May 19, 1992                 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLI  No. 39


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the last two days, a person by the name of Francis Patey presented me with a book called 'The Jolly Poker', and knowing the author of this book very well and having read the book over the weekend, it is most interesting and in fact most entertaining for a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of book that tells us about our heritage and about the days gone by, and I would like to suggest to the government that every consideration be given to this particular book and in fact my hon. colleague, the Minister of Health, is from his district and I would like the government to really consider having this book in all the schools in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, Francis and I have had detailed discussions on this book and his other book and I would certainly join with members of this House in extending to him congratulations. I have already discussed with the Minister of Education about putting his previous book and his latest one into the schools, it is not just as simple as that but it is certainly a matter which the minister has been considering in a very in-depth way over the past number of times and I certainly join with the member in wishing Francis the best wishes on his past book and his second one.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the public galleries today twenty-eight Grade IX students from the Integrated Collegiate School of Carbonear, and they are accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Deering and Mr. Sparkes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, we have seven visitors from the Moscow Circus. These people are seeking to be immigrants of Canada and they have been going around demonstrating to various groups, and I am sure all hon. members would like to welcome them here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask a couple of questions of the Minister of Finance, the Member for St. John's Centre. The reason for the questions is to try to get some clear answers from the minister, and clear answers from the government, because I know there have been similar questions asked.

Last year the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Government, announced publicly the postponement of the implementation of tax reforms which he had earlier intended to introduce, I think it was in January or something of this year. I want to ask the minister if he can state clearly: Does the government intend to proceed with reforming the tax system as outlined earlier and, if so, has he set a date for this implementation? Could he tell us the date that he has in mind?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we have no date for implementation in mind, because we have no plans to implement anything at the moment. What we are doing is studying more carefully the ramifications and the implications for businesses, and the Province generally, of harmonizing with the goods and services tax.

Our previous study was broader than the goods and services tax. We had that in our mind, but we had a whole series of things that we were thinking about doing, and we might do, and we have narrowed it down a bit. Now we are trying to find out some more information as to how, if we do harmonize with the goods and services tax, it will affect a variety of businesses. What we are doing, we are asking now for input from businesses. We are also going to be sending officials to talk to businesses, or to meet with businesses, just to be sure of what the impact might be if we were to harmonize with the goods and services tax.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry. I nearly dozed off listening to the minister's response.

Can the minister tell the House: What is different about the procedure he now is following in going out and meeting with businesses and talking to businesses - what is different from that procedure, talking about harmonization of the tax, than what was done earlier when we argued for a more open process and he said, no, no. We are out now talking to businesses with his, I do not know what it was, a white paper or a green paper or something that he had put out. What is different about that process - in terms of the harmonization issue? Let's keep it on harmonization.

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

DR. KITCHEN: The paper that was attached to the Budget of the year before last was a broadly based paper dealing with issues of harmonization, and we got a fair amount of input back at that. When we put it all together the realization came about that if we were to harmonize and give businesses input tax credits we would have to forego something like $180 million of business taxes that we raise on RST from businesses, and if we were to forego $180 million how would we recoup it?

One way, some of it might be recouped by broadening the base to take in some of the services that are taxed under the GST, but a large part would not be so recouped and we would have had to increase business taxes. Perhaps we would have to increase the payroll tax even more than it is now or other business taxes, and that was a bit much for us to do.

Even though there are great merits in this Province for harmonizing with the GST as far as business expansion is concerned, getting involved in international trade, because that is what we really are, an international trading country, yet we felt that we should study the impact of this tax much more precisely on businesses. So it is a more precise study now then it was before because at that time we were thinking of a variety of taxes related to harmonization. One of them was that we would just forego the business inputs completely and just tax everything that the federal government taxed without giving businesses inputs. So we have ruled out that part now and we are narrowing our study down.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his very enlightening answer. It brings me around to my final supplementary and the purpose of my questions.

Since the minister has said, and I think his very words were that they do not have plans at the moment to implement anything, and since I think he said also there is no date for implementation of the plan and they are doing further study and so on, and since it is I suppose something that this government has often preached; the need to give the people more chance to have a say in major policy initiatives - well certainly this would be a major policy initiative - does the minister think he will be able to convince his colleagues in government that the government should take advantage now of this delay, particularly with the summer break coming upon us, with a legislative committee to perhaps hold some public hearings around the Province to see what the people of the Province think about the ideas that the government might have with respect to tax reform? Do you think the minister might see that as a beneficial move?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries.

There are some problems with the Province's crab fishery. I am wondering if the Minister of Fisheries could inform the House what the status of the crab fishery is now? I understand that they have stopped fishing I think it is 3L, and it may be extended to 3K and so on. There seems to be some serious problem with the crab fishery, coming on the back of the problems that we have with our groundfish resources. I am just wondering if the minister could update the House on the status of the crab fishery.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to take that question as notice and hopefully provide an answer to the hon. gentleman tomorrow. I have heard certain things but certainly not enough that I could fully answer that question. So I will take it as notice and provide an answer tomorrow.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the minister. My understanding is that there is a real danger, because of prices and other problems, and that there is some suggestion there may not even be a crab fishery this year. So, as I said, following upon the heels of the downturn in the groundfish industry and the fallout with the fishing companies and plants around the Province, it would be quite dramatic if our crab fishery doesn't go ahead or is in any way significantly reduced. Has the minister met with the union or any other representatives, or processors, on the crab fishery issue? Can he inform the House of that? Has he had any meetings within the last while about that important issue?

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

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

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Another supplementary to the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. There is a problem in the Northern Peninsula area, I think it is Anchor Point, with the shrimp fishery up there, where apparently, people can't go shrimp fishing because they don't have buyers for their product. Is the minister aware of that problem up there? Is he considering another buyer's licence so that people can go catch shrimp and sell it?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there are two major shrimp buyers, I guess, on that coast, namely FPI's plant in Port au Choix and Conpak Seafoods in Anchor Point. Now, I know that there are some problems. In fact, I have had meetings with the operators of the plant in Anchor Point, and I understand that they are now in the process of trying to negotiate prices and trying to get things in order for this year.

We have had requests, by the way, for other processing licences. In fact, the company that is contemplating reactivating the plant in Trepassey is going to be looking, I think, for some kind of a shrimp buying or shrimp processing licence. We have had other enquiries, as well. I believe, Clearwater Seafoods, the plant that just opened in Grand Bank, the district of the hon. gentleman, are now looking at maybe the possibility of purchasing shrimp, not for processing in Grand Bank, I am told, but for freezing and, I presume, for exporting. But certainly, it is something that is very active now and the companies are, I presume, doing their own thing, negotiating prices and trying to get their houses in order for the summer.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We now find that the government's amalgamation proposal of last year is having a disastrous effect on municipalities in this region, gross increased costs and a lot of confusion. We are also finding, Mr. Speaker, that developments are now being held up because of these changes in boundaries. We find that private developers are not able to continue and municipalities, in some cases, don't really know how to proceed because they don't really know where they are yet.

Could the minister tell us what plans he has to deal with this and what problems is he finding as a result of this amalgamation scheme?

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

MR. HOGAN: It is a very general question, Mr. Speaker and I don't know what direction the hon. member is headed in. There have been a lot of transition problems, I guess you could best describe them as, that each municipality and each grouping have to address and overcome. Some are relative to developments and some are relative to various taxations and services, combining of services, combining of administration and location of new town halls. There are all kinds of them, Mr. Speaker. I don't know where the hon. member is headed, specifically.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me be a little more specific for the minister. Let me ask him, specifically as it relates to the Southlands area which was formerly Mount Pearl and was stolen away by the previous minister and given to the City of St. John's. That area now is intended, I assume, to be developed by the City of St. John's, the problem being that the planning that was done in 1970 totally incorporated all of the Southlands area, its facilities and its services, with the City of Mount Pearl.

Can the minister tell the House, Mr. Speaker, what problems is the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation having with regard to integrating the services with the services to be provided by the City of Mount Pearl? Or is the Housing Corporation or the City of St. John's proposing some scheme to service it independently, which is technically impossible because they would have to drain through the City of Mount Pearl? What negotiations are ongoing between the City of St. John's and the City of Mount Pearl as it relates to sharing of services?

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

MR. HOGAN: I am not aware of any negotiations which might be ongoing between the cities, Mr. Speaker, nor would I expect there to be any. The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has not, as I understand it, to date discussed anything with the City of Mount Pearl about integration of utility services that would have to be overcome with the development of Southlands and would have to be tied into Mount Pearl.

A number of knowledgeable people have ventured to prophesy that there are going to be problems, but I have not heard of any problems that might be encountered in that development as yet.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that private developments in the area have not been allowed to proceed because nobody can say now what the form of development will be and who is responsible for it. It is clear that the Housing Corporation is not moving forward even though we had thought last spring the construction would have started in the Southlands area and there is no evidence that it is about to start now. Let me ask the minister, is the Housing Corporation still expected to develop that area or is this government having some second thoughts on that? Do we now expect to see the Housing Corporation being taken out of it altogether? Will we, in fact, see the Southlands develop?

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

MR. HOGAN: Never, is too strong a word, Mr. Speaker. I would anticipate that Southlands and several other major projects that the housing people have on their plate will be, over time, addressed and hopefully be developed. The prospect of it never being developed is somewhat negative on the part of the hon. member. I expect, that, and a number of other in-fill housing projects to be addressed in the very near future, but Southlands is not in the immediate plans of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask one specific question of the minister. Can we expect to see development in the Southlands this year or, is the Housing Corporation being told not to proceed with that development? Let me also ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, what are the plans now for the proposed golf course between the Southlands and Cochrane Pond, that should have been proceeded with years ago, that will create some $8 million to $10 million of construction activity, that will create about sixty or seventy permanent jobs and also open up 400 building lots. Is the government going to proceed with that development, Mr. Speaker, at no cost to government whatsoever, to be financed totally by the Housing Corporation?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, we do not anticipate going ahead with Southlands this year.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Minister of Social Services about the Child Welfare Act. Advocates for children have long said that there is a need to amend several provisions of The Child Welfare Act. The Hughes Commission Report, which the government has had for a year now, pointedly recommended that particular provisions of the act be revised.

I would like to ask the minister, if, instead of procrastinating, instead of delaying amending the Child Welfare Act until the fall or next year, will he bring before the House of Assembly, now, this spring, a bill with amendments that are critically needed? For example, an amendment to strengthen the child abuse reporting requirement, as called for by the Hughes Commission report, or, for example, an amendment to extend protection to young people between the ages of sixteen and eighteen? Will the minister move now on these critically needed reforms of the Province's Child Welfare Act and get them passed and enforced before the summer?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I might say that government have not had the Hughes report for over a year. If the member recalls, I only announced in the House about two weeks ago, the fact that some thirty-five recommendations had been made in the Hughes report. It was only shortly before that, that government received the report, it has not been a year.

The member though, makes some good points when she talks about some items that are under consideration in the new Child Welfare Act; in fact, a couple of those items were raised recently with the women's lobby in Gander, particularly the age category of which she speaks, that is in-between, of course, the Child Welfare Act and the adult acts that we have in place. Also, she mentioned, of course, the abuse reporting mechanism. We are, Mr. Speaker, dealing with several items that we are concerned may need immediate attention. Now, whether or not we can bring that about in this session, or whether it would have to wait until later, is hard to determine. We also have to make a decision whether or not we will await the introduction of the new act in its entirety, and that is, of course, your question.

Those decisions will be taken very shortly, and I am, at this present time, preparing recommendations for government in that matter.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have another question for the Minister of Social Services.

Back in October of 1990 one of the minister's predecessors, the present Member for Port de Grave made a terribly regressive change in the Social Assistance regulations. The previous minister then categorized maintenance and child support as non-allowable income. That change had the effect of drastically decreasing income for hundreds of single mothers and their children and removed all of the incentive for people to try to get support from absent parents or spouses. I believe government departments involved in administering pertinent programs, Justice and Social Services, have seen the negative effects of the removal of the incentive. Will the minister confirm what he told the Social Services Estimates Committee, namely, that he will review the social assistance regulations and consider reinstating maintenance and child support as allowable income to restore the incentive.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can say that I will confirm what I said in the Estimates, that I will look at that particular area. It was raised as a question then, along with several other questions in the Estimates that I am preparing answers for, in particular, this one, which is not an answer in the category of statistics which the others were. This particular one, of course, requires a change in regulations, and as I commit it I will certainly look at it.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. As the minister must appreciate, the women's centres in the Province, which are funded by the federal government and staffed extensively by volunteers, provide considerable support to adult survivors of sexual assault. Will the minister take steps to provide, if not money, then professional resources, to the Province's women's centres that they may better meet the growing needs of adult survivors of sexual assault?

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

MS. COWAN: In this case, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for the Status of Women: I am not sure if the member is referring to the questions that she just referred to the Social Services Minister or to the type of suggestions that arose from the women's lobby, or just the question in general. I didn't know whether you were specifically - it is just women survivors of sexual abuse, not children and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, this is a new question. I asked the Minister for Social Services about the Child Welfare Act and about social assistance regulations dealing with maintenance. I asked the Minister for the Status of Women whether she will have the government provide to the Province's women's centres, resources, whether cash or kind, for example, personnel, so that they may better meet the needs of adult survivors of child sexual assault.

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

MS. COWAN: Yes, in my role, Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for the Status of Women, my job is largely to try to influence government policy. I don't put it in place other than as a member of Cabinet. I think the question that the critic asks is timely and appropriate in light of the recent women's lobby, where such matters were brought to our attention, and we certainly looked at those areas with interest. The Social Services Minister and I have talked about them and are trying to explore ways in which we might be able to do this. So it is certainly being explored. We had talked about it before the lobby, in fact. Work is being done. More exploratory work began the day after the lobby, at the official level.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is also to the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Would the minister advise when the applicants for big game licences will be receiving their notification of whether they are successful or not? As the minister realizes, this time of year many people are arranging for their vacation, so will the minister advise when they will be notified of their successfulness in the big game licence draw?

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

MS. COWAN: As far as I know, that information has gone out. I will double check it, as the critic has brought it to my attention. If it has not gone out, it is due to go out almost immediately.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the minister.

At the same time the minister is sending out the notices to the big game hunters, would the minister also advise if at the same time she will be advising those hunters of whether they are allowed to hunt on Sunday or not?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MS. COWAN: Thank you.

This matter is still under consideration, as I told my hon. critic in the opposition the other night at the estimates committee. It is high on my priority list, and I would expect to have reached some sort of conclusion about it in my own mind within the next week to ten days - in my own mind.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A final supplementary to the minister.

The minister said in the committee that it was on her short list of priorities. I would ask the minister my final supplementary: Would the minister advise when she will be naming the members to the advisory committee to her department on the name for the Province? The minister said that was going to come very shortly. When is that going to be announced?

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

MS. COWAN: I would think that my hon. critic is referring to the WERAC Committee, and I am just in the process now of exploring the possibility of getting some representation from some of our aboriginal peoples. Once that is done, I think that I will be content to see it go forward.

I am making a special effort to try to get a good Labrador representation on this year's particular committee, which I hope is going to serve the Province well. That has slowed me down a little because of the problems people often have in getting from Labrador to the Island part of the Province, even when they want to serve.

So I am trying to get that sorted out, and as soon as I also have some representatives of the aboriginal community that will be going ahead.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Ever since the Workers' Compensation Review Committee reported this year, those concerned about benefits for injured workers have been concerned as to what the government might do. Can the minister advise the House what his plans are, and is he prepared to assure injured workers, and those who are subject to workers' compensation, that they will not suffer reduction in benefits as a result of this report?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the question, it is true that we have been studying the whole issue, and all of the issues related to workers' compensation, since we received the Statutory Review Committee's report in October.

The plan clearly for the government is to try to bring forward a set of comprehensive recommendations that will take the commission from its current status, which is collapse anywhere from the year 1996 to 2003, depending on certain prevailing circumstances; but if nothing is changed, the actuarial assessment today clearly is that the system will be in a state of total collapse at the earliest in 1996, at the latest in the year 2003, with the second highest assessment rates anywhere in the country. So our plan is to bring in a comprehensive set of recommendations and proposals. We have indicated that we are hoping to have them in the House of Assembly, tabled - any legislative changes that are required - before we leave for the summer, so that we can turn that around and guarantee everybody involved in the workers' compensation system that there will be a viable, long-term, sustainable workers' compensation system in the Province, rather than one that is facing imminent collapse.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to give the hon. minister an opportunity to squelch reports that say that not only is the government planning to lower the benefits for workers' compensation but also, I understand - and perhaps the minister would tell us - whether or not there are plans afoot not only to lower the benefits for workers' compensation, but also to legislate changes in existing collective agreements which provide for a top up in certain collective agreements negotiated with this government, to top up workers' compensation benefits when they are received? Is the government planning to do anything about that as part of its comprehensive response they are talking about? Is the government planning to further interfere with collective agreements by changing provisions with respect to workers' compensation?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated in the previous answer, the government is planning on disclosing to the House of Assembly before we dismiss for the summer all of the details of all aspects of workers' compensation that need to be addressed to make sure that the workers' compensation system is maintained in a viable state for its long-term maintenance and for the benefit of the workers who will need compensation into the future.

I might point out in relation to the answer as well that in other provinces recently - in New Brunswick and Manitoba - they have brought forward changes that dealt with all aspects of compensation in their province. It is happening across the country. Those changes included changes in the current levels of benefit payable to injured workers, and they also included changes referencing the issue of top ups that the hon. member brought forward in his question. So we in our study of it are looking at all aspects of workers' compensation. What changes if any are needed in benefit levels, and/or top ups in collective agreements and so on, will be disclosed as part of a full package of changes that we will lay before this Legislature before we leave for the summer.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Final supplementary. Now that the minister has confirmed that they are considering it, can the minister assure this House that they will not interfere with existing collective agreements on the issue of top up of workers' compensation? Can he tell the House that the government can be trusted to stand by collective agreements that it has signed with respect to workers' compensation benefits?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is, again, our intention to deal with every aspect of workers' compensation that has to be dealt with to make sure that the system is preserved and maintained so that there are benefits available in Newfoundland and Labrador for injured workers long into the future. Exactly what moves will be made by the government will be made clear when I guess I as the minister responsible will stand in this House and disclose for all hon. members exactly the total components of all the changes that we will announce. The hon. member can ask specific questions about any one aspect of it. All of the answers will be given in a single statement on one day once the government has made its decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: I did not want to take up the time of Question Period, although it was more appropriate that I do it that way. But I would like to ask the Government House Leader. We had some fairly important questions that we wanted to ask today with respect to the Royal Commission on Education. Particularly I wanted to ask the Leader of the Government, but I understand the Premier is away. I have no problem with that. But the Minister of Education, I understand, may be away for the rest of this week. Does the Government House Leader know and could he tell us, so we can properly plan?

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

MR. BAKER: I would like to point out to the hon. member that if he has important questions to be asked, then he should ask the questions and not mess around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education, I understand, is due back in the House on either Thursday or Friday morning.

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

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about the scheduling of meetings of the Social Services Estimates Committee. Our Committee has had one session with the five departments we are responsible for, but we haven't yet completed the estimates of three of the departments, which are Justice, Environment and Lands and Health. Now, the time limit for committee consideration of estimates runs out this Thursday. I don't see the Chair of our Committee in the House. I would like an indication from some representative of government, perhaps the Government House Leader, about when the Social Services Estimates Committee will be meeting to conclude our examination of the Justice, Environment and Lands, and Health estimates.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As is normal, at the end of every day I point out what committees are next scheduled and so on and I will be doing that at the end of the period today.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has mentioned, there have already been five sittings or four, however many departments they had, and they have already had three hours with each department. We will try to get in as much time as possible. Mr. Speaker, the time runs out on Friday, not Thursday, and that would be the fifteen sitting days. So the time limit is Friday at midnight. I just want to correct that.

Mr. Speaker, I will advise the hon. member, whenever we have things scheduled, as to exactly when these meetings will occur.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question concerning my travels during that period between September 17, 1991 and October 15, I want to table the answers.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition signed by 157 citizens of the Province, I think most if all of them from the District of Green Bay.

The prayer of the petition is as follows, Petition to the House of Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly in protest of Section 7 of Bill 22, The New Crown Lands Act." That was an act, I might add, Mr. Speaker, that was passed during the last session of this particular House.

Where this petition came from, Mr. Speaker: I had a telephone call there a week or two ago from a concerned citizen, one Mr. Wellman of Springdale, who was expressing some surprise at some news he had heard, that he was no longer free to circle a pond with his trouting pole as he saw fit, that individuals, companies, etc. did have the right to own private property on the waterline and restrict his access. He couldn't believe that because he thought, as a British subject and in keeping with tradition that has been ongoing on our land, on our Island, our Province, our Nation for many, many years, that the right to circumnavigate a pond was a person's God given right. When I indicated to him that such a bill had been before a committee, had received extensive public objection but had been totally ignored by the administration, and that had been rammed through the House in the last session, he was quite surprised and indeed, Mr. Speaker, quite outraged. He asked me then: what can I do as a citizen to express my concern and my outrage that such a thing was done to my traditional rights as a Newfoundlander? I said you can always send a petition to your member of the House of Assembly, and I am duty bound to present that petition in this Assembly on your behalf. Whereupon he said I will be glad to do that if you will give me the proper wording for a petition. I forwarded the gentleman the proper wording, Mr. Speaker, and behold we have the 157 names in front of us today, 158 with mine included.

This particular administration over widespread public objection, in section 7 of the Act concerned, allowed for the licensing of boat houses and wharves but without any ancillary regulations which put limits on length et cetera, of these facilities. There is a ten meter water line reservation, but, Mr. Speaker, if one were to build a fifteen meter long boat house, then the boat house would start in the water, across the entire water line reservation and go onto private property and be able to abut onto a fence thereby preventing someone from walking around a pond.

I have seen many boat houses around ponds in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, where there is a beaten trail around the pond and there is a beaten trail around the back of the boat house because everybody knew and everybody understood that it was a Newfoundlanders God given right to walk around the back of the boat house to continue his trouting along the beach as he continued to circle the pond. But this particular administration brought in a law against the objections of many people of the general public, a law presumably to pay off some of their rich friends with their mansions and their pines, some of their rich friends probably in the outfitting businesses who have contributed heavily to the Liberal Party of Newfoundland. A law which goes against the basic understood rights for centuries of your ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and now this person was taken completely by surprise that: number one, a law had been proposed; number two, that public hearings and major objections had been held on this particular matter and that the law had been rammed through. And now if one is so inclined and one has the money to build a fifteen meter boat house on each corner of ones waterfront property, one can make onto oneself a private beach. The only way you can access it is either by parachute or by boat, Mr. Speaker.

For your average Newfoundlander who walks in the woods with his trouting pole, that means that access to all aspects of the shoreline have been denied, a right that has always been there for hundreds of years, a right taken away by the Wells administration, Mr. Speaker, a right that they had no right to take away, a right that they had no mandate to take away, Mr. Speaker, a right which they stole, Mr. Speaker, from the people. Not only can it be said of this government that this government lies, Mr. Speaker, but it also steals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for the Minister of Environment and Lands to respond to that particular petition, but she wasn't listening so I am going to respond to it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member wants to revert back to speaking to the petition. The House waited -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the Member for Torngat Mountains, hon. members shouldn't wait, they should rise. The Chair waited some considerable time and when nobody stood the Chair called for the next item of business. I ask the hon. member to proceed with supporting the petition.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised that the Minister of Environment and Lands is leaving when a particular petition pertains to her department.

Mr. Speaker, noticing just now a few minutes ago that the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture was waiting for someone on this side to get up where he had the last word.

Mr. Speaker, the last word on this petition is going to come from the voters of the Province. The voters of the Province will have the last word on this particular petition and on this particular bill. I say to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Agriculture that if he read the Evening Telegram the last two or three weekends, he would have seen that there are applications now coming out from all sorts of people to occupy a portion of a pond, river, lake or salt water, and it all happened since this piece of legislation has gone through.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this government will lay on the Table of this House, since this particular bill went through how many permits have been given to people around the Province to occupy portions of our lakes, rivers and ponds. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. minister, that more than one has gone through already and there are more to come. Because this government now has the tool, not to cancel or to say no but to say yes. All through our history no was always said, and now they have the opportunity to say yes. This is what this government has done since they came into power, get someone to put the application in, Cabinet will decide and Cabinet will say yes. Before, Mr. Speaker, it was a rule in our Province, a rule of thumb, that there was nobody going to stop access to our rivers and ponds. That is what is happening.

I would say to my hon. colleague, who was so proud when he spoke in closing the debate on this particular bill, it is going to come back -

AN HON. MEMBER: Back to haunt them.

MR. WARREN: - and it is going to come back, Mr. Speaker, during the next election, that this minister and this government will be sorry for this particular bill whereby they have stopped the traditional rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to enjoy the rivers, ponds and lakes of our Province without being apprehended by those who want to control a portion for themselves.

I support this particular resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I would say to my hon. colleagues opposite that they will regret this particular piece of legislation.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this petition, the two hon. members, the hon. the Member for Green Bay and now the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains, have given us the classic example, Mr. Speaker, of deliberate misrepresentation in this House of Assembly. Worse, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: Deliberate.

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

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

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, if you can recall, the hon. minister who just spoke said that we, myself and the hon. the Member for Green Bay, have `deliberately.' He used the word, Mr. Speaker, on two occasions, deliberately. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that there is no need for me to quote from Beauchesne because I know you are quite capable of doing so, that you can see, Sir, it is unparliamentary. I think, subsequently, the minister should be asked to withdraw those ridiculous remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, hon. members ought to know that they are not permitted to say that hon. members deliberately misrepresent or deliberately misled the House. So I ask the hon. minister to withdraw, please.

MR. FLIGHT: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, and it must be obvious to anyone who understands the legislation that is in place, that either the hon. members don't understand it or, inadvertently, they are misleading this House. Inadvertently!

There is evidence, Mr. Speaker, from the speech made by the hon. the Member for Green Bay, that he is knowingly misrepresenting the existing legislation to his constituents. That, Mr. Speaker, is unforgivable. The fact of the matter is that prior to this government bringing in this legislation any minister - that hon. member who presented the petition was the Chief of Staff of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. He was aware of the law that existed in this land before Bill 53 was implemented.

Now, Bill 53 was a bill that was devised by the last administration, and there wasn't a comma changed. The only thing that changed was an election. Mr. Speaker, Bill 53 would have indeed probably put the general public's rights at risk. Because of concerns expressed by the general public and representations made by members of the House of Assembly, Bill 53 went out to a Legislative Review Committee and the concerns of the general public were considered and allowances were made in the legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, prior to the proclamation of that legislation, the minister, without any reference to anybody had the right to allow anybody to build on any right-of-way on the reserve around the pond. The minister had that right. What nonsense for the hon. member. Now, in order for any person in this country, in order for any member, any individual of this Province, to build anything - whether it is a boat house, whether it's a wharf, whether it is anything - on the seashore, on the foreshore, or on the reserve, they must make application and Cabinet must approve it.

I can tell the hon. member and the hon. House that Cabinet has approved nothing since that legislation was proclaimed. So Newfoundlanders' rights are protected more under this legislation than ever they were under the previous government. So we rest our case. The hon. Members for Green Bay and Torngat Mountains would do well to go out and be honest with the people they represent when they talk to them about building on the reserve, and not try to play cheap politics. Either he does not know what he is talking about, in which case he is passing along his lack of knowledge to people and worrying them unnecessarily. Mr. Speaker, the two members are doing a disservice to their constituents and to the people of Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Extend Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 17).

MR. BAKER: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

Bill 14.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we broke on Friday I had risen to speak about this Bill and to use the opportunity to discuss some of the difficulties that people who did not have sufficient income to even pay tax had. I was referring specifically to the individuals who are forced to rely on social assistance, and a particular category of individuals whose only call for social assistance was unemployment. This category is the lowest of the low in terms of the views of the Social Services Department. I am glad the Minister of Social Services is in the House to hear this. He missed all of the excitement last week when the Premier showed his lack of concern for the people who have to live on $128 a month.

In making comparisons last week with the amount of $128 per month for room and board that Social Services gives to able-bodied individuals on social assistance, a very interesting comparison came before the Justice Department estimates this morning, of the Social Services Estimates Committee, and that is the cost to the government of keeping a person in jail for one day. The cost per person for incarceration in this Province is $130 per day. That is what it costs to keep somebody incarcerated, who is sentenced to serve a jail term, or is sentenced to a fine and cannot pay it. If you are fined $100 and you cannot pay it, and you go to jail for three days, it costs the government $390 to keep you in jail for three days. There is a comparison, Mr. Chairman, that the government will pay $130 per day to keep somebody in jail, but will only pay $128 a month for someone who is unemployed, has no job, has no unemployment insurance, is able-bodied and does not have any other claim to social assistance. That is the kind of circumstance that people are being reduced to in this Province when they get to the point of running out of unemployment insurance, and whose only claim to social assistance is unemployment.

That is happening increasingly these days when the unemployment rate is being maintained at a very high level, and each month we see large numbers of people disappearing from the work force. Last month, 7,000 people who were in the work force the month before were no longer in the work force, and this is only statistical evidence. It is very difficult to go out and count the number of people who are out of the work force because they have run out of UI; they have run out of hope; they have run out of a job, and they have run out of any alternative being offered to them by this government's management of the economy or by special programs that ought to be put in place to ensure that there be a full employment policy adopted to see that people have an opportunity to contribute to society and to support themselves and their families.

I was surprised, because no real effort was made by the Premier to even determine how much a decent level of income for social assistance recipients would cost. We don't know how many single, able-bodied persons there are receiving social assistance. The Minister of Social Services was unable to provide that information at the Social Services Estimates Committee last week. Now, granted, he undertook to provide it, and we will get that. In a few days, I would think, the Minister of Social Services will advise us.

The Premier gave comments, and his concerns were that the people of Newfoundland and the government could not afford it. They could not afford to increase social assistance for a single, able-bodied person because there were people with other needs. We don't even know yet, and maybe the Minister of Social Services would like to speak to this issue, what it might cost to provide a decent level of support for people who are receiving social assistance, who have the happy circumstance, Mr. Chairman, of being able-bodied.

Now, there are those who have the view that anybody who is able-bodied should not be entitled to anything. They should go out and eat the bark off trees, I should think. But that is one of the issues that I think points out the lack of a caring attitude on the part of this government towards people who are economically defenceless.

It is not something that is going to break the backs of the people of this Province; it is not something that would cause the government's bond rating to go down; it is not something that would cause a major upset in the government's finances. But rather, something that is a matter of simple dignity for people who are unfortunately driven to circumstances where they do not have anyone to rely on. They may have no family to rely on. There seems to be an assumption in the government and in the bureaucracy that people who happen to run out of social assistance have families to fall back on. That is not always the case. Quite often, in fact, the families they have to fall back on are families who are unable to support them, who are unable to provide the necessities of life for them or sometimes even for the other members of the family who may also be on social assistance.

So it is not fair to those individuals. It is not fair to allow people to be at a less than subsistence level and being on the sole support of the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you to my one supporter in the House of Assembly. Mr. Chairman, I didn't intend to speak again this afternoon because I thought other members would want the opportunity. But after listening, last week on several occasions, this morning, and again this afternoon, to the hon. Member for St. John's East go on with that despicable display in the House of Assembly -

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

MR. EFFORD: It set me off and I had to get up to try to set some of the facts straight about what should be done for single, able-bodied individuals in the Province of Newfoundland. What an hypocritical statement for an individual in his position to make -

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

MR. EFFORD: - when he is here renting houses to Social Services clients, charging them $350 - $400 a month, and doesn't care whether they have cup of tea on the table or not. It is absolutely discouraging and disgusting for the hon. Member for St. John's East to be making those statements.

To encourage, Mr. Chairman -

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, the member is speaking to an issue related to social assistance and the amounts that are there. He is not permitted to get up in the House and say things that are untrue - and he know they are untrue - about other hon. members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order, just a disagreement between hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me get to the facts that are true, very, very true about the hon. Member for St. John's East. He referred to 7,000 more people unemployed this year than there were last year. Actually, the numbers on social assistance are 10,000 more this year than last year. That is a fact.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member intends to quote me, he should quote me, not misquote me. What I said was that there were 7,000 more people out of the labour force this month than last month.

MR. EFFORD: Okay, Mr. Chairman, let's get down to the real facts. First, it is not very encouraging to sit here in this House of Assembly and listen to a member of any side of the House, and especially the Member for St. John's East,who should be encouraging young people to better themselves, encouraging them to be a part of the social assistance roll. Whether a person is getting $90 or $128, or $130 a month, there is no way anybody can live on that kind of income. It is absolutely senseless. For anybody to encourage single, able-bodied individuals to go down to the Department of Social Services and apply for social assistance is even more despicable that I could even imagine would come from another individual's mouth. I, for the short time I was minister, did not encourage people to get on the social assistance roll because once they become dependent on the system, then there is no question about it, the greater majority and percentage will be on the system from here on in, to the third and fourth generations of people.

Now, if the hon. member had said: Let us take some of those individuals who find themselves in a position of having no education, no training, having to turn to social programs for help, and put them into a proper training program; encourage them to go back to school to improve their education levels; encourage them to go to a vocational institution where they can get some sort of training to be participants in the labour force and at least have some initiative to do something for themselves. But to tell us that we should put single, able-bodied people on social assistance for $128 a month - and that is exactly what he has been saying for the last two weeks in this House of Assembly.

He never once mentioned that it is the responsibility of the federal government, who have destroyed the economy of this Province, to bring in the proper programs to employ the people who should have work, Mr. Chairman. They want to have the mentality that destroys people's initiative, they take away their incomes, their very survival instinct and put them back on the social assistance roll. The minister I believe, quoted in this House of Assembly about a month ago that we had 64,000 people on social services and today, we had in the House of Assembly, for ten minutes, the Member for St. John's East, saying that we should encourage single able-bodied people to go on social assistance. Now, there is a statement for anybody to be making in the House of Assembly. You talk about despicable, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for St. John's East should be ashamed of himself.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, if it is unparliamentary to call someone a liar, it must be unparliamentary to tell lies?

AN HON. MEMBER: It sure is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to see young people in this Province have a chance, a strong chance at education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Now, don't talk about governments of the day, where the hon. the former Minister of Social Services, would get into the debt that this Province is carrying and why it is carrying it and the $585 million that going out in interest payments every year, let us not get into bantering back and forth about who caused the problem. I was talking to the hon. Member for St. John's East, on exactly what he is advocating, so let us not get it sidetracked and get me speaking on that for the next thirty minutes.

Mr. Chairman, it is very sensible to encourage people to become part of the labour force, but before they come to that, we have to properly train those young people and properly put the programs in place to give them a chance that they can become self-sufficient.

The point I am trying to make, is that I would not, for the life of me, encourage anybody in this Province, to provide social assistance for single able-bodied people. I think it is insulting to the individual, I think it is a ruination of their character and what they should be contributing to society and I do not think there is any way that you can provide them that money through those sorts of programs, to provide an income from people.

But I can understand the hon. the Member for St. John's East, because he has a genuine concern for the youth of the Province, so much so that it was brought to our attention and we have said so many times, that the people, the twenty-four victims, I think it is, of Mount Cashel, the victims of sexual crimes whom he is representing, I mean he does have a genuine concern because he is representing them free of charge, free of charge, which normally otherwise would have probably brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars personal income, so the member has to be commended for that, but to take an opposite, from doing that kind of a thing for young people, then to go the other route and say that we should be encouraging those same young people to go on social assistance, is not very consistent.

So you have to be consistent in your way of thinking with the youth, otherwise, instead of having 64,000 people on social services in a population work force of 230,000 - What percentage would that work out to be? - about 25 per cent of the work force, and to say that we should put another $7,000 or $8,000 into social assistance programs, where, as I said earlier, whether it is $128 a month or $140 or $150, you couldn't even begin to pay for the needs of those individuals.

So, let us ask the hon. the Member for St. John's East, the next time he rises to speak on this particular bill, to speak about something that can be helpful to the individuals, as helpful as the free services that he is providing to the twenty-seven victims of the Mount Cashel Orphanage.

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

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

I am pleased to again rise and say a few words on this particular bill, Bill 14: an act to raise the income taxes on the already over taxed people of this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I would venture to say that 90 per cent of the economists of this country will tell you that the more you tax people, the more you stifle an economy, at least 90 per cent of the economists. But of course that doesn't make any difference to these people here. They continue to tax because of their simplistic approach to see how they can affect the local provincial economy or improve it, which is simply to say we will cut our expenses and we will raise more taxes, thus things will get better. That simplistic approach, Mr. Chairman, hasn't worked since they came to office. They tried that for two year, three years now, by laying off thousands of workers and raising taxes on income tax on individuals and corporate tax on private companies, increasing the paper burden which cost the corporations more to operate.

They have done these things and that stifles the economy, Mr. Chairman, and that is a mistake. In order to actually attempt to improve an economy of an area, what a government should be doing is enhancing its infrastructure to allow the private sector to provide more opportunities for employment and thus create more wealth in an economy. This government has deemed it fit to do the complete opposite. They make it more difficult to get into business, they make it more difficult to operate business by increasing the burden, and also by increasing the taxes on individuals and the corporate corporations. They make the burden on the employer greater because they have to pay their employees more. By decreasing government services, they force employers to deliver government services that are ordinarily delivered by governments in other jurisdictions, but not here. So actually by their policies that they have implemented, Mr. Chairman, they have stifled our provincial economy.

It is interesting to note how a former minister could stand and suggest that by asking for an increase in a persons social services or an improvement of the amount of money that an individual who happens to be on social services is really a despicable act, I think he called it, that we are attempting to promote more people to stay on social services, Mr. Chairman. It is amazing how some people can twist things. I have often heard people say that the measure of any society is gauged upon how well people treat those who don't have the wherewithal or the faculties, if you will, the resources to properly fend for themselves.

In this particular case we see this government attempting to defend somebody, a single able bodied person, that $129 a month is enough for that person to live on. Now there is not one person in this House who can justify that no matter what you measure it against. If you are measuring it against any decency whatsoever, if you have any decency whatsoever, you would never expect another individual to live on $129 a month, Mr. Chairman.

We think that Unemployment Insurance should be increased. A lot of people say that the people on Unemployment Insurance should be getting more. I don't know what the benefits -- the maximum benefits on Unemployment Insurance is about $500 or $600 every two weeks now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. A. SNOW: So the maximum benefits is $500 or $600 every two weeks, and I have heard people say they should be on the other side, saying that should be increased, they should be getting more. They should be dreaming up programs to give them more because that is a federal government responsibility. Instead of attempting to solve the problem, they merely say it is always somebody else's responsibility.

As I said, it is the responsibility of those in government - in government. In this particular case, by some fluke of counting the votes, and how the districts voted, that party ended up in power with more seats than the people who had the highest percentage of popular vote. They had fewer people supporting them than this party, but that is the way it was carved out. They did not design it that way. They did not design that election to win in that manner, but that is the way it came out. It is the same as when they brought down their Budgets.

The Budget was not designed to stifle the economy. It was not designed to make it go deeper into a depression. It was not designed to create more unemployment. It was not designed or created to create more poverty, more people on social services. It was not. It was designed to create more wealth. I am sure that when they sat down and designed their Budgets, and listened to their officials, they said, we want to make things better in Newfoundland and Labrador. They did not say, we are going to make things worse on people. They did not say that. They had intentions of improving the economy, but they completely took the complete wrong tack. If they were sailing a boat they would have turned around and went the other way. They just did not know, the people who were changing the sails, what they were attempting to do. They changed the direction and drove the economy in this Province in the opposite direction.

The hon. Member for Port de Grave talked about how we should not be encouraging people to stay on social services. I do not encourage people to stay on social services. There should undoubtedly be plans for retraining and training of everybody who is unemployed or would find it necessary to live on social services. It is the responsibility of the people who are in government, these people, you people on the other side who sit back in your chairs in your Cabinet rooms with - I do not know, the Cabinet room has carpet that must be at least a foot thick in there, and people waiting on you like kings and queens. You drive around in your chauffeured limousines. You have cocktail parties all around the Province. Then they expect somebody who is on social services to be gratified and pleased to get $130 a month. That is how quickly they lose sight of what is really happening out there.

They still remember, I am sure. If they think back they know that you cannot live on $130 a month. There is no way in the world, and there should be programs available, brought in by the provincial government, to encourage people not to be on social assistance, and these programs should be implemented. Instead of just attempting to starve them to death, they should have new programs available to train them. There should be opportunities for these people to create their own business if necessary. There used to be programs like that. Other provinces have them, but this Province does not see fit to do it.

That is why I find that it is very difficult for me to explain to somebody that last year, for a reason unbeknownst to them, they lost their job through the recession that is occurring throughout the western world, and the depression that this government created here in this Province with cutbacks, and their unemployment ran out. They have no other method of getting money. They spent their savings. They have worked for years - eight, nine, ten years, and now they find that they do not have any unemployment insurance. So what do they do? They have to go on social assistance - $130 a month. Now how can anybody expect somebody to live on $130 a month?

Then you have people on the other side saying that maybe the

House of Assembly - I think I heard the hon. Member for Exploits on Friday talk about the former extravagance of the Premier and how we should cut it down to maybe thirty-five seats or something like that.

MR. GRIMES: I wasn't even here Friday.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, it says in Hansard you were here Friday.

Mr. Chairman, that is a cop-out to suggest that somebody on this side or the other side of the House is going to have to give up their seat to cut down on the number of seats in the House. That is not accepting the responsibility that you have as a member of government, which is to provide the opportunity for people in our society to earn a meaningful wage, to be able to perform functions in our society that contribute not only to their self-esteem but to the productivity of our Province and our country as a whole. Because they do want to produce, Mr. Chairman, but this group feels that for some reason if somebody ends up on social service there is something wrong with them, they don't want to work. There are people over on the other side who actually believe that. Or that the lesser we pay these people, the fewer there will be on social services. Well, there may be, Mr. Chairman, because they will be starving to death. That is the only reason why there will be fewer people.

Yes, there should be training programs and, yes, it is the responsibility of this government, the provincial government, to start coming in with innovative programs to influence the private sector to hire people on social assistance, to get them involved in their business. Mr. Chairman, these people want to go to work. I am sure they want to go to work. The ones that talked to me and asked me about it, they want to go to work, but there are no programs available for them. They cannot get into the work force.

There are specific programs designed to allow somebody who doesn't have enough stamps, if you will, to get back on unemployment insurance, but they don't have any particular programs available to people who are on social services. If you are able-bodied, if you are twenty-five or thirty years or age, have worked for nine, ten or fifteen years and your unemployment insurance has run out and now you find you have nowhere to turn but to social services. You have spent all your savings just to keep alive, to make ends meet. You have spent your unemployment insurance and now you are relegated to the last resort. One hundred and thirty dollars, that is what you attempt to force these people to live on. It is impossible to live in this day and age on $130 a month.

Yet the people on the other side stand and defend it by saying: Well, what else can you do? Are you willing to give up a certain amount of your wages or your expenses? Well, I am sure that everybody here would agree to give up a certain amount of it. As the hon. Member for Port au Port suggested, he would be more than willing to give up part of his expenses to help support programs designed to help people who have to draw on social services.

More important than raising the level of money that these people would be required to live on, Mr. Chairman, more important than that is that this government has the responsibility to create the opportunity for the private sector to invest so that there won't be the necessity to have these thousands of people on social assistance. As the hon. the Member for St. John's East pointed out about the thousands of people who are not looking for work now, who have disappeared, these are the people, Mr. Chairman, who are going to social services. This government should be creating new programs, coming up with new ideas -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: They should be creating new programs and coming up with new ideas, such as other provinces have. They shouldn't just be sitting back in their luxury suite of offices -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: They need to come up with new ideas and new programs, innovative programs, programs that are going to stimulate the economy, not stifle the economy. They should be coming up with programs that are going to improve the opportunity for people to invest.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) requires imagination.

MR. A. SNOW: There is some imagination left over there, Mr. Chairman. Some people suggest that there isn't any imagination on the other side of the House, that they are not creative. I firmly believe that there are some people over there who do have imaginative and creative minds that are necessary to help get us all out, because we are all part and parcel of the problem. There are some people over there who are imaginative. The problem is, there are not enough of them over there who are imaginative. There is not enough to have that consensus around the Cabinet table to create the will and consensus to change their present policy, this neo-conservatism policy that they have, of taxing more and decreasing the expenses, whereas what happens there is exactly the opposite of what you would want to happen.

They need to be more imaginative and creative, come up with new programs, so that there are not as many people on unemployment, not as many people on social assistance. Mr. Chairman, in order to do that they have to change their attitude. I would hope that they will after a few more hours of debating these particular bills. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to have a few words on this. I find it interesting, some of the discussion that has taken place this afternoon. Particularly when the Member for Port de Grave decided to blame the problems of this Province on the Member for St. John's East. Because the Member for St. John's East is not the Premier of this Province, he is not part of the government of this Province, no more than the Member for Port de Grave. I think it is unfortunate that he decided to lay the blame for this on the Member for St. John's East. What the Member for Port de Grave should be saying is that it is the Premier, the President of Treasury Board, and the Ministers of Finance, Social Services, Fisheries, these are the ones who created the mess that the Province finds itself in today.

The Member for St. John's East raised some questions in the House in the last little while about the amount of money that single, able-bodied people are receiving on social assistance. Actually, as I understand it, there are three levels, three rates of pay, that people receive: $128, if you are living with non-relatives; and $88 if you are living with relatives.

I want to say that if there is a case in this Province - and I know of a case -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Nothing has changed, Mr. Chairman. As unlike the Member for St. George's, I was in his district the weekend. His popularity has certainly decreased out there, I can tell him that. I was in St. George's the weekend, spending the weekend in the St. George's district, I can tell him that his popularity has certainly decreased.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: I can also tell him that the fellow that the Premier has selected to go out and seek the nomination against him is not overly popular either.

AN HON. MEMBER: I agree with that part (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: That's right. I'm sure you do agree with it. I would be disappointed too (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I hope you beat him, Larry boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, I'm delighted you agree with what I am saying, that the Premier has selected a candidate to go out and run against you. Records will show that is what he said. We all know that.

Now how in the name of God is someone in this Province today going to live on $88 a month, Mr. Chairman? When this Premier came into power he was getting a salary as an MHA and wanted $50,000 a year delivered in brown envelopes so he could live in dignity. For the Premier to live in dignity he needed brown envelopes filled with money, stuffed with money. At the same time, he is expecting a person in this Province to live on $88 a month.

Mr. Chairman, that is the policy of this government: look after the rich, and to hell with the poor. That is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, thousand dollar bills stuffed, brown envelopes stuffed. Fifty thousand dollars a year and he has yet to lay on the Table of this House as to who paid him that money. Yet, Mr. Chairman, $88 a month is what this government is prepared to give a person to live on social assistance. I think that is regressive, Mr. Chairman, and extremely sad.

How can the Minister of Employment, how can the Minister of Social Services expect the people of this Province who he is responsible for to live on $88 a month?

After the next election, Mr. Chairman, some of them will find out what it is like to have to live on $88 a month because when they go out of here there is nobody else who will ever hire them. They will never get another job because of the incompetence that they are demonstrating in this Legislature. Then they will have to live on $88 a month.

So how would the Minister of Social Services like to have to live himself on $88 a month? It is not enough. I have said it before, and I will say it again, that it is time that Cabinet support the Minister of Social Services and the Department of Social Services when he goes looking for more money, Mr. Chairman.

It is alright for the Minister of Employment to laugh. He never had to live on $88. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Employment has never had to relate to someone who has survived on $88 a month. But for those of us who have been around, Mr. Chairman, I know where the Minister of Social Services is coming from. Don't tell me that he is satisfied with $88 a month because he is not. He is not, Mr. Chairman, but he can't get it through Cabinet to get more money. And don't tell me either that the Minister of Social Services - the former minister I guess was there when the Budget was there. Who was minister when the Budget was brought in?

AN HON. MEMBER: Efford, John Efford.

MR. TOBIN: No, John wasn't there then.

It was either the present minister or the former minister when the Budget was done this year, and don't tell me that it was this minister or the other minister who were satisfied to have a $5 million cut in the total budget for the department. I don't know if the Member for Port de Grave is aware of that or not, but the Budget for the Department of Social Services this year is $5 million less than it was last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: $5.5 million.

MR. TOBIN: It is true, Mr. Chairman, $5 million less. I will read the figures for the President of Treasury Board. And I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, that the President of Treasury Board had a lot to do with it, him and the other redneck, the Minister of Finance. The total department budget this year was $154,985,700. Last year, Mr. Chairman, it was 159,460,800. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is $5 million less.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, well you are dishonest enough for them to be the wrong figures. This government is dishonest enough they are capable, Mr. Chairman, of packing the figures, there is no doubt about that. But how can the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Social Services, the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this Province, how can they be satisfied with that $5 million cut in the Social Service budget? That is the question that I would like to have answered. And how can the former minister, now the Member for Port de Grave stand in this Legislature and vote on this budget in a couple of weeks time? He talks about the big heart he has. How can he stand in this Legislature and vote for a budget that has the Department of Social Services cut by $5 million?

MR. EFFORD: I didn't stand.

MR. TOBIN: No, no one has stood and voted for it yet.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Don't do it. Don't do it. Have the courage of your convictions. Don't do it.

How can the Member for Eagle River support a $5 million cut on the backs of the people of this Province who depend on social services? How can the member for St. George's support the cut of $5 million? The Member for Bellevue, how can he stand in this Legislature? The Member for Lewisporte? I know how the President of Treasury Board can do it. I know how he can do it. I know how the Minister of Finance can do it. I know how the Premier can do it - because they cannot relate to the poor. They cannot relate to the people who do not have a job in this Province.

This government has cut 7,000 jobs in one year. In the last twelve months there are 7,000 less jobs in this Province. Why? Every single mine on the Island has been closed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is that parliamentary, Mr. Chairman? Is that parliamentary, even though he is not speaking in his own chair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear any -

MR. TOBIN: They have closed the deep-sea fishery. The Premier of this Province has said: If it has to close for one year, two years, three years, or five years, then close it. How does the Member for Trinity North explain that to his constituents?

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with the bill?

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: What bill is he on?

MR. TOBIN: The one that we did last week when you were away.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: How would the member know? How would the minister know what bill we are at? As a matter of fact, most of us thought he did not know the House was open, but at least he is coming a long way. Now he knows there is a bill before the House, but he is not sure which one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Energy, when he became Minister of Energy, Daniel's Harbour was open. Baie Verte was open. Hope Brook was open at that time and has closed under him; and because Crosbie got $6 million from the federal government to put with the $14 million he already had, it reopened and you had nothing to do with it except build a clinic. That was your contribution. Baie Verte mine, St. Lawrence mine was open when he became minister. Hibernia - what happened to that under this minister? It closed up again. Hopefully Mr. Epp will be able to do something.

I say all of that, realizing as a person he is pretty good. He is a good man, but in the context of this government he has not been able to function. He has not been able to do the things that he wanted to do.

The Minister of Development: Marystown Shipyard had 565 employees when the government changed. Today they have less than seventy. That is a record.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is my fault, is it?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, most of it. A lot of it is your fault. Most of it is the Premier's fault.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You, and the Minister of Transportation, and then he brought in KVAERNER as a diversionary tactic. Now he blames everything on KVAERNER. But as he is the owner of the shipyard, him and the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance are listed as the three shareholders of the Marystown Shipyard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You, the Ministers of Finance and Fisheries.

Kvaerner does not own the Marystown Shipyard. The government owns the Marystown Shipyard, and it is time that this government started doing something for the people who work in the Marystown Shipyard.

The point I am making is that this government has cut back, cut back, cut back - $1 million cut from the health budget on the Burin Peninsula last year - $1 million cut from the health budget to the people of the Burin Peninsula last year. Now I am in here trying to do some fund-raising for the hospital. I am trying to do some fund-raising for the hospital on the Burin Peninsula. Last year we raised $40,000 or $50,000 and this year we are going to raise twice as much as that. I am happy to say the Minister of Health and the President of Treasury Board and many of the members opposite that I have seen so far have sponsored me - the Member for Harbour Grace, the Member for Eagle River, St. George's, Trinity North, and I will get the rest of them in due course.

The point is that there is a million dollars cut from the health budget on the Burin Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and I will get the Member for Port de Grave.

Well, we have that other union, what is the name, up along, your buddies from Toronto? - but, Mr. Chairman, there is $1 million dollars cut from the health care budget on the Burin Peninsula and one has to wonder what it is all about. Why has this government cut basically every program -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: I will get back to it later, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was listening to the hon. member talking about this government and its actions towards the people of this Province, and it just goes to show, either, how ignorant the people opposite are or, how totally misleading they want to be when it comes to the intentions of this government to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the area of job creation and economic development.

I will only take a couple of minutes just to look at a small part of this Province, one of the greatest parts of this Province, of course is Eagle River district. I will look down through my district, to start off in Cartwright with $750,000 put in for 125 new jobs in a crab plant this summer. I will look at the sixteen senior citizens and single parent family units, $1.7 million that we opened up last week. Moving a little bit up along the shore and we are looking at $1.7 million for water and sewer in Port Hope Simpson, the first time that any government has ever put a cent into Port Hope Simpson water and sewer.

A little further up, $1.5 million in water and sewer for the Town of St. Lewis, Labrador. I was there on Saturday night for the graduation in the $2 million new school in that community from the people of this Province who gave to the community of St. Lewis. Down in the community of Red Bay we are now in the process again, in a couple of months, of opening up another new school, $1.5 million, another $1.5 million.

The hon. Minister of Fisheries, will be going down shortly to open up, yes, a brand new marine centre in L'Anse-au-Diable, for $1.9 million. Of course, Mr. Chairman, we still have a couple more places in my district, West St. Modeste, this year again, the first time there will be a cent in water and sewer, not fifty dollars, not $100, not $2,000, $1.9 million in water and sewer for West St. Modeste. Of course, the Minister of Health has also been very, very, gracious in his expenditures in Eagle River district. In a month of so, we will be going down to open the historic chronic care unit in Forteau, another million dollars spent on a very, very essential project for the people of Eagle River district.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe the ignorance of the people, so I want to take this opportunity to let the people know that for the tourism development of the Labrador Straits, that hon. minister there for Red Bay, a $2.9 million agreement for Red Bay, Mr. Chairman, unbelievable expenditure. We have the second highest lighthouse in eastern Canada in L'Anse-Amour, and we want to make sure that the tourism people go to see it in all its glory and we, through this minister, are going to spend, not $300,000, not $500,000 but $800,000 on that particular facility. So, Mr. Chairman, I can go on and on and on about these things, but I think for the benefit of Eagle River in the future that if I go proclaiming all of this, I am sure even some hon. colleagues on this side of the House would become a little bit envious, but, Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of commitment that this government is giving to job creation, to economic development, to community structures on the coast of Labrador and I can safely say, that if I were here four years ago, and had to stand up and recount the ten years before that, I would not be able to get one million dollars instead of the $16 million that I just talked about for the people of Eagle River district. So, Mr. Chairman, wait till the message gets out there. I hope at some point in the next couple of years it will get back to the ears of the Member for Burin - Placentia West. Because what this government has done for the people of Eagle River district is exemplary.

Now the only thing that the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains did for us when he was in the Cabinet is he took a ride on a helicopter. Zoomed right up, tried to get up to the stratosphere, as far as he could get, to try to see if there would be some divine intervention in the election return of April of 1989. He prayed, he said: put her to the floor, try to get up as far as we can so I can get a word with him. Because April 20 the word came in from the people. They said: we want a real change in this Province, we want a government that is going to be committed to the needs of this Province. They said to the people of Eagle River: we want to have the kind of dollars in that district that the people have not been getting for the last seventeen years.

Certainly he was a good God, Mr. Chairman, he said: no way, you are not getting the election overturned.

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: The hon. member is obviously getting the truth, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I am not. But I think it is rather selfish, to be honest, for the present Member for Eagle River to attack the former member by saying he did nothing over the past ten years for the district, and that you have been able to do everything. That is not something that we usually practise in this House. I think that because the Premier got you to go out and knock him off in the nomination is no reason for you to come in here and attack that hon. gentleman.

MR. DECKER: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No point of order. The hon. -

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) total abuse of the rules of this House.

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

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is unfortunate that he did not give the Minister of Health a chance to respond to that point of order. Because obviously it was a total point of foolishness by an hon. member.

The fact of the matter is that the people on the coast of Labrador, have been so loyal to the Liberal Party since 1949, and were certainly loyal in the worst of times, because in spite of the efforts of the previous member, that the government of the day refused to do anything regardless of the need. If it was not for the politics they would do absolutely nothing. You could not get a visit, you could not get a phone call returned, you could not get a cent put into the needs of the communities down there when that hon. crowd was over there opposite.

So today I had to get up I guess and extol the virtues of this administration. Sixteen million dollars in the last eighteen months in that particular riding. A little bit of catch-up on the discrimination that was cast against us for the seventeen years before that.

So I hope that the message is loud and clear to the Member for Burin - Placentia West. When he ever rises again to say that this government has not committed itself, has not made sure that the people on the parts of the Province, like the people of Eagle River, have not had their needs met, then certainly he would be misleading the House. So I hope that any time that he gets up and wants to hear more of the great things that this government has done for Eagle River district and other parts of the Province - I can certainly even talk about some things in other parts of the Province. Like a new hospital in Port Saunders, the Windsor - Buchans facilities -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, certainly we have never, no, we cannot say that we came in either with the kind of vindictiveness that the previous administration talked about day after day. We never came in on a witch hunt and said to the poor people of Burin - Placentia West: that you are going to be forsaken forever and a day because you happened to return that hon. member. Now, some members might think that we just put some token money into a district of the hon. members opposite. Some people would say, with $50 million or so of capital expenditures, that maybe yes, with fifty-two districts, you might get an Opposition member's riding get maybe $300,000 or $400,000. That would be the kind of tokenism that would have been forthcoming from the previous government.

But no, Mr. Chairman. This hon. minister got in this House a few weeks ago and said: we are not going to give $3,000, not $50,000, not $300,000, we are going to give $3 million to the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, for the kind of needs that his people have down there, in spite of the fact of the member's performance and in spite of the fact that he will not get elected again. That is the kind of commitment that this government has given the people of this Province.

I guess that is the reason that the polls are so good to us, that the trend is saying that we are going to be brought back here again in fine form. That is why the public opinion in Naskaupi is so high. That is why we are going to be able to remain confident, as we go to the people in a month or two, or six months. We will be able to go to them with confidence and say: yes, thank you for the support you gave us in 1989. We believe we have lived up to it, and we have shown you, community by community, dollar for dollar, that our communities along the coast of Labrador have received their fair share for the first time in history.

I hope that that is not all lost, and I am sure that I will have another opportunity to continue to apprise hon. members of the kinds of funding, the kinds of commitment, the kinds of real dollars, that have been put into the communities from L'Anse-au-Clair to Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to have a few words also on this particular piece of legislation. I would hope I would keep my remarks to some of the things that have been happening in the Province, and also on the Labrador coast. I promised myself before I got up that I was going to refrain from making any remarks about my hon. colleague for Eagle River, because I noticed that until three-quarters through his comments he was not saying anything about myself. But he could not speak for ten minutes without at least making some kind of an attempt of slandering a member of this Legislature.

I had no intention of saying anything about the hon. member because the record shows that - he was talking about everything that this government is doing for Labrador. I admit that this government is doing some things for Labrador, no doubt about that. But last Wednesday the hon. member will go down in history for turning his back on the fishermen of the Labrador coast. It has now gone out to the fishermen in his district, the exact count of those who voted against the fishermen on the coast of Labrador in receiving UIC benefits. The hon. gentleman for Eagle River can talk all he wants to about the things that this government is doing. But the one thing that he has done since 1989 - and it was the first time, and it was last Wednesday - when he voted against the resolution for the fishermen to get the UIC extended.

So I would say, my hon. colleague - in fact the letters that I am receiving, and the phone calls I am receiving. About why did - and I will say the word in the Legislature, Mr. Chairman; you're not allowed to say it, but in the context that the people are saying it to me: why did Danny vote against us receiving unemployment insurance? I said: the reason he did it was that he never had the intestinal fortitude of doing what the Member for Baie Verte had, was (Inaudible) through the House. But he wanted to make sure he would stay on the side of the government and vote whatever way the government voted for. So that is why he did it, and that is the best way I could explain it.

The hon. Member for Eagle River starts shouting about all that this government has done. The water and sewerage, tourism, everything else. But he forgot to name one thing, he forgot to say one thing. I think it would be only fair for him to say that. I know he does not like Mr. Crosbie, that is understandable. But surely to goodness, he could have said that a few of those dollars, just a couple of those dollars, a couple of those millions of dollars, (Inaudible) came from the federal government, at least some of it came from the federal government. In fact, none of it would have been done if the federal government hadn't paid the biggest portion, and the hon. member knows that. These are federal-provincial agreements that the hon. gentleman is talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Yes, the Labrador Comprehensive Agreement - water and sewer, yes, I say to my hon. colleague.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) water and sewer.

MR. WARREN: Exactly, and my hon. colleague doesn't know the difference either. It is the Labrador Comprehensive Agreement for water and sewer, I say to my hon. colleague. So water and sewer, fisheries, all of these things that thousands and thousands and millions of dollars are going into, is shared 60/40, 70/30, 80/20 or 90/10 by the federal-provincial government.

He was talking about all of the things this government has done. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they cut out the air subsidy to Labrador, that is what this government did. What else did they do? They took money from 'Them Days Magazine' this year, that is something else they did. Now, what else did they do? They closed down the court house in Wabush, that is something else they did. What else did they do? They closed the motor registration office in Labrador West, that is something else they did. Now, I am sure my colleague knows some other things they have done.

We have been going on now for months and months and months with no member in the Cabinet. But I must say, I found it most interesting that my hon. colleague - there was a graduation in Charlottetown this past weekend. My colleague was invited to St. Lewis and Mary's Harbour, but, meanwhile, he didn't get an invitation from the graduating class in Charlottetown, so Friday afternoon, he decided to call somebody in Charlottetown and say: 'I didn't get an invitation. I can't attend, but I didn't get an invitation. Surely, you could have sent me an invitation.' Subsequently, word came out this morning from me that he asked for an invitation on Friday, and to tell them he couldn't attend. It just goes to show that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the guest speaker?

MR. WARREN: I have no idea.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you going?

MR. WARREN: No, I was in Red Bay.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to this government that it is unfortunate that we need so much in Labrador. We have pride, but we need so much, and the government is not attending to the real needs. The real needs of the people up there are, for example, in the correctional centre in Happy Valley - Goose Bay today there are beds for fifty people, but there are eighty-two people in there.

Now, if the hon. member is going to say, 'We are looking after the social concerns of the people in Labrador,' here is an example where they are not looking after the social concerns. Let me say to my hon. colleague, there are thirty-odd people living in the correctional centre for whom there are no beds - they are sleeping on the floor.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) new federal penitentiary promised last year.

MR. WARREN: Let me say to my hon. colleague, it is amazing. I have to say this, with all due respect. On the weekend, I heard on, I think it was Station VOCM, my hon. colleague from Eagle River saying: 'I am going to get after Mr. Crosbie to extend the UIC benefits;' and last Wednesday he voted against it. Last Wednesday he voted against the fishermen getting UIC benefits, and here he was on the radio this weekend saying he is going after Mr. Crosbie to get it. Now, you can see the hon. gentleman, honest to goodness, all he want to do is hear his name on radio and hear his name on television. Tomorrow VOCM will be saying the hon. gentleman voted against the UIC extension in the House of Assembly. So the hon. gentleman, I honestly think, one thing he does not want to do -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: In some places, yes.

One thing the hon. gentleman does not want to do, and I noticed that, in fact, the last two or three months. Remember a while ago the hon. gentleman would get up once in awhile and he would rap the government on the knuckles. He would just say a few little nasty words about his own government. But for the last three months he hasn't made a peep, he hasn't said a thing, because he has been told: If you want to get close to that Cabinet door, don't say anything.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He's afraid 'Clyde' would send someone up for the nomination like he did with 'Eugene'.

MR. WARREN: Well, yes, in fact I heard this. I heard that there would have been a problem with the nomination coming up if the hon. gentleman did not behave himself within the Party.

Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk more seriously. I want to say to the Minister of Development, I am concerned and I am quite pleased that there are some positive things happening in the tourism division of his Department. Last year I think we had some discussion on the potential of Hebron, north of Nain. The minister had an opportunity to go up and visit that particular spot. I think once we can get an agreement with the feds - I believe this is a long-overdue project, a project that will bring dollars into our economy in the Province. I want to ask the minister to plugging, keep pushing. As for myself, as a member for that particular district, anything I can do to help, I will be available to help in any way possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To put it mildly, the tenure of this particular administration has been a taxing experience. Income tax on a provincial level has gone up six percentage points to the federal tax, which I am told by our staff people, amounts to something in the order of a 10 per cent rise in provincial income tax since this government has come to power.

This government, under a fancy name of a health and education tax, has instituted the payroll tax, which they again raised to substitute for a school tax which isn't really abolished after all, when you look behind the scenes. Now, it applies to senior citizens who never had to pay it before. With regard to hydro rates, for instance, they are charging the hydro corporation a guarantee fee in addition to the payroll tax. This is the sort of thing that drives the corporation before the Public Utilities Board, which drives up electrical rates in the Province.

Everything that is negative in this Province has gone up and anything positive, or even anything neutral, has gone down since this administration has come to power. So, as I indicated earlier, the experience of three years of the Wells administration has been a taxing experience, to put it mildly. I really don't have to try very hard to play on that word 'taxing'.

They removed a subsidy for rural areas of the Province that was paid to the hydro corporation to keep electrical rates down in rural Newfoundland. We recently had the instance of a Public Utilities hearing where the Utilities Board recommended, but, thank God, Cabinet rejected, considerable rate increases in isolated rural areas. But the matter is going to be revisited. A study on that particular matter has been ordered. The Public Utilities Board, however, has already indicated its philosophical inclination in this regard, in that pricing is about the only way they can encourage and enforce conservation in isolated rural areas. So, no doubt, all they have done is postpone the inevitable by overturning the PUB recommendation in this case. Sooner or later, people in isolated rural areas are going to get it straight between the eyes because, let's face it, this administration has no time for rural Newfoundland. This administration believes that rural Newfoundland is a luxury that we could do well without.

When we look at the municipal area of government again, to put it mildly, it has been a taxing experience, both financially and in terms of aggravation on the part of the volunteers who have to serve at that level. The entire amalgamation - fiasco, I suppose, is about the only word to describe it, for which they obtained no mandate from the people, but with which they went after with a tremendous zeal first when they got elected, proposing all kinds of absurd and crazy amalgamation combinations from the people, which they went after with a tremendous zeal first when they got elected, proposing all kinds of absurd and crazy amalgamation combinations, some of which they have had the good sense to drop, some of which have shown that there is a mean, sort of nasty streak to this administration, especially in the way they dealt with the City of Mount Pearl, the City of St. John's and the Northeast Avalon region. To not have the guts to put Mount Pearl in with the City of St. John's but, at the same time, saying, `We will let you live but we will slowly strangle you to death', shows, Mr. Chairman, a particularly mean streak in this particular administration. So, it is taxing on those who wish to serve on a municipal level from the point of view of who needs the aggravation.

At the smaller council level, they have changed the grant schemes, the financing schemes for municipal capital works, the repayment schemes for municipal capital works, etc., and we are getting to the point now where smaller municipalities cannot afford to accept even monies that are offered by the Crown to install water and sewer services without driving taxes through the roof. It is getting to the point now, where it is becoming difficult to get municipal volunteers to serve on councils. There isn't a rush in rural Newfoundland anymore for people to serve on councils, Mr. Chairman, because you know that if you serve on council, it is the kiss of death, that you are going to be asked to raise taxes on the local citizenry to the point where the local council will probably get thrown over the government wharf. So, who needs it, Mr. Chairman, is the attitude of a lot of the citizenry of rural Newfoundland, all because of the tax policy of this government.

It has been downloading on municipal governments, downloading on electrical rate payers, just downloading on everybody, Mr. Chairman. I mean, let's face it, this particular government has been a real downer all the way around. For a government that came in on a, small `l', liberal policy platform promising the moon and the stars to everybody, to have an ultraconservative, right wing administration actually in charge, even in these difficult economic times, is beyond belief, Mr. Chairman. And that they can do it with a straight face, that they can do it without open rebellion in their ranks, that those of them who, while in Opposition were liberals in the ordinary sense of the word, can be either browbeaten into submission or undergo such a change of philosophy that they would downgrade the quality of life of our citizenry, especially in rural Newfoundland, by making taxes higher, prices higher and making life just generally more miserable, is beyond me altogether, Mr. Chairman.

To use the phrase of a former Opposition leader we had over here just after the last election, these people have the face of a robber's horse. Because only a robber's horse could rob the poor and not show some shame, I think, in so doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: A robber's what?

MR. HEWLETT: A robber's horse, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mr. Rideout, a former member of this House - that was one of his favourite phrases to show the audacity, the brazenness of the administration we have in power now - the face of a robber's horse! If we weren't finished with robber's horses, what would we get now? We would have the faces of polar bears, as we cut back on the dental subsidy to the children of our Province and we have dental surgery performed on polar bears, Mr. Chairman. So we go from robber's horses to polar bears. But, in any case, Mr. Speaker, it is an insult to the ordinary common people of this Province, especially those who voted Liberal.

That is where I find the most aggravated people of all, Mr. Chairman, those who look me straight in the eye and admit to me that they didn't vote for me the last time around. They voted Liberal because they were voting for Liberals, they thought, Mr. Chairman, only to find out that they were electing a Thatcherite or a Reaganite administration headed by a corporate lawyer who, in his particular time, ran away from the City of Corner Brook when Bowaters went down, at a time when the government in power moved in foursquare and saved the city from imminent demise.

This administration, Mr. Chairman, is spending no money out in my district, is taxing the people tremendously. They haven't given one shovel full of pavement. The current rumour mill out there is who are they going to find to run against me. They talked about Mr. Seabright in Mount Pearl having once been a former magistrate. There are rumours on the go that they are going to send him out. Most people out there who I have spoken to scoffed at that idea. They Mayor of Springdale was supposed to be their chosen candidate. They made him commit political suicide over the hospital issue, Mr. Chairman, and then he couldn't even get a meeting with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to discuss the fact that they wouldn't give them any municipal pavement for the city streets of Springdale even though Springdale is a town that can afford to pay its own way.

I attended the graduation of the community college on Friday night. The Minister of Education was on the agenda as the guest speaker, but he couldn't make it because he was tied up with his new Royal Commission Report, and lo and behold they sent an official from the Department of Education to represent the minister, Mr. Mun Batstone, who happened to be a suicide candidate against one Brian Peckford who happened to be Premier of the Province at the time, Mr. Batstone, I do believe, having some roots in the Jackson's Cove area of my district. So I don't know if it was just Mr. Batstone's poor luck that he was chosen to replace the minister at this particular graduation or if it was an attempt on the part of the administration to float another possible assailant to go against yours truly.

I am not really sure, Mr. Chairman, but believe me, so far from what they have put forward on that regard I must say this administration has been tremendously easy on me. They have not been taxing on me at all. They have not made me afraid. They have not scared me. They have not terrified me. Instead they have beaten up on the 10,000 people I represent, Mr. Chairman. They have raised their taxes. They have raised their electrical rates. They have cut their hospital services. They have generally made life miserable. They have tried to force resettlement, Mr. Chairman. They have made life a misery in rural Newfoundland, and that is the record of this particular administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MR. MATTHEWS: Resign?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him to tender his resignation.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member for Burin - Placentia West wasn't talking about me, Mr. Chairman, resigning. He was suggesting that you should resign. I don't know if that is parliamentary or not. Maybe he should be named. Maybe the Member for Burin - Placentia West should be named for suggesting that the Chairman resign.

This is a tax bill. We are into Committee, Mr. Chairman, so we can speak as often as we want for ten minutes. We are talking here about this horrendous revision to the income tax bill. Horrendous tax increases again by this administration, 2.5 per cent as of January 1, 1992, another 1.5 per cent from January 1, 1993. A 4 per cent increase in personal income tax, Mr. Chairman. That brings the total now to 6 per cent since this government took office. That is what we are here debating today, Mr. Chairman. Of course a number of speakers have referred to what it is doing to our economy, what it is doing to the economy of the Province because the taxpayers have less money to spend in the businesses around the Province. The economy is shrinking, but the government doesn't seem to want to listen, Mr. Chairman to what we have been having to say about that.

Now the Member for Eagle River, I heard some of his speech when I was upstairs for a couple of minutes making a couple of phone calls. I heard him shouting and bawling about all the money going into Labrador, they never heard him say much about what the people of Labrador contribute to the provincial economy because of their rich resources in Labrador, and it was almost as though the Member for Eagle River was suggesting that the government was giving the people of Labrador something that they do not deserve, almost as though they were making a special case, that he was so beholden, so beholden to his own government for doing what they are doing in Labrador, that is what the Member for Eagle River was going on with while I was out of the House.

The people of Labrador should be beholden to this government for giving them the two or three or four things he named there, like a new school - you would not know but they were giving them a new school, Mr. Chairman, and they did not need one -

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - you would know but they were giving them a new school and they did not need one down in Labrador -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, obviously, the member is trying to mislead the House because the point that I was making was that, for seventeen years that government, of which he was a member, did nothing for the people on the coast of Labrador and I talked about not only the two or three, but the fifteen and twenty projects of millions of dollars that we had, that we deserved, but we deserved then seventeen years before that as well, Mr. Chairman, and never got it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no point of order and once again we see that amateurish, childish, immature behaviour by the Member for Eagle River, again. The only thing he knows how to do when he gets in his place is to shout at the top of his lungs; you do not need the monitor on upstairs to hear him because you can hear him right through the four or five floors going up, and he is speaking as if the people in his district are getting something from the government that they do not even deserve, that the government is so good to them that they are giving things that are not needed in his district, like a new school, and a marine service centre, you would not know but that the government went out and built - but of course, they did not build the marine service centre, that is the other thing he is not telling the House and the people, is that his government did not put the marine service centre down there, so you see, the hon. member only tells half truths, because where does the majority of the money come from for his marine service centre, I ask him? Where did it come from? Not from this Minister of Fisheries, I tell him -

MS. VERGE: The cat has his tongue now.

MR. MATTHEWS: Ah yes, yes, so that is what is happening -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: We do not care, Mr. Chairman, how often the member speaks, but there is only one thing that I will ask this time and the next time that the member speaks, Mr. Chairman, is that he say something, we want him to say something for once instead of being so patronizing, so lapdoggish to his Premier and his ministers because all is not well in Labrador I say to the member. There are many more needs in Labrador which need to be addressed and slapping them all with another 4 per cent on personal income tax I would suggest to the member is not going to help them -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that?

MR. MATTHEWS: Putting another 4 per cent on personal income taxes are not going to do too much -

MR. DUMARESQUE: You do not know anything about Labrador, you were never down there.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was down there and yes, I do know something about it, yes I do but adding another 4 per cent on personal income taxes to the people whom the member gets up here and talks about day in and day out, about how bad things are in Labrador and how poor the fishery is and how people are not going to survive, but yet he stands with his government and supports another 4 per cent on personal income tax for people in his district, now that is the kind of member that this member is! That is the kind of member he is, if it is no good for the people in your district, get up and say it is no good for them. Stand in your place and be a man and say it is no good for my people in my district. It is no good for the people in mine, I say to the member, another 4 per cent on personal income tax is not good for the people in the district of Grand Bank and they are not all millionaires down there, I say to the Member for Eagle River, they are not all millionaires in the district of Grand Bank -

AN HON. MEMBER: Therefore they won't have to pay them.

MR. MATTHEWS: They won't have to pay it says the Member for Carbonear. Oh, they do not have to pay it if they are not millionaires? Well, that is very interesting, that is very interesting. If that is the case, there won't be too many in the Legislature who will have to pay it, Mr. Chairman. Well, I am glad to hear that, that I won't be subjected to a 4 per cent personal income tax increase, that is good news. That is good news, I will have a look at the T-4s next year when they come in and see how much more that this government is taking out of me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have to pay it?

MR. MATTHEWS: I will have to pay it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Humber East will have to pay it?

MR. MATTHEWS: Humber East will have to pay it. The Member for Carbonear, everyone in here will have to pay it. Everyone in the district, I suggest to the Member for Carbonear will have to pay it. They will have to pay 4 per cent, which will bring the total to a 6 per cent increase in personal income tax since the Member for Carbonear became a member of that administration, that government, a 6 per cent increase in personal income tax. The like was unheard of before in the history of the Province, that in a three-year span personal income tax will be increased by 6 per cent.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What is the old witch doctor saying over there now, Mr. Chairman? What is the old witch doctor himself saying over there now? The only thing he hasn't done, Mr. Chairman, since he became Minister of Finance is do the rain dance. That is the only thing left now, he is going to have to do the rain dance.

MR. DUMARESQUE: We will have to go back to the 1930s.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I tell the hon. Member for Eagle River, if it is possible this Minister of Finance is going to have us back further than that. I could tell the Member for Eagle River, if I was allowed to, but it would be unparliamentary, just how far back this minister is going to take us. But I cannot do it, because I would be brought to order. I would be taken to task.

The old witch doctor, himself! Six per cent on personal income tax, Mr. Chairman, and he sits over there as if he has reduced it by 6 per cent, and he laughs and tells jokes about it. I suppose everyone in the District of St. John's Center can afford to have their personal income taxes raised by that amount. I suppose they can all afford to pay the other taxes that this minister has put on them. Only the other day he increased the tax on cigarettes.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is my member and he didn't ask me.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, he doesn't ask too many, Mr. Chairman. Now, next month or the middle of July, sometime around the middle of July once we get this bill finished, this Act to Amend The Income Tax Act, somewhere around the first two weeks of July when we finish with this, then the Minister of Finance or the Government House Leader is going to say that we are going to deal with the health and education tax. Yes, we are going to deal with that. In another month to six weeks we will be dealing with another tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Next week would be fine. How about next week?

MR. MATTHEWS: What is it called? Health and - what was it? - post-secondary education tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd have to start your campaign kick.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, but you might be and that is where you should be. I suggest to you, you'll need to be down there too, because they know in Naskaupi now or they will know within ten days how much the personal income taxes have been increased.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not what your poll said.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did your poll say?

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what polls he is talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I don't, I say to him.

You know, Mr. Chairman, the debate is supposed to be relevant. If I was given the leeway and the leniency I would probably talk about the polls, but since we are on An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act we cannot debate that. We cannot do it, I say to the Member for Port de Grave. We cannot talk about polls when we are debating An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act. We cannot do it.

MR. WOODFORD: There are a couple of members out there sitting on poles.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, they are sitting on the fence. I suppose there are poles that make up the fence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MATTHEWS: It can't be, Mr. Chairman. It can't be.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know what the (inaudible) said about the hon. Member for Humber East?

MR. TOBIN: I know what he said about you. I know what Ray Guy said about you too. I know what he said about you.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments that I want to make that I didn't get to finish the last time. I was delighted to hear the Member for Eagle River announce all the work that Mr. Crosbie is now putting down on the Labrador Coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: It is nice. He didn't try to take any credit for it himself. The government had nothing to do with it, neither the Province nor the federal government, even though most of the agreements were previously signed, Mr. Chairman, before he became a member for the area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. TOBIN: It is true. You had absolutely nothing, Mr. Chairman, and the President of Treasury Board basically said it. I heard the President of Treasury Board tell the Minister of Development, Mr. Chairman: How can Danny say it with a straight face? I am sure those were the words, Mr. Chairman. I am sure those were his words: How can Danny say it with a straight face? It looks, Mr. Chairman, like the Minister of Development wants me to say his response. He feels left out.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the personal income tax, as my colleague mentioned, is something that we should talk about. It has been increased 6 per cent by this administration. And we talked today about the poor. We talked about the people who are getting $88 for a month, $88 a single man in this Province today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: They can't buy groceries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and that is very much so. That is very much so when you talk about this bill, the fact that people cannot survive. They cannot live, Mr. Chairman. That is indeed very relevant. But one has to wonder, Mr. Chairman, why has this government decided to attack the people who can least afford it? Why has the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman? And as this Minister of Finance is more responsible for it than anyone he is probably the greatest redneck that has ever been elected to this Legislature, Mr. Chairman. He is probably the greatest. And I say to him that most of his colleagues would agree with me. Most of his colleagues will agree with me that if there is a redneck elected to this Legislature it is the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on the PC party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Redneck?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your finance Minister.

MR. TOBIN: I am sure, Mr. Chairman. How can the Member for St. George's, how can the Member for Trinity North, LaPoile, Harbour Grace or Carbonear, how can they sit over there and realize that this government has increased the personal income tax of their constituents by 6 per cent?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the old skate sharpener.

MR. MATTHEWS: Stick taper.

MR. TOBIN: The old skate sharpener, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you will look after it alright. Indeed you did look after it. Indeed you did. The Minister of Employment said one time you couldn't sharpen his skates, and he was right.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance is the person responsible more so than anyone for the mess that this Province is in financially and otherwise. He is the member and the minister who decided to cut the budget of the Department of Social Services by $5 million. He, together with the Minister of Health, cut the budget for health care on the Burin Peninsula by $1 million. Mr. Chairman, he, together with the Minister of Forestry caused people from central Newfoundland to be in here last week demonstrating. He caused people last week to be in here demonstrating, Mr. Chairman. His own constituents whose jobs he made redundant. That is the type of member and minister he is.

We have the Minister of Finance together with the Minister of Development and the Minister of Fisheries who have all but closed down the Marystown Shipyard. You got the Minister of -- I am going to tell you something now. The Minister of Finance in the budget, or the minister who financed capital funding for water and sewer, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced I think it was $59 million worth of capital works, and the deadline, by the way, for accepting that by the councils has passed. If I am right, I think it has passed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, a week ago.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, there has been less than $30 million suggested. That is not because they don't need it, not because they don't want it, Mr. Chairman, but because they cannot afford it because of the policies of this government. It is not fair, Mr. Chairman, to blame it on the former minister or the present minister solely. It is collectively the responsibility of this government that has caused municipalities in this Province to be unable to accept funding that has been allocated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eric the scapegoat.

MR. TOBIN: No, it is not. I have been here ten years and I will be here a lot longer, but the hon. member's time is slowly and surely coming to a (inaudible).

That is what we have. We have this government that has caused municipalities to be unable to afford to provide water and sewer for their citizens. I say it again. It is not fair and it is not right to blame it on the previous minister or the present minister. Government collectively are responsible for these decisions. You hear people talk about the former minister bringing it in, and all of that. There is no minister who brings in policies solely, without going to Cabinet and having it approved. So it is collectively the responsibility of this administration that has caused the lack of services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I will tell you anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is the one who won in Burin - St. George's.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the one who turned over the seat.

MR. TOBIN: That is the one who won in Burin - St. George's. There is no doubt about that. I can tell you one thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, the (inaudible) that was nothing. That night was when you should have been there. That day was nothing. That night was when you should have been there. That was the night that Joe Price won Burin - St. George's, and I was part of winning it.

Not only that, for the benefit of the Member for Carbonear, he might not realize it, Joe Price again in the last elections won the old riding of Burin - St. George's. The riding that he represented, he won. He lost it in the St. George's - LaPoile area that he did not have before - or Stephenville it was. Stephenville - yes. But the old riding of Burin - St. George's, Joe Price won in the last election. He lost it in Stephenville.

So the people who knew -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No. All I am saying is that the people of Burin - St. George's who had the opportunity to have both Joe Price and Roger Simmons represent them in the past, voted for Joe Price - the majority. But the crowd who never had him before did not vote for him because they did not know him. That is the long and short of that.

The Member for Stephenville is laughing. Let me say to the Member for Stephenville and St. George's that this past weekend I spent it with their constituents. I spent it out on the west coast. That is where I was, and I can tell you, all is not well in that area of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that, Eric?

AN HON. MEMBER: Stephenville has a better chance of winning the lottery.

MR. TOBIN: Who has? I have?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am not interested in winning a lottery. I am interested in doing what I have done three times now, and that is winning Burin - Placentia West. Each time that I ran I won it by a bigger majority. The last time I won it by over 3,000 votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him how much he won by.

MR. TOBIN: Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Social Services.

MR. TOBIN: How much he won by? He won by 1,000 or 1,200 votes, I guess, somewhere in that area, last time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Around that.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, around that. I would say it was a couple of thousand less than me. That is all I know.

Let me get back to this bill. I am getting distracted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

You know, many of the members opposite underestimate the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I was just amusing myself looking at photographs of the party held by residents of Burin - Placentia West to honour their member on his tenth anniversary. This is a member who has served in this Legislature for ten years now. He has been elected three times!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Elected three times, and from looking at the pictures it is obvious that this is a member who is still held in very high esteem by his constituents, and no doubt they will reelect him for a fourth time whenever this government summons the courage to call the next election.

Some of the members opposite just mentioned lotteries, as well they might, because they have resorted to more and more reliance on lotteries for revenue. They haven't stopped at jacking up the personal income tax rate point after point after point, now six points in three years. They haven't stopped at raising the business tax. They weren't content at just extending the base of the retail sales tax and piggybacking on the GST effectively increasing the rate to 13 per cent. No! They also decided to grab revenue by putting video slot machines in bars all around the Province.

Have you looked at the budget document I ask members opposite? If so you will see that this government has increased its take from gambling by 50 per cent in the last year. A year ago the government got about $20 million in revenue from lotteries, and this year they are forecasting $30 million. Of course the big reason for the jump in revenue is the governments decision in concert with the Maritime provinces through Atlantic Lottery Corporation to put video slot machines in bars all around the Province.

Now this bill before us involves further increases in the personal income tax rate, and that is cutting into the disposable income of all of our constituents. It is hurting entrepreneurs. It is hurting investors. It is decreasing the wherewithal of business people in our Province, people with the inclination and the ability to invest in our economy.

The whole combination of fiscal measures taken by this administration over the past three years has been very discouraging for people trying to do business in this Province. The two most discouraging moves I would suggest have been the introduction of the payroll tax coupled with the rises in the personal income tax rate. All along we had the highest personal income tax rate in the country, but this administration has continued to increase that rate.

Now I have talked about several direct revenue raising measures of this administration, but there have been indirect measures as well. There has been the reduction in funding to municipalities coupled with downloading of responsibilities to municipalities and that has left town councils and city councils with no choice but to jack up municipal taxes.

I noticed municipal councillors taking some heat recently, and perhaps they deserve some of the criticism being levelled at them. But constituents should bear in mind that it is this Provincial administration that has put the squeeze on municipalities, and in large measure necessitated the municipal tax increases that we have seen right, left and centre.

Now, Chairperson, these measures have not been phased in. They have not been introduced gradually. They are not in proportion to peoples ability to pay. They have come quite unexpectedly following on the heels of the Liberals lavish campaign promises three years ago of expanding the economy, creating more jobs, bringing mothers' sons home from the mainland, opening more hospital beds, building university campuses all over the Province. They came after the Liberals first year in office when they went to the public service unions with offers of large increases, when they built expectations, when they promised pie in the sky. Since then in a series of rash, abrupt, knee-jerk reactions we have seen cancellations of signed collective agreements, we have seen reneging on a commitment to build a central Newfoundland university campus, we have seen the RST being put on top of the GST. This is a government that likes to have it both ways. They criticise the federal government for levying the GST but then they turn around and charge the 12 per cent RST on top of the GST, effectively increasing the provincial sales tax rate to 13 per cent.

In the case of the personal income tax rate they keep talking about all they are doing to boost the economy. Economic recovery was their commitment in the election campaign and the first month or so after the election. The Premier was going to have an economic recovery plan unveiled within the first month. Well, it has been three years and we are still waiting. They bought themselves some time by having Harold Lundrigan go around the Province consulting people, the same Harold Lundrigan who had been on the previous administration's Royal Commission on unemployment and employment, which most of the members opposite - including the Government House Leader - ridiculed when they were in opposition. They have the same adviser consult the same people on the same questions, and we are still waiting for some solutions.

In the meantime the economy has deteriorated steadily. The financial statements that this government inherited three years ago showed many positive indicators. There had been three or four years of significant growth in the gross domestic product, in revenue, in jobs, in employment. The forecasts for the year ahead were positive. They brought down a budget which had been prepared by the previous administration, containing a current account surplus, and what has happened?

Despite the promise of economic recovery we have had one reversal after another. Now some of the problems have been external. Some of the factors that have combined to have such a negative impact on our economy, have been beyond the control of any provincial government. But the members opposite, this administration, have had a major part to play in the worsening economy. Their decisions, their promises, their building of false expectations, their reversals, their reforms, their changes, their haphazard moves, have made a very bad situation much worse than it needed to be.

Now, in the case of raising the personal income tax rate, in their very first Budget, when they were forecasting a current account surplus, they signalled an intention to increase the personal income tax rate and to phase it in. That then was built into their revenue projections, but they have continued to do this. In the very first Budget, they announced the discontinuation of the $30 million a year provincial government subsidy to the Power Distribution District and they also started charging a $10 million loan guarantee fee to Hydro, and that is a measure which has indirectly added to the cost of living of people in this Province. So the electricity bill increases, the municipal tax increases are just as much a result of the actions of this government as have been the direct provincial government taxing measures, the retail sales tax increase, the business tax increase, the payroll tax - this year's increase - and the personal income tax increase we are talking about now.

Now, Chairperson, all of these measures have discouraged investment, have discouraged employment, have aggravated the situation. There were stimulative measures the government could have taken and didn't, there were revenue measures the government could have adopted in a more gradual approach but rejected, and this personal income tax increase, coupled with all the other increases, coupled with the economic difficulties in our major resource industries, have made the prospects of living in this Province rather dismal, have shaken people's confidence in the future, have provided a disincentive for investing in the future of the Province.

Now, there has been a lot said about what is wrong, but we don't hear much talk from anyone about what to do to turn around the situation. The government -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: - does not seem to have any idea about instilling hope and confidence in the people.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: You were not going to say anything.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I was not going to say anything. I was listening to the other side, hoping to hear something positive. I was hoping to hear that, 'Yes, we know you are raising taxes, but you should not do that. You should do this.' I was hoping to hear the things that we should do in order to have the revenue to do what is needed to be done.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the role of the Opposition is to oppose, and that is not a problem. As a matter of fact, a number of the members opposite do a very good job of that. They keep the government on their toes, which is good. That is their role, and that is good; but the Member for Humber East is always so negative. I get depressed listening to the Member for Humber East because I start saying -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the sun is shining, too.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, and what hope is there? If everything is so negative, negative, negative, what hope is there? I do not think it is that way, myself. These are difficult economic times, but it is just not that bad. Yes, it is bad, but yet it is not that bad. There is hope on the horizon, and the economy is going to get better, but it needs to be planned out to get better. We need to know where we are going, and set some direction. That is what the government is trying to do - set some direction.

When I hear her talking about taxation, taxation measures - the reason we have to increase income tax, Mr. Minister of Finance and Minister of Development, is because federal transfers have been reduced to this Province. That is one of the reasons, I would think, that we have to increase our revenue. We do not have enough revenue. One of the reasons we don't have enough revenue is we get less money from the federal government. So, if she is going to say this is a bad government for raising taxes, she should say, we have a bad federal government for cutting back transfers to the Province, because they have really hit us hard - over $500 million in the last three years - $500 million. That is almost the budget for education or social services in this Province - close to it. Not only have they cut us back on transfers to health care and education, then they get up down here in the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly and give us the gears because we have to deal with all the cutbacks that their buddies in Ottawa have done. They give us the gears for that now saying, what are you going to do about it? And here we are, trying to find a way to keep everything going. I find it amazing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) cover up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is unreal. It is absolutely unreal. It is hard to believe it, actually.

GST - who brought in that? Who brought in the GST into provincial taxation jurisdiction - 7 percent? Then the Member for Humber East complains because we are piggybacking on it. Our problem is, we haven't figured out what to do with it. We are trying to figure it out, Mr. Minister of Finance, I suggest.

MS. VERGE: In the meantime, you are (inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: In the meantime, we are doing like a lot of other provinces, trying to figure it out, so that when we do come in with tax reform, it is the right thing to do.

Mind you, if we do that then the federal government will come in with more taxes, probably, that they can throw on to help us pay for the deficit they have.

So if she wants to oppose -

DR. KITCHEN: She should be more cheerful.

MR. K. AYLWARD: She definitely should be more cheerful, that's one thing, because there are many things to be cheerful about.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible) now?

MR. K. AYLWARD: No, go ahead.

DR. KITCHEN: I was going to say, she should adopt a new theme song. "You Are My Sunshine."

MR. K. AYLWARD: "You Are My Sunshine." The Minister of Finance suggests that the Member for Humber East should have a new song.

You would think they would talk a little positively, anyway. Like, out of ten minutes, take eight and be negative, in the last two be positive. Or take the first two and be positive and the last eight to be negative.

The Minister of Development talks about Marble Mountain. Marble Mountain has boomed since this government took power. Because of the initiatives of the Premier and the Minister of Development and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Marble Mountain is a big, big business on the West Coast and in the whole Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Positive.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Very positive. Not only that, it is going to get bigger and better. Because this government is committed to Marble Mountain and it is committed to tourism, and we have one of the best ministers of tourism in Canada. He is right on the go, he is out there pushing this Province. So there are some positive things. The sun is shining on Marble Mountain, Mr. Chairman, let me say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am not sure if she is - the Minister of Development is asking me if the Member for Humber East is against Marble Mountain. I don't think so. I think she has always indicated a positive direction towards Marble Mountain. I am sure she has. But again, that is a very positive initiative that this government has been involved with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can she ski?

MR. K. AYLWARD: A lot of provincial money. I think she can ski. They tell me - I'm not sure. The minister says that she can ski. The thing is, there are a number of positive initiatives that have occurred, so it is not all so negative, Mr. Chairman.

I think there are a lot of things - 10,000 businesses, Mr. Minister, are now not going to pay any school tax or payroll tax, right? Ten thousand businesses in this Province that had to pay school tax are not going to pay it this year.

MR. WINDSOR: Not true.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Well, those are the figures.

MR. WINDSOR: Not true.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The Opposition says not true. Well, get up and prove it. I am being told 10,000 businesses will not have to pay it. So maybe that is not true, I do not know, but I know there are thousands of businesses -

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody's complaining (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Nobody's complaining? (Inaudible) what's going on!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Well, thousands of businesses will not have to pay the school tax. We have new money going into the school boards this year, all new money, a lot of new money going into school boards, raising them up, Mr. Chairman, and putting money into the school boards for rural Newfoundland - rural Newfoundland, Mr. Chairman, I say. The sun is shining for school boards in rural Newfoundland. They are getting more money this year and they are going to get more money next year. So there are some positive things coming out there.

We have a Royal Commission -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: 'Have not will be no more.'

MR. K. AYLWARD: 'Have not will be no more' one of these days in the very near future, we hope. So, all I say to the Opposition is that they should try to be a little more positive and suggest some things that they would do if they were here, like things that they would never do, like raise taxes, like raise income taxes, like they never did when they were in government -

AN HON. MEMBER: Freezing wages.

MR. K. AYLWARD: - I am getting a list now, Mr. Chairman, of the number of times they raised income taxes when they were in power and I cannot wait to get hold of it because I am sure it will be zero. It won't be, they never raised a tax when they were in government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - no, and they never shut down a hospital bed -

AN HON. MEMBER: Never froze wages.

MR. K. AYLWARD: - and never froze wages, no, no, no, they did that differently. They spent money on everything, as a matter of fact, when anybody wanted anything, they got it, it wasn't any problem. They had peace with the labour movement. There was never a problem with the labour movement, there was always great respect for the labour movement, Mr. Chairman, but I must say I do not want to get into it all, but all I say to the opposition, especially the Member for Humber East, I know you have to oppose, but there are some positive things that out there. There is a reason to be in Newfoundland and Labrador and there are a lot of good reasons and there are going to be a lot more in the future, but it takes time. It takes time, you know, Rome was not built in a day, as they say, it takes awhile.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report some progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, three things. First of all, when next we sit again I intend to continue with the finance bill, Bill 14 and then presuming we will finish with that quickly, I intend to move to Bill 16, so, Mr. Speaker, that is the Legislative plan. Secondly, the estimates committee meetings, as the Member for Humber East, requested: tonight in the Legislature, the Department of Development will be thoroughly quizzed.

Tomorrow evening in the House, we will arrange for a meeting of the Social Services Committee to examine the estimates in the Department of Environment and Lands, and if possible, in addition to Environment and Lands, we will do Justice as well, here in the House.

On Thursday evening in the House, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. So, Mr. Speaker, these are the immediate plans for the committee hearings -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No immediate plans. The -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes - no immediate plans.

Tomorrow is Private Members Day, Mr. Speaker, it is a government day and I would like to ask leave of the House to revert to government legislation rather than doing the Private Members motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, agrees to call it five, do the members agree to call it five?

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. No, I am not calling it five o'clock. There is no leave to call it five o'clock.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of things. First of all, is the Government House Leader saying that there will not be another rescheduled meeting for reviewing the estimates of the Department of Health? Is that what he is suggesting? It has been requested now a couple of times, but it has been put off. We are running out of days, and I think the committee wanted to go back -

MS. VERGE: It was scheduled for last week, remember, and called off at the last minute.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, and then cancelled at the last minute last week. So we would like to have that clarified, if there will be another opportunity to further scrutinize the Department of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) waste of three hours (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well that is the minister's opinion about wasting time. I can remember very well when the minister appeared, when he was in opposition, before an estimates committee, and that was a complete waste of time. He spent three hours talking about entertainment allowances, and the Minister of Development knows full well what I am talking about.

The other thing is Private Members' Day. We have two Private Members' resolutions on, one by the Member for St. John's East Extern and the other by the Member for Kilbride. Since we only found out late that there was not to be a government sponsored resolution tomorrow because the Member for Pleasantville, who has one on, is not here, our two members who have them on, I have been unable to track down in that length of time.

The only other resolution left on is the one by St. John's East, so we would be quite willing to allow the Member for St. John's East to proceed with his resolution tomorrow, since it is Private Members' Day. We are quite willing to do that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If there are no resolutions on the Order Paper, I would be happy to proceed with my resolution. I know unanimous consent was denied on a couple of occasions when an opportunity was offered to the government members to support the resolution to name April 28 as a day of mourning, but I would be quite prepared to debate it. Perhaps some support will be for the motion, maybe not unanimous, but perhaps some support.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, because the legislation seems to have bogged down, the tax legislation and so on, I had hoped to provide a little extra time for members opposite who obviously want to continue debating the tax legislation, so I thought I would provide them with an opportunity to do just that. There are other ways to provide them with a little extra opportunity, I guess, if they want to.

The Member for St. John's East is wrong again. It is not that there are no motions on the Order Paper. If he knew the Order Paper he would realize there are four or five on the Order Paper. There are four. He would also realize that there is one from a government member and two from the official opposition members, and his, on the Order Paper. So it is not that there is no motion on the Order Paper. It is just that I would like to give a little bit of extra time to debate the legislation. However, if there is no unanimous leave, then I have nothing against the Member for St. John's East doing his little bit of grandstanding tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has no sense of direction on what has been decided, but it does not need to, either. We can do it tomorrow.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the house at its rising do adjourn until 2:00 p.m. Wednesday, and that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday at 2:00 p.m.