a good House Leader. And if the Premier hadn't fired the former Minister of

Education, education would be in better hands than it is today.

I say that between the former Minister of Education, the

Member for St. John's North, and the present minister, there is no comparison.

There is no comparison, because today when the question was asked by my

colleague from Ferryland, the minister, the Member for St. John's South, knew

what he was talking about, and the present Minister of Education doesn't have a

clue. The only thing the present Minister of Education is any good for is going

from the bottom of the line to the top of the line without having to wait his

turn. That is about the only thing he is any good for.

MR. MATTHEWS: He would do that in student aid if he were

over there.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and if we could only get him in student

aid, Director of Student Aid, we could probably get some of our applications and

appeals rushed up.

The minister today never once answered a question as it

relates to the grant system in the Department of Education. I suspect the

question today by my colleague from Ferryland was the first time the Minister of

Education ever heard of it. It was the first time he ever heard of the structure

of that system.

The Minister of Employment could advise him. He is the former

educator in this Province who became so concerned about education that he went

on the steps of Confederation Building and broke down and cried. That is how

concerned he was about education in this Province, and to this day - he is not

crying these days, when he is in Cabinet putting the boots to the Department of

Education, putting the boots to the teachers of this Province, whom one time he

put on strike because they were not getting a salary increase. And they have

been three years now with a wage freeze, and he is part of it. That is what's

happening in this Province. Mr. Chairman ifjustice were done, I know where the

Member for St. John's South would be.

That is where the Minister of Employment has been a

hypocrite. You can't have it both ways. For the teachers four years ago, a wage

increase caused him to go out and cry on the steps of the Confederation

Building. How can you be part of a wage freeze now for four years in a row?

There are other areas that I want to speak to, and I only

have ten minutes. I want to talk about the financial mess that this government

has brought upon the people of the Province. Twenty-nine people working in the

Marystown Shipyard, I say to the Minister of Employment - the first time in

twenty-five years that there was not some sort of a ship tied on at the

Marystown Shipyard was this past week. And the Marystown Shipyard, Mr. Chairman,

is not owned by Lundrigans or Crosbie's or the Norwegians. The Marystown

Shipyard is owned and operated by the Newfoundland Government. And this minister

and this government have turned their backs on the people of Marystown.

There are literally hundreds of former employees of the yard

now living on mainland Canada. I spoke to two of them at lunch time today. They

called me in my office wanting to know when they were going to come home. What

is going on? When is Crosbie going to do something to get Texaco in place? We

know. We don't need to ask. We know that the Newfoundland Government are not

going to put in one nickel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: They are not going to do one thing to help

Texaco.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. member's time is

up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just rising for

a minute, and then the hon. member can get up and flame away again for another

ten.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct an error that was made

today in a statement. The Premier has asked me to make this correction. It has

to do with the credit rating of the Province of Quebec. He attributed the drop

in credit rating to, I believe, Moody's. In fact, it was the Canadian Bond

Rating Service, CBRS. The Canadian Bond Rating Service had the Province of

Quebec on credit watch and today announced that they were taking the province

off credit watch and, at the same time, lowering their credit rating from AA to

So it was the Canadian Bond Rating Service that downgraded

the Quebec debt and not, I believe, Moody's as mentioned by the Premier. So he

has asked me to make that correction for the record.

Now, the hon. gentleman from Burin - Placentia West can get

up and finish his rather entertaining speech.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, it is nothing new that the

Premier has misled this House. It is nothing new that the Premier comes in here

and misleads the House, gives misleading information, and I thank the Minister

of Finance for correcting the misinformation that the Premier provided to the

House.

Before I sat down I was speaking about the Marystown

Shipyard. They are phoning, Mr. Chairman, to find out when they can come home.

The question they are asking now is not, What is this government going to do to

entice Texaco to become part of the deal? They have accepted the fact that this

government is going to do absolutely nothing, have done nothing, Mr. Chairman,

have sat back, have attended a few meetings, were briefed on what is taking

place, and have done nothing else. And this Minister of Energy has done nothing

else, Mr. Chairman, except sit back and watch what was happening. That's what is

happening in this Province.

I can tell the Minister of Energy that all he did was go out

and make a statement a few weeks ago that he had to backtrack on regarding

Texaco. And the reason he made the statement and had to backtrack on it was

because he knew nothing about what was taking place. That's what is happening.

What they are asking is, Can Crosbie again come up with a couple of hundred

million? He has come up with $5 billion. Crosbie got the federal government to

come up with $5 billion for the project, so far, and now he is looking for

another couple of hundred million.

This crowd over here, Mr. Chairman, are doing nothing except

chasing around the cocktail circles to see if they can pick up a freebie when

Crosbie makes a few announcements. That's what they have been doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a laugh!

MR. TOBIN: I don't care who laughs, but I can tell you

one thing, that if you continue to laugh the way you have the last few days, the

way you have the last three years, you will be still back against the wall. Jim

Walsh, Bill Hogan, and all the rest of them, Tom Murphy, and Danny Dumaresque

will all be in the front benches and you will still be up there. Now, I would

give up laughing if I were you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, why don't you get up and speak?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will be sitting down in

five minutes and then he will have the opportunity to get up and speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on! Get on with it!

MR. TOBIN: I will get on with it. I have been getting on

with it in this House for the last eleven years. I didn't run away from the

House, Mr. Chairman, I didn't run away from the Legislature, I stayed here. In

good times and bad times, I was around. Mr. Chairman, I haven't left, but I can

tell you there are only two ways to leave here, and that is on your own or the

people kicking you out, and I am prepared to accept that if that is what

happens. But as long as Clyde Wells goes back to the '60s and brings in Cabinet

ministers, I think I will be around for a long while.

Now, let me talk about the issues in Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, that this minister says he is going to deal with. He says he will have

announcements made before Christmas dealing with capital works, and I sincerely

hope he can keep that commitment, I really do. Because, Mr. Chairman, the

minister said he will resign if he doesn't have all of the capital works

announced before Christmas. Now, then, I wonder if the minister is going to keep

his word.

AN HON. MEMBER: He will.

MR. TOBIN: He will. Well, I am delighted to hear that and

I sincerely wish him luck. But I will say that if that minister made the

commitment, he will keep it. That minister will keep that commitment to the

municipalities if there is any way of keeping it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who will be the next Minister of Finance?

MR. TOBIN: The next Minister of Finance? He could do a

good job in that, too, because it is not difficult to do. It is not difficult to

do a job in Finance in this Province, all you have to do is blame things on the

former Administration or on Ottawa and the recession - your books.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - you talk

about wasting money. I was driving yesterday morning when I heard an interview

with some gentleman out in Mall Bay regarding a ditch, a twelve-foot ditch that

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation had dug in Mall Bay. And he

said, 'What we are asking for are guardrails.' Yesterday evening, I turned on

the radio and I heard the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, there is only one other

way to fill in the twelve-foot hole.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation was on the radio saying he had the problem solved, they were

going to fill in the ditch. Now, isn't that a waste of money, to dig a ditch and

then fill in the ditch? I don't know if that makes sense or not.

I was in a meeting the other day which involved the Member

for Bellevue, the Member for Placentia and myself and constituents, the people

living in Davis Cove, from Arnold's Cove and a lot of people from Southern

Harbour. They are having difficulty with a

section of the road, but they are not

asking for pavement and they are not asking for upgrading on all of the road;

they are asking to have some fill put on that

section of the road between Davis

Cove and Monkstown. That is all they are asking.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are they asking for?

MR. TOBIN: They are asking for some fill. They are not

asking for pavement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Southern Harbour.

MR. TOBIN: Southern Harbour - people from Southern

Harbour living in Davis Cove and Arnold's Cove. I hope that the two of you will

probably talk to the Minister of Transportation about getting a few loads of

fill. The fish buyer out there is from Arnold's Cove.

MR. BARRETT: Why didn't he come to me?

MR. TOBIN: Well, boy, I suspect it's like most of your

other constituents, they can't get hold of you. I suspect that is the reason.

MR. BARRETT: I have an unlisted phone number now.

MR. TOBIN: Have you? Well, if the Member for Bellevue

says he has an unlisted phone number let the record show that. I didn't say it.

It's up to him. If he wants to have one, that's his business. I wouldn't have

one, I couldn't operate that way. But if he can operate with an unlisted phone

number, well, then, that's up to him. Good luck.

MR. BARRETT: I put in an extra line so I can hold them.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Hides away. Yes, (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I believe that, I would say he did.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He won't answer that one because he knows

it is constituents. He won't answer it, he just answers the other one.

MR. TOBIN: But the Minister of Social Services -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I want to say on his behalf to the rest of

Cabinet, for the love of God, when he goes up with the request for additional

social workers and front-line workers, give them to him, because he needs them.

The social workers in this Province cannot, and they are not, coping with what

is going on.

When I said the other day, there are people starving in this

Province, waiting for a social worker to visit them - and I'm sure the Member

for Port de Grave can relate to what I'm saying, about social workers being

overworked. He knows, too, that right now, if someone wants to go on social

assistance - and we all know the economic conditions of this Province - they

have to go in to Social Services and they will say: Okay, a social worker will

be there to visit you, say, on a Tuesday.

Tuesday comes, no social worker; Wednesday comes, no social

worker. On Thursday, they phone back in, and are told: We are working - didn't

get back in the office last night until 8:00 or 9:00 after being on the road.

Yesterday was an office day and we had to see people. Today, again, I don't

think I'm going to get to see you.

That's what is happening in this Province as it relates to

social workers. I know of a person with a family who spent, I think it was five

days, with nothing in the house, not a can of milk or anything, and had to wait

for social workers to visit. And the only reason social workers were not there

was because they were too busy. It is happening in Carbonear and it is happening

in Placentia -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Before recognising the hon. member I just want to remind all

members of the House that when referring to hon. members, you should not use

their name. I refer you to Beauchesne,

section 8, 484(1): "It is the custom in

the House that no Member should refer to another by name. Members should be

referred to in the third person as 'the Honourable Member for...'" the district

that he represents. "A Minister is normally designated by the portfolio held"

and referred to as 'The hon. Minister of...'. Other office holders are similarly

identified by their offices."

So I ask all hon. members to keep that in mind when referring

to hon. members.

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

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: In speaking in the debate, I think I did use

the names of some hon. gentlemen opposite without referring to them by their

district. I apologize to the House for that. It was certainly not done

intentionally.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but the Chair just wanted to make that

point clear so that it doesn't continue.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to get into

the area that the hon. member was referring to in the debate. The matter we're

debating here in Committee is the matter of supplementary supply, whereby we can

resolve to utilize more money than was accounted for in the Budget that we

passed the last time we sat.

In, I suppose, the generality of speaking about money that

government raises and what we can speak about, is very broad-ranging. I just

wonder to the members of the Opposition what would they do if they were saddled

with the task that was put before us, as a government, over the last three

years? - possibly something similar, or possibly increased borrowing, if you

look at it from a standpoint of the way that this government has taken the

fiscal situation of the Province and dealt with it in a prudent manner. The

Opposition would have you believe that we have huge borrowing capacity, that we,

as one of the smaller, maybe the smallest province, with the exception of Prince

Edward Island, would be able to go to the market and borrow endlessly to pay for

the programs that they espouse as being so important to the people of the

Province. There is a balance there, I suppose, there is a balance of what is

important to the people of the Province in comparison to just how far you can go

in providing the funds to supply these public services.

Now, we have three choices in the way that we approach this.

We have the choice of borrowing the money through the markets, we have the

choice of cutting back on our expenditures as administrators of the government

for the people and we also have the choice of increasing our tax burden to

either our public sector employees, increasing the tax burden to businesses or

increasing the tax burden to all citizens of the Province. So there are three

ways that you can balance the books, so to speak.

Now, we had to look at it and come up with a balance. Now,

this government has put forward a position to the people of the Province over

the last three years that is a compromise of balance on all three. There has

been some borrowing. Granted, the borrowing has provided a level of borrowing to

the treasury that doesn't go beyond what the overall gross domestic product of

the Province is able to sustain. We look at the amount of borrowing we have done

and, as a percentage of the gross domestic product of the Province, we are now

borrowing a lesser percentage than the Opposition were borrowing when they were

the government. So, as a percentage of our overall output as an economy, we are

borrowing less, although the debt continues to increase. This is something we

still have to be concerned about, because even though we are borrowing less,

there is still an increase in the overall deficit and the overall debt combined,

the aggregate debt of the Province, as we continue on. It is continuing to grow

in an actual dollar figure. Even though we find that offensive we are still left

with no alternative but to continue to borrow to maintain the balance of public

services necessary.

Now, if we, as a government, were to have the fiscal

situation that the Opposition had when they were in government, if we were to

have the $500 million, the equivalent loss that we have experienced by virtue of

the changes to the equalization programs that the federal government has

implemented whereby at one time, back four years ago, the federal government

funds made up 50 per cent of our government budget. Currently they are down to

45 per cent in the upcoming budget. So, at that level, we can certainly see that

we are dealing with the situation in a balanced manner, trying to effect some

fairness on the business sector, the individual sector as far as the income

taxes go and, also, we have had to make some changes to the public services of

the Province in a reorganization that saw a number of public servants to be laid

off. No one likes to see people laid off. We are certainly needing to make sure

that things are done in a much better manner as far as the administration of the

public services go. So that is the balance we have come to, Mr. Speaker.

Now, if we look back, over the last number of years the

economy of Central Canada and some of the larger provinces have decreased. Their

economies have gone down. They have not performed as we would have liked.

Therefore, our equalization in the coming years, the next two years, maybe, will

be down and maybe even as soon as this month, we will be experiencing drastic

changes in equalization. What do we do if we end up this year with a $100

million shortfall? What do we, as a government, do? Do we go to borrow when

borrowing may not be possible, in the first instance, but in the second

instance, may jeopardize our credit rating? I would say that in that kind of

situation, Mr. Chairman, regardless of the time of year, that we, as a

government, will be left with no choice but to approach the public of the

Province for a mandate to effect the changes that are necessary to maintain the

financial integrity of the province. That is a situation wherein we could be in,

I would submit, an election in the middle of the winter; but I think that would

be certainly a necessity should equalization figures that come down every month

put us into such a circumstance where we are in a position to have our hands

tied and unable to balance the books of the province properly.

We budgeted this year for approximately a $30 million

shortfall, and I think it was $29.5 million on our current account; so therefore

we plan to have to borrow some money to run things, but the credit card

government, if you wanted to look at it, the use of a credit card, or the use of

your current account deficit for your operating expenses, is the kind of thing

that would catch up with you very rapidly.

Lo and behold, with the fisheries situation as it stands now,

we have had to make some corrections in midstream. We are expecting now

somewhere on the order of $50 million to $60 million current account deficit -

almost double what we had hoped to keep it to; and should the equalization

change - I think I heard on the news $50 million to $60 million now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty.

MR. RAMSAY: Fifty to sixty is my guess. Now I say it is

uninformed, but I am just going by the media reports. I have not seen any actual

detail on it, but if that were to climb to $100 million, or 100 plus, where

would we be? I ask the opposition: What would they do? Would they choose to

borrow? Would they choose to cut some expenses? Or would they choose to increase

taxes?

That is the kind of situation which might throw us into a bit

of a quandary over the next month or so, but if we end up in a Christmas time

election, or a January election, so be it. I am sure that the people of the

Province would prefer a solution offered to them. You put your choice forward as

to how you would handle it. We will put ours forward, and we will ask the public

of the Province to judge us on the merit of those two proposals. I think that

they would come in on our favour. Some of the opposition might think: Well,

maybe they have had enough of this cutting expenses; maybe they have had enough

of the situation where we have had to increase taxes; maybe they have had

enough.

Well I submit to you that if they have had enough, then they

have the right to choose to put the opposition in power and increase it that

way. Somehow I think that they will accept that it is tough medicine for tough

times, and would see to it that this government would be returned, and to handle

it in the way that we have been handling it, with some creativity in some of the

new programs that we have implemented through a variety of sources, such as

Enterprise Newfoundland, and some of the other agencies of government.

I might point out, for the benefit of the House, that a

development which is ongoing in my own district, which I want to bring to

everyone's attention, which is going quite well at this point, a company has set

up, called Atlantic Seaboard Industries, who hopefully will be able to return to

the treasury of this Province some nice, tidy sums; getting some people to work

on some environmental projects on which they plan to work, and as well in doing

some work on the Hibernia project. So we are very excited about this opportunity

for the near future in the district of LaPoile, and we certainly feel that this

is the kind of thing that will probably set us on the road to not having to be

as concerned about increasing taxes; about not having to be as concerned on

having to cut expenses, and also not being as concerned about having to borrow.

When the private sector is pumping money into the treasury as

well as into the economy, it improves for everybody. I would submit that we

should take a close look at all the entrepreneurial activity that is ongoing,

not only through individuals getting more interested in starting businesses, but

also with the high school sector, with students throughout the Province who have

certainly tried to benefit from the educational program that has been

implemented in some districts, and are certainly interested in developing

themselves as entrepreneurs -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. RAMSAY: - because a lot of people realize now there

will be no jobs for them, but there will be jobs if they can educate themselves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Although I am to your rear, it is nice that you hear my

voice. It is nice to be back, Mr. Chairman. With all the old rhetoric and some

new adages, it still is pretty well the same old routine.

Yesterday, I must say, I sat down here in a bit of awe,

because I think this is the ninth session that I have attended on opening day,

and it is getting to be a bit of a ritual now. Yesterday we had a little bit of

a change. We had the Premier getting up and welcoming the two new members. I

suppose, one wasn't that new. I think this is his third - he is sort of a

recycled candidate or was a candidate, now a recycled member.

Mr. Chairman, the other member here for Ferryland - a star

among stars - is going to be around for the longest time, I hope. I have heard

through the grapevine that the Liberal Government are not going to oppose that

hon. gentleman for Ferryland, and I think they are right on.

Mr. Chairman, I can hear that young Minister of - I haven't

even got his -

MS. VERGE: The Minister of IT.

MR. PARSONS: The Minister of what?

MS. VERGE: IT, I-T.

MR. PARSONS: Minister of IT. Yes, that is right. He was a

fine young minister, but I had to give him a little slap this afternoon coming

over because yesterday he seemed to be getting a bit aloof. He was sort of

rising. I said: Now, hold it just a moment. I thought I was going to have to

take him down a peg or two. I don't think now it is necessary, I think he is

back in the seat and I think he is sort of relaxed. I think that was just the

first day.

I was delighted, Mr. Chairman - and I will tie all this in to

what I should be speaking on and that is the economic situation. Mr. Chairman, I

will try to tie it all in. Yesterday I was delighted with our hon. leader who

stood in his place and offered a few platitudes, I suppose, to the previous

House Leader, the hon. Member for Gander. I must say I thought it was timed well

because I too had a lot of respect for that hon. gentleman.

There were times he used to get a bit testy. There were times

he would be upset with us. If he wanted to pass a piece of legislation that was

a bit critical, he was over there all smiles and running back and forth to us.

You could see his facial expression change when he was going to keep us in on a

night session. But overall, he was really agreeable. Only for our House Leader

who held him by the hand on several occasions - the old house leader I am

speaking about, the previous House Leader - but our House Leader held him by the

hand and on several occasions brought him over the rough spots. I hope that the

new House Leader now will listen to what I am saying and anytime he wants help

just look across to his counterpart and he will certainly answer his request and

avail of the opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I want to address a few remarks to the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations. I want to ask the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations how did he prioritize or how did he come up with the grants

that he awarded under the emergency program? Mr. Chairman, I believe we had

seven applications from my district. Mr. Chairman, the first thing the minister

did was he sent around a circular letter to the hon. members, or I am sure at

least to the Opposition members, asking them to prioritize the applications. Mr.

Chairman, it would be just the same as going out and hanging on a limb in all

that wind last night and the limb being very, very small, if I were to

prioritize the applications that were received from my district. It would be

suicide, Mr. Chairman. Shysters trying to get hon. members in trouble with their

own constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I wrote back very simply and said that each

community or each service club that applied applied because of the way they

prioritized the needs in their respective areas. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned to

the minister across the way yesterday that we received zero and he said: no,

Torbay received $20,000. I said: I didn't know that Torbay had received that

funding - twenty thousand dollars. I believe it's for four workers for ten

weeks, and I believe that averages out to about $267 a week, plus the 4 per cent

for additional cost, plus the 2 per cent for vacation pay and whatever. But

anyway, the total amount was $20,000.

Afterwards, when I heard the hon. Member for Kilbride get up

and say that people from the hon. minister's department said that there was

going to be no funding to the Opposition, then I said: now that's not true.

Because I said: Torbay, which is in my district, and a very large part of my

district, did receive $20,000. It wasn't much. A community of 5,000 people.

After I learned that a gentleman who had run for the Liberals had gone to see

the minister on several occasions and it was through his prodding, and because

of his allegiance and alliance with the Liberal Party, that's why Torbay got the

$20,000.

I used to often hear an hon. gentleman here - and I won't

mention his name; he's still in this hon. House - when I came up first he used

to get up and he'd say: pork barrelling. All I could remember was down by Norm

Downey's or up by Jack Savage's, seeing the old pork barrels out by the door. I

couldn't for the life of me figure out what it was. The hon. gentleman is not

here now but he sits in the chair to my left. He used to say: the PCs were pork

barrelling, giving all the money to their own districts.

Finally I figured it out. The barrel alright belonged to the

proprietor, which is that government, and all the pork that was in it they gave

to their own. There was nothing for anyone else. Not one iota, not one cent,

went to any other community in St. John's East Extern. Not another cent. I asked

the minister today why. Those people have a right to employment, just the same

right as any other Newfoundlander or Labradorian. They weren't even considered.

That minister spent a great portion of that $11 million - we

know that three point some million dollars went into materials. But the other $9

million, I'd like to know the percentage that went to Liberal districts and what

percentage went to PC districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: In what?

MR. PARSONS: In that $11 million emergency aid program.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fairness and balance, sir.

MR. PARSONS: Fairness and balance. I'm sorry that you

weren't here when I started my few remarks because I said you were a real fine

fellow. Now if you keep on I might have to retract that statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: What's the hon. Member for Port de Grave

saying?

MR. EFFORD: Tory districts shouldn't get anything.

MS. VERGE: He's been very quiet lately.

MR. PARSONS: Very quiet. He's still trying to get to the

front benches but I'm sorry, I'm very sorry - if I had my way you would get out

in front, but the Premier is not taking you, so forget it. You can be as quiet

as you like now -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: By leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, the other thing I'd like to

address today is: the Premier yesterday, in answering some of the questions on

the economic situation in Newfoundland and Labrador, which I might say is in a

state of flux, the state of going nowhere, the hon. the Premier came up with a

white book with green trimmings and he said: this is the federal report, the

federal prosperity report. He said: it cost $20 million. He said: here is our

economic report which cost half a million dollars. He said: really, what

happened before was the old testament and this is the new testament.

But he forgot to mention one thing, that Dr. House's study in

itself cost millions. Then he introduced the Economic Recovery Commission, which

was a saver, which was going to eliminate all other studies which cost millions,

so this final report in essence, cost millions of dollars and when you compare

our 570,000 costing millions of dollars and 70,000 people on welfare in this

Province, this other study - it did not cost a half million because there was

supposed to be no other studies, the ERC was supposed to cover it all. I do not

know if that ERC is still in being or not, I do not hear anything from them. I

mean I always call it for the benefit of the hon. the Government House Leader, I

always called that our commission of government.

MR. ROBERTS: ERC?

MR. PARSONS: ERC, our commission of Government which was

run by someone, not elected -

MR. ROBERTS: Will ERC answer it (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The ERC is a body in itself that is only

answerable to one person and that is the Premier, and for the travelling that he

has done outside the Province in the last couple of years he was answerable to

no one because he kept roaming around the mainland for the last two years -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: He has much more power even more than the

present House Leader. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time extended to me.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: I wanted to rise because I have to respond to

some of the remarks of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations in his

speech today and what he is telling the members of this House. He expects us to

really believe that the people of Newfoundland, particularly the unemployed

people, are prepared to sit back with some dim hope in the future of maybe,

possibly somehow getting a job, and that they are all to a person totally

sympathetic with the government's position with respect to the bond rating

services, of which the Premier does not seem to even know which one he is

kowtowing to from one day to the next.

Mr. Chairman, the people whom I talk to who are unemployed

are not at all sympathetic to the position of this government. They tell me that

they want a job, they are not satisfied to live on unemployment insurance, they

are not satisfied to live on welfare at $127 a month, they are not satisfied

with that and they are not waiting patiently for some distant day when possibly

some job might be forthcoming from this government. There is a complacency, Mr.

Chairman, on that side of the House with the plight of the Newfoundland people,

with the 40,000 people who are officially unemployed, with the additional 30,000

added to the caseload - that is not 30,000 people but 30,000 family units -

added to the caseload of the Department of Social Services since this government

took office.

Mr. Chairman, it is all very well to say we have an economic

recession in Canada, we all know that but that does not disguise the fact that

the unemployment rate in this Province is twice what it is nationally and much

larger than many other provinces and that is the responsibility of this

government.

The difference, Mr. Chairman, between the national

unemployment rate of 10 per cent and the 20 per cent officially that this

province tolerates, that is the responsibility of this government here and this

government is not taking that responsibility. They are quite content to let the

bond rating agencies tell them what their programs will be, let the bond rating

agencies tell them what their response will be to the people of Newfoundland who

are desperate for employment.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you know, I would like to know whether the

woman whom I spoke to in September, who in fact was desperate for work and

desperate for help from this government, how she spent a week or more trying to

get in touch with someone from this government to help her in the following

circumstances - now this is a good example of what kind of programs this

government has and what ones it does not.

This woman, Mr. Chairman, was on unemployment insurance and

that unemployment insurance expired, and for a year or more this woman, a single

parent and her two children, were on social assistance. During that year, she

sent out resumes and applications all across this country and after much, much

effort on her part, she managed to get a job. She is living in St. John's, Mr.

Chairman, her job happened to be on the other side of the Province, a very good

paying job, Mr. Chairman, and she was trying to get the assistance of this

government, of the Department of Social Services to allow her to move to the

west coast of this province to take up this job, and the Department of Social

Services was saying no, Mr. Chairman - 'No, we cannot help you. We don't have a

program to help you get to a job that you had.' If you had a job in Ontario, off

you go. Here is a ticket. Off you go. But if you want to move, Mr. Chairman,

from the East Coast of Newfoundland to the West Coast of Newfoundland to take up

a full-time paying job, not a minimum wage job, but a very respectable paying

job, the Department of Social Services' answer, Mr. Chairman, was: 'We have no

program. We have no program from social assistance to help people relocate in

this Province to get a job.'

Now, Mr. Chairman, after several days of prodding by me and

my office, the ministers - and I have to give full credit, they respond to this

individual, because they know this is the kind of case in which the people of

Newfoundland would be able to recognize the lack of programming in this

government if it were exposed.

Now, Mr. Chairman, where are the programs that are designed

to help people in those circumstances. They don't exist, Mr. Chairman. That

woman is not sitting back complacently like the Minister of Social Services or

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations expects everybody to. She wasn't

sitting back complacently and waiting for some nirvana in the future that the

strategic economic plan was going to provide employment for her. She was out

looking and fighting for employment for herself so she could look after herself

and her family. That, Mr. Chairman, is the attitude of Newfoundlanders, not the

complacency that this government has, not the complacency that is expressed by

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, but a determination not to give

up hope. But they are not getting hope from this government, Mr. Chairman, not

by getting up in this House like the Premier did today and saying we have the

courage to be politically responsible or the political courage to be responsible

and look after the coffers for the sake of the Canadian Bond Rating Service or

Moody's Industrial Services. Whenever the Premier gets it right he will tell us

what service he is talking about. But it is the Bond Rating Service, Mr.

Chairman, that this government speaks to, not to the needs of the people of this

Province.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think this House should tolerate the

kind of remarks that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations gets. It is

all very well to get up and make these platitudinous remarks about how the

people of Newfoundland, the individual person, realizes that they can accept

unemployment, social assistance - no help from this government other than the

$127 a month that they get on social assistance. 'We are not letting people

starve,' he says. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations try to live on $127 a month. Mr. Chairman, you

could hardly get enough from that to buy yourself a one-dollar meal for a period

of a month. If he has talked to people who have had to live on that, he will not

be able to get up in this House and make the kinds of statements that he makes

about the people and their problems.

Mr. Chairman, I think the government ought to take seriously

its responsibilities towards the people, and not just say: 'We can help one in

ten of those who are officially unemployed. That is all we can do. That is the

limit of our ability. That is all we have to offer to the people of this

Province, one out of ten who can get some assistance and get some employment.'

The Government of this Province, Mr. Chairman, has the responsibility to create

a climate that provides for unemployment, and if there are short-term employment

needs, to respond to those needs and to provide for them.

So I ask the minister to get up and recant, if he will - get

up and recant, take it back. The people of Newfoundland are not satisfied to sit

back - particularly those who are unemployed and don't have jobs - they are not

satisfied to sit back and wait and hope that maybe in two or three or four or

five or six years time that this strategic economic plan might get beyond the

planning stages and might result in a job of some kind for an individual. They

are not prepared to wait, Mr. Chairman, and they will be providing an answer in

the next election. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't going to get up

because I thought the Opposition was going to let this pass. So seeing it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, I am going to do that, too, in a

minute. But seeing that the Opposition was going to have another speaker, I said

we might as well have five or ten minutes. It is very good to hear the social

conscience of Newfoundland speaking again, you know, the potential leader for

the NDP. Is he the leader yet? I am not sure. There is a race on, I assume.

AN HON. MEMBER: He may not be leader if somebody else

runs.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, if somebody else runs, but it is

really good to see - he makes the comment about bond rating agencies determining

what we are going to do, instead of us deciding for the people.

Now, unfortunately, Floyd Laughren and the NDP Government in

Ontario -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Floyd - Laughren is his last name, I

think - the NDP Treasury Minister.

Anyway, you would not believe - I was up in Toronto a few

weeks ago and it is a different place than it used to be, I tell you that. I am

telling you, the want ads are a lot less in the papers, and there are places

closed down. It is just unreal.

When I hear all of that, when I see that situation and I look

at what has occurred up there, and look at the Treasury Board Minister for

Ontario having to go to Wall Street in New York to convince the bankers that

lend the Ontario government money, that they are trying to do their best and

that they are cutting this; they are cutting education; they are cutting health

care; they are doing all of this to keep them happy, because they want to

provide services, then I find it a little bit out of line to hear the NDP

representative, the sole representative of the people in this House of Assembly,

making those statements against this government.

This government has led the way in dealing with the financial

problems - led the way across Canada for any provincial government in dealing

with its financial problems. I am amazed that we have been able to hold the line

as we have, from the bond rating agencies. I am absolutely amazed.

Our former Minister of Finance, our present Minister of

Finance, and all of our officials deserve a lot of credit for doing what we have

had to do, and for dealing with it up front and making sure that they understand

- the people that we have to borrow the money from to keep all the services that

we have - understand that this government is up front, dealing with it up front,

and making sure that we are going to have a prosperous future.

Now, if it were in the hands of the sole member of the NDP

for Newfoundland and Labrador here in the House of Assembly, where would we be?

What is his option? I would like to know. Is it to go out and borrow the money

that we can't borrow anymore? Is that the option?

AN HON. MEMBER: We have no plans (inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: No plan? They have to have a plan. They

can't condemn our plan and say it is no good. That is like George Bush in the

U.S. saying: Hey, Bill Clinton, your plan is no good, but I don't have one. It

is the same thing. So I cannot wait.

The Opposition can go out and develop their own plan. They

can bring it in and table it in the House of Assembly, and they can say: Here is

what we would like to do. I would like to see it. The Ontario government just

brought out a plan, too, I hear, and it looks a lot like ours, as a matter of

fact. Some of the ideas - some of their officials are back and forth.

I had an interesting discussion with a deputy minister for

the Treasury Board in Ontario. I was sitting at a table with the person, and

that person did not know, in Newfoundland and Labrador, that we do not have

management over our fishery. The Deputy Minister of the Treasury Board of

Ontario didn't know that we don't have management of our fishery. She thought we

managed our fishery, so she didn't understand why we were having such a problem.

When I explained what the problem was, she completely understood it.

I just point out that other parts of Canada don't understand

that issue, and we have to do another job on the people of Canada to make them

understand that is an important issue for us down here.

All I would wish is that if you are going to criticize, when

it comes to the finances of the Province, then throw up a solution, throw up

some credible arguments to make sure that we can listen to those arguments and

then try to incorporate them. What I see is criticism, criticism, criticism, rip

down, rip down, rip down, but there is nothing offered as a solution.

You can say all you want about the bond markets, but

Newfoundland's reputation in the bond markets is probably the best of any

Province of Canada right now, and thank God.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Commission of Government had money

left over at the end.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Who is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Commission of Government - have you

heard of them?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Oh, I have heard of them. Have you? What

is your solution? Offer some solutions, my friend. You are up saying: Don't do

this, don't do that, and your colleagues across Canada are doing the very same

thing, and worse.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't have money for (inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: No, they don't. That is right, they

don't, but I tell you, Ontario is working towards it. Ontario is in double

digits now, my friend, they are in double and going up. But they are going to

fix that problem, because when Bob Rae goes to the electorate we will see what

happens there.

Offer some solutions, is all I say to you. This criticism -

all it is is banging away at this wonderful social conscience. Let me say to

you, Sir: We all have social consciences, as a matter of fact. When we get into

politics we all do the best we can. This government has come under extreme

pressure in a recession and is attempting to do what it can with its resources.

You are trying to put a slant on it, like, nobody cares about

this, and nobody cares about that. This government here has a major social

conscience, because it's trying to fix the financial problems so that people

twenty years hence, the young people of this Province, are going to be able to

do what they want, and won't have to be spending half the budget paying off

interest, for cripes' sakes.

We have to get it together, my friend. So if you're going to

criticize, go look at the finances and see where the books are.

MR. HARRIS: Why are you taking it so personally? Do you

have a (Inaudible)?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I have a guilty conscience? I have a

guilty conscience. I'm not the one - I won't say anything, Mr. Chairman, not

what I would like to say. Anyway, I won't say anything.

What do you mean 'personal'? You know what is personal? When

you say something back to the NDP, that's personal. When you go back and say:

But could you back that up? That's personal? Boy, oh boy! I had better be

careful. As a matter of fact, I am being too hard on him, I think.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: I'm being too hard on him.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Very personal - he is the only member of

the party.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, that's true, too, I suppose. But

let's get it real, let's be credible, that's all. We have some problems here we

have to try to resolve. Some members of the Opposition - even the Member for

Humber East, she's credible at times. At times she is very credible, when she

wants to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Now, I know I am being kind. Okay, I'm

being kind, but that depends.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Alright. But still, there are

constructive criticisms, at times, that we will all take and heed, and other

times maybe not. At least there is criticism that is constructive at times. So

all we ask over here is that we look forward to the constructive criticism that

we should have as a government, and then we will respond in kind and try to deal

with the issues as we should.

I am sure the Minister of Finance when he sums up later on

will be able to address the many issues that have been put forward, especially

in dealing with the bond markets of the world, and what our reputation is there,

and how well we have done considering these difficult times. So I have no

problem with that, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the many wonderful

suggestions coming from the other side as to how to solve these economic

problems. I can't wait to see the plan, I can't wait to see it tabled in the

House, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. The bill that is the

subject of this debate - although listeners might have lost track - is a bill to

patch up last year's Budget. It is a supplementary supply bill providing for

approximately $20 million for the Budget of 1991-1992.

The need for such a measure is indicative of the Wells'

Administration's shoddy management. The government has had great difficulty

managing the affairs of the government. Occasionally it has come up with good

ideas for policy changes or new programs, but almost invariably, has botched

implementation. In other instances the attempts at change have backfired because

they have been miscalculated from the beginning.

One of the more notorious examples of mismanagement and

misguided policies has to do with municipal affairs. Shortly after this

Administration took office, the minister of the day announced wholesale

municipal amalgamation. The former minister, in July of 1989, decreed that more

than 100 municipalities would be combined into larger groupings.

Now, to this day, some seventeen municipalities on that

original hit list are still waiting to find out their fate. This is almost

unbelievable. There have been repeated promises to resolve the matter next

month, next season, next term of the House of Assembly. The current minister met

with three of the municipalities which are awaiting their fate. I cite the

municipalities of Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah. The current

minister met with them over the last few months and promised to arrive at a

decision before too much longer. He met with the city council of Corner Brook

and the town council of Massey Drive this fall, saying that he would have a

decision for them within a couple of weeks, by the middle of October, certainly,

in time for preparation of the next budget.

Chairperson, there hasn't been a word from the minister or a

signal from the government since. Those municipalities, in the meantime, have

had to start planning for the next budget year. They have had to make

arrangements for snow clearing for this winter, which is closing in, and still,

no decision. For more than three years, this government has made those

municipalities wait and wonder, has made the volunteers, who are so important to

the running of the smaller municipalities, wonder if their reason for being

would exist in another few months, in another year. This has been extremely

frustrating for municipal leaders who have enough problems on their hands

because of the poor economy.

Not only has this administration bungled the management of

the government, itself, the government has introduced tax measures, tax hikes,

and brought about other economic measures which have discouraged employment,

business activity and investment in this Province. Earlier in the debate, my

colleagues have talked about the harmful effects of the payroll tax, as well as

other revenue-raising measures of this Administration. The payroll tax has been

a disincentive to employment in this Province, and has contributed to the

worsening of the economy. Yes, the economy Canada-wide is bad, but this

Administration has made the problems much worse than they needed to be here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have, as the previous speaker on this side of the House,

the Member for St. John's East, said, an unemployment rate of over 20 per cent,

more than double the national average. But, Chairperson, that figure is

misleading for more than one reason. It is misleading partly because the size of

the labour force in Newfoundland and Labrador has contracted, has become much

smaller, since the Wells Administration took office. When the Wells

Administration moved in on May 5, 1989, according to Statistics Canada, there

were 202,000 jobs in this Province. Three years later, in the spring of 1992,

before the Northern cod moratorium, there had been a 20,000 job loss in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The size of the provincial labour force in May of 1992 had

shrunk to only 182,000. We lost 20,000 jobs over the first three years of the

Wells Administration, over the first three years of the Economic Recovery

Commission. How ironic! The more the Economic Recovery Commission operated, the

more money it spent, the worse our economy got, the more jobs we lost, the

higher our unemployment rate rose.

Yesterday, in Question Period, there was a very revealing

debate. The Leader of the Opposition slammed the Wells Administration for their

mishandling of the economy, for their crippling tax burden on businesses. The

Premier replied, saying that he has a plan. He likened the plan to the New

Testament, saying that the earlier House Royal Commission report, completed

during the Peckford Administration in 1987, was the Old Testament.

I suggest the Premier's analogy is apt, because he has no

idea in this world how to implement either of those plans, how to reach the

goals set out in those plans, and he is counting on divine intervention. If God

does not intervene to help Newfoundland and Labrador we are in big trouble until

after the next election.

The next questioner on our side, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, proceeded to ask the Minister of Social Services about the

current welfare caseload, and the minister had to admit that in the three and a

half years of his administration the social assistance rolls have increased by

50 per cent. Some economic recovery. Some plan. Twice as many people in

Newfoundland and Labrador on welfare.

Chairperson, this government has had to get Supplementary

Supply last year and again this year. One reason is because they have constantly

underestimated their spending requirements for welfare. They are paying out more

and more and more public funding for welfare. At the same time they have cut

government spending on employment creation. Sure they have spent a lot of money

consulting and planning and revising the House Royal Commission Report and

coming up with a fancy strategic economic plan, but they have cut spending on

employment creation.

If you look at this years spending estimates you will see in

the Department of Social Services a $6 million cut. In the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations a $4 million cut. Now in late September the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations announced an Emergency Employment

Response Program. Evidently the economic depression in this province had taken

him by surprise. It wasn't until late September when the good weather was ending

that he came up with an employment program. Talk about a shell game. Cut in

March and, panic fashion, put it back in late September.

Chairperson, the Premier has dismissed the idea of government

make-work projects. Instead he has chosen to pay out more and more and more

public funds in welfare. Evidently he would rather have people - now numbering

70,000 in the province - simply collecting social assistance cheques.

Chairperson, anyone who has any familiarity with social

assistance recipients - and I realize the Premier has no such personal knowledge

- he is far above the lives of the ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who

are in receipt of social assistance. He doesn't cross paths with any of the

70,000 people depending on welfare today. But anyone who does understand their

situation will realize that social assistance does not allow for the basic

necessities of life. If you are depending solely on social assistance you are

not eating a nutritious diet.

Chairperson, with all the needs for public works, with all

the needs on the part of municipalities, on the part of local service districts,

of rural development associations, community service groups, businesses,

wouldn't it be better for this government to decrease spending on welfare and

increase spending on employment creation?

The Premier may make light of government employment creation,

but what is his alternative, paying out more for welfare and then in the Fall

having emergency panic response programs? Chairperson, there is such a thing as

good make-work, good government funded employment projects. To be good the

projects have to involve genuinely needed, useful activity. To be good, projects

have to be planned. To be good, projects have to have proper supervision.

What this government has chosen to do with its emergency

employment response program is to wait so late in the year that proper planning

cannot be done; proper supervision cannot be put in place; and in many

instances, because of the climate, to wait until it is too cold to get maximum

yield from the spending.

In the district I represent there was an application from one

of the municipalities for upgrading of their outdoor swimming pool. That project

has been passed from one office to another of the provincial government, and it

is now too late for the work to be done before the winter closes in. There is

still money left in the Social Services employment creation budget - not a lot,

but there is money left there. Instead, the government is opting to pay more and

more and more to healthy, able-bodied people who want to work, who can work, who

have been used to working, to do genuinely needed work in their communities and

in their areas.

Chairperson, the government has failed the people miserably.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I simply wish to, at this point in time, table something that

was promised by the Premier a little earlier to the Leader of the Opposition. It

has to do with the health and post-secondary education tax, commonly known as

the payroll tax, and the complete breakdown by category of all the various

sectors and all this kind of thing.

This is the information that relates to the 1992-'93 year -

this current budget year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was the tax implemented?

MR. BAKER: What was asked for was simply a breakdown -

the effect on all of the segments and sectors of the business community of the

Province, exactly how much money was coming from each sector and all that kind

of thing. It is the sort of thing that I have readily available, so I simply

sent a message down and obtained it.

I would like to table it, if I could. There is a copy there

for the Leader of the Opposition, and this could be passed to the finance

critic, I guess, in his place.

I hope that the opposition appreciates the very quick

response that they always get to requests of this nature, and how ready we are

to provide them with all kinds of delicious information which they can then bang

us over the heads with. I know that is what they want it for; however, we are so

very confident in what we are doing that we don't mind giving them any

information that they require. So, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased, at this

point in time, to be able to table that information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition Party Whip.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have a few words

to say on this Interim Supply Bill, especially as it pertains to the Department

of Health and the health care system right across Newfoundland and Labrador.

We do have a new Minister of Health, but we still have the

same old health care system. The Minister of Health has yet to make his mark

within that department, and I am certainly hoping that it is going to be a new

Department of Health now that we have such a good, efficient minister as the

former Minister of Finance.

Three million, I believe, has been designated in this Interim

Supply Bill, for the Health Department. It does not say anything about where the

money is going to be spent, Mr. Chairman, but it certainly does not seem to be

going to hospitals in Newfoundland and Labrador, given the fact that we still

have the very, very, long waiting periods, the very long lineups being

experienced by people all across the Province, trying to get in for surgery at

the various hospitals.

I remember, Mr. Chairman, questioning the former Minister of

Health about the long waiting periods, especially as it pertained to heart

surgery patients. I remember questioning the former Minister of Health on a half

dozen different occasions, as a matter of fact, with respect to that very, very

important issue, and really not getting anywhere with the minister. Sometimes

there were eight- and ten- and twelve-month waiting periods for people trying to

get heart surgery. But the former Minister of Health assured us on a number of

different occasions that there was very little if any problem in that area. I

believe at one point he told us that anyone who was waiting for a ten- or

twelve-month period for a heart operation, he would question whether or not the

individual needed the operation to begin with.

To the minister's credit, I have to say to him, that since he

came to that department, the Department of Health, he made available just

recently, I believe, around $600,000 to try and clear up some of the backlog

that existed for heart surgery patients. I felt a little bit vindicated when the

minister made that money available. Because it did show beyond the shadow of a

doubt that the problem was very real and it wasn't one cooked up by members of

the Opposition, as the former Minister of Health always said, that the

Opposition was cooking up these problems, that the problems really didn't exist.

So the minister came to that department and made available $600,000 to clear up

some of the backlog for heart surgery patients. So I felt a little bit

vindicated when he did that.

The waiting lines continue. Heart surgery, of course, is not

the only area where government is falling down, where the hospitals are falling

down, because of lack of funds. I'm hoping that the new Minister of Health will

make his mark very, very quickly and make available to the hospitals which need

this money very quickly the needed finances, because doctors are seriously

overworked, nurses are seriously overworked, not only in the St. John's area but

hospitals right across the Province. Doctors, nurses, personnel generally, are

very seriously overworked, and government has done little if anything to address

these problems.

The Minister of Health surely must be aware by now that you

can't lay off 650 employees in the health care sector without affecting the

level of care that people receive. Especially when the overall demand for health

service continues to be on the increase. Six hundred and fifty people laid off

in the health care sector and the government has done little if anything to

address that problem. So I'm hoping that the minister is going to tackle that

one and reinstate some of the people who have been laid off over the last one

year, over the last year in particular.

More than 200 hospital beds right across the Province have

been eliminated, a decrease of more than 9 per cent. These are the latest

figures which I have, which are quite old, as a matter of fact, so there might

be more hospital beds than that closed down. So I'm going to be very anxious

over the next number of weeks to question the Minister of Health to see what he

is going to do to solve that problem. I know that he must have some great plans

ready to go on that one.

Also, I believe that very many of the problems that we have

in the health care system, especially with regard to the lineups and people

trying to get into hospital, are probably very closely related to the economic

situation that we find in our province right now. I know personally, from my own

point of view, I am getting roughly about thirty-five or forty phone calls a day

right now and most if not all of these calls are related to employment, jobs,

people looking for jobs, people who do not have enough unemployment insurance

contributions to qualify and, Mr. Chairman, that is a very serious problem. I

think this Christmas is going to come and go and a lot of people will not have

enough unemployment insurance stamps to qualify for unemployment insurance, and

I think the $11 million the government made available for the employment program

was too little too late. It did help. I believe the minister mentioned 3,500

jobs, or something in that area, but when you have an unemployment rate in some

communities in the province that is close to 50 or 60 or 70 per cent, then 3,500

jobs are really, too little too late. I could use probably 3,500 of these jobs

right in my own district and that, Mr. Chairman, is a fact. Probably right in my

own district these 3,500 jobs could be used so it is too little too late insofar

as that is concerned.

Also, I want to place the Minister of Environment and Lands

on notice as well that I will be having a few words to say to her. I am critic

now for Environment and Lands as well as Health, so I am going to be quite busy

over the next short while, so I want to place the minister on notice as well

that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. DOYLE: - I have a few things I want to say to her.

Shall the resolution carry?

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to continue to have a few words to say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What was that, who said that?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, certainly yes, if the Minister

of Finance, the former President of Council - he is still President of Council,

is he?

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not know what to say.

MR. TOBIN: If you want to stand up I will sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: I was waiting for you. Do you have

something to say or -

MR. TOBIN: Okay, good. Mr. Chairman, there are a couple

of things I want to say that I never got to finish the last time. I think my

colleague for Harbour Main just addressed one of the issues, which was basically

the employment program and how it was too little too late, but the other thing

that I found out about the employment program - what I have been told is that

some of the monies that were announced, were approved prior to the programs

being announced. Some of the projects that were announced had already been

approved.

Now, I am wondering why something was not done in fisheries,

why the Department of Fisheries has sat back, why this minister has sat back and

let the government do nothing for this program. For example, the northeast

coast, take from the top of Cape St. Mary's and do the whole northeast coast and

you will find that it is Mr. Crosbie who came to the assistance of the fishermen

and not this Minister of Fisheries -

MR. CARTER: Mr. Crosbie caused the problems.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Crosbie was not in Ottawa half as long as

you were in Ottawa. You were in Ottawa and caused the problem and you came back

here and finished it, that is the long and short of it. That is where the

problems were caused. You caused the problems and as Minister of Fisheries you

have done absolutely nothing to assist them. Now, I can tell you that I attended

a rally or whatever you want to call it, one day in Grand Bank. Myself and my

colleague and, Mr. Simmons, the MP was there and the fishermen over there got up

that day and they spoke, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, and they talked

about it. They said the problem in 3Ps, in that area, goes back to an agreement

that was signed in 1972 by the federal government.

MR. CARTER: By Mr. Crosbie.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Crosbie was not there in 1972. The problem

was caused and created in an agreement in 1972 that is causing problems for

every fisherperson that depends on the 3Ps area. Because it was in 1972 that

they signed the agreement that gave the French the rights to fish in Canadian

waters forever. Is that right?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, forever.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes it is.

MR. TOBIN: It is true, Mr. Chairman. But there's one man

in Ottawa who wouldn't know what the truth was if it hit him in the face. You

hear him ranting and roaring and talking about the fisheries, and he never told

the truth yet about the fisheries. I hope you don't take after him.

The fact of the matter was that in 1972 there was a Liberal

government in Ottawa which signed an agreement that gave the French the right to

fish in Canadian waters - forever! That's what happened. That's why there are

problems with the fishing industry today. Then you hear some of the federal MPs

coming out, particularly Mr. Baker and Mr. Simmons and a few of them, who were

part and parcel of the government that gave to France - you get up and you rant

and roar about the people of France, and they gave them the right to come in

here. Gave them the rights to come in here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

MR. TOBIN: It is true. Every time you hear a Baker he

doesn't know what he's talking about. The only one I hear from the Liberals who

knows what he's talking about is a Tobin. You got the Tobins in Ottawa telling

the truth, and you got the Bakers telling lies. Now that's what you have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: And they don't understand the fisheries. But I

will say that the Baker provincially, Mr. Chairman, has great respect for the

truth. I've always found him to be that type of an individual. But the

unfortunate part about it, like his leader he knows nothing about the fisheries,

so therefore anything he says about it you can't take seriously. I remember when

we were in government - and it won't be too long till we'll be back in

government - when this leader said we cannot have jurisdiction over our

fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) warm water (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: If we want warm water there's a good place to

get it, there's a good source.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: If we want warm water in this House, there's a

good source, Mr. Chairman, to get a lot of warm things in this House, if we want

warm water, I'll say to the Member for Naskaupi.

MR. MATTHEWS: What? Warm water?

MR. TOBIN: I said get him some warm water. I know where

there is a good production, Mr. Chairman, of a lot of warm air as well. Now I

was talking about the fisheries, and the Member for Naskaupi I understand

doesn't know a lot about the fisheries either.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Naskaupi doesn't know a lot

about the fisheries either. I can tell the Member for Naskaupi that I know a lot

more about the fisheries than he does. Yes, I do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I tell you, you know as much about the

fisheries as whoever else was born inside the overpass, and that's not very

much. Anyone who spent a lifetime practising law on Duckworth Street shouldn't

even open their mouth about the fisheries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Your own crowd are listening to you.

MR. TOBIN: I don't care if my own crowd are listening to

me, I want your crowd to listen to me. I want you to listen to me.

MR. MATTHEWS: We know everything about it.

MR. TOBIN: I want you to listen to me. Because we know

all about the fisheries and you know nothing about it, and that's why we want

you to listen.

MR. PARSONS: You know nothing about it, we're only

enlightening you.

MR. TOBIN: We're trying to help the Member for Naskaupi,

Mr. Chairman. Like the former leader of the Opposition, Mr. Neary, used to say:

them Duckworth Street lawyers are the hardest persons I know off to educate

about rural Newfoundland. I remember Mr. Neary saying that time and time again

in this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, same thing. Time and time again Mr. Neary

used to say that in the House, in reference to Mr. Marshall and Mr. Ottenheimer

and the Member for Naskaupi, then. The Member for Naskaupi has the gall to get

up in this House and shout across about the fisheries.

I was born and raised in Trepassey, a fishing community.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: In Trepassey, Mr. Chairman, in Trepassey.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, let the record show that I'm

continually being interrupted by the Government House Leader who, as the Premier

would say, should be showing a better example in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get on with it. Get on with it.

MR. TOBIN: I will. Probably they used to get on with it

in the 1960s. I don't know much about what went on in the House in the 1960s,

but I am sure you can tell us what went on in that period of time. You can tell

us what went on in the 1960s. I can tell you what went on in the House in the

1980s and the 1990s. That is what I can tell you about. But what went on in the

1960s and 1970s I can't share that with you. The Minister of Fisheries can

probably tell you about what went on for the last thirty years in both Houses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, the only man in Placentia who was out waving for everybody

in North America to dump their garbage in his district, and he has the gall to

come in here. Out advocating, going around your district, telling the people

that everybody from North America should bring their garbage to Placentia Bay.

He should be ashamed of himself. That is what the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs should be.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: It is really hard to speak here today. You're

some testy today.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have been picking on me, so I

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am going to say one thing today, that the

Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, since he became Minister of Tourism and

Culture has done a pretty good job. That is what I am going to say today. I had

the opportunity to discuss a problem with the Minister of Tourism and Culture

and I can tell you that he returned my call, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Late at night?

MR. TOBIN: Well, I don't know what the end result was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Late at night at your home.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that is right, late at night at home. I

think that is what we have to have instead of the arrogance down at the

minister's office.

MS. COWAN: Did you ever call me?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we won't get into that.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, I really can't say that I

have or have not called the minister. I don't know. But I do know that there are

ministers I have set meetings up with that didn't show for the meetings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them. Name them.

MR. TOBIN: No, I won't name them. That is not important.

The name of the minister is not important. I am not going to get into that

because that is not important. There was good reason -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, certainly this bill is about money, money

needed for this Province to survive, in the government's estimation, in these

rough, rough times. But, Mr. Chairman, all I can hear coming from the government

side if you bring up anything of substance, the first thing we hear from all the

ministers, is it is Ottawa's fault. Everything is Ottawa's fault.

I see now, getting a handclap on his desk from the ex

Minister of Finance, the old short and the curly. He has survived to come up and

hit the desk again. Well, let me say this to you, that he hoodwinked the people

for about three years saying the same thing, the same rhetoric, it is all the

fault of the feds. But today in the House things changed.

When our critic for Education rose in his place and asked

some questions of the Minister of Education, it was proven beyond any shadow of

a doubt that the only renegers, the only people reneging on this educational

system as it pertains to students is this province, not the feds, they are

beyond what is needed, what is counted for them to pay in. It is the problem of

the province and the province is not living up to what is required by the

students. You are always getting up in your places and saying: This is the

federal government's responsibility, the federal government. We are not getting

enough money from the federal government.

If the Premier and all his group had stayed home f