November

20, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 68

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions

for the Minister of Education. His predecessor asked the Public Service

Commission, I think it was, to use the committee involving Grant Chalker from

the Public Service Commission, his deputy minister, Cyril McCormick, and Roger

Pike, chairman of the college out in Grand Falls - Windsor - Central Community

College - to screen, interview and recommend applicants for the position of

president of the college.

The committee represented by the Commission, I guess,

recommended three qualified and suitable candidates for that position. We know

who they are. They now serve in very responsible positions. They were all

rejected by the government, by the Cabinet. I'd like to ask the minister, first

of all why did the government reject the Commission's recommendations? Secondly,

can he tell me if the minister had any conversations or representations from his

colleague, the Member for Windsor - Buchans, or his colleague, the Member for

Exploits, on this question?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: As hon. members know, the presidents of

colleges are positions which are not required to be filled by the Public

Service. In this specific case the hon. member is quite right. Cabinet did

indeed ask the Public Service Commission to make a recommendation to Cabinet,

with the understanding that it was just simply that - a recommendation. The

Public Service Commission did put a committee in place and did interview - I

think it was, I don't know, eighteen, twenty people were interviewed.

Twenty-something applications were received. At the end of the day three

applications came into Cabinet and they were all reviewed, and Cabinet decided

not to go with either one but to go with a broader search.

The specific question about political interference:

categorically no, Mr. Speaker. That is preposterous, utter rubbish, nonsense.

The hon. member should know that this administration above all others does not

have political interference when we make appointments to any position, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I'm afraid the 1,600 people who turned out for

the nominating meeting in St. Mary's - The Capes wouldn't agree with the hon.

minister on his last comments. I didn't ask him about political interference. I

didn't ask the minister about political interference, I asked him if he had any

conversations on the issue with his colleagues the Minister of Forestry or the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. That was the question I asked him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SIMMS: Yes it was! It was what I asked him.

MR. MATTHEWS: You be quiet.

MR. SIMMS: It was specifically what I asked him.

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

I ask the hon. Leader -

MR. SIMMS: Now I understand the Minister of Finances's

sensitivity and reason for his sensitivity these days, but I ask him not to

interrupt now while I ask some questions of the Minister of Education.

MR. TOBIN: You were involved in it too!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask it again. If I didn't

ask it right, I say to the Minister of Finance, let me ask the minister again.

Did he have any conversations with his colleagues the Minister of Forestry or

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on this particular question?

Number one. Number two, let me ask him, on what grounds did the Cabinet

determine that the candidates recommended by the Commission weren't suitable for

the job?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the answer is categorically no.

There was no political interference in the decision, absolutely, categorically,

no. Now, I consult with all my Cabinet colleagues, that is one of the advantages

you have in being a member of Cabinet. As for tabling the minutes of Cabinet,

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows I cannot do that. I cannot tell him why

Cabinet does something and why Cabinet does not do something.

Mr. Speaker, maybe, if I were to do that, the hon. member

might be prepared to tell us why they invested $23 million into Sprung. Certain

things, because of the way the Cabinet systems works you cannot make public. The

Cabinet made the decision and we issued the Minute of Council. Unfortunately,

that is all I can say. Now maybe, if the hon. member will wait until I write my

memoirs in the year 2050, whatever that might be, I might be able to address it

then.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not think that

the decision of the government to reject a recommendation of the Public Service

Commission does not obligate the government to provide some accountability and

give reasons for its decisions, is that what he is saying here today? Let me ask

him this: Can he tell me categorically that these candidates who were

recommended were not qualified and were not suitable or, did in fact, he or his

colleagues receive certain criticisms from certain individuals who did not get

interviews in that process, and is that the reason why he decided to reject the

recommendations?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has to come to

realize that we are living in the 1990s. It is no longer the old days of the

1980s when we had everything being done by political patronage. The hon. member

has to start thinking in the modern age. Mr. Speaker, we are not saying that

those three candidates were not qualified, all we are saying is, we are going to

have a broader search. In the meantime, we have one of the teachers at the

institution who is now formally appointed as acting president. While the acting

president is there, we are taking however much time is necessary to make a

broader search and at the end of the day, we will appoint a president for

Central Newfoundland College, who will be able to, I am sure, deliver the best

educational system possible to central Newfoundland. It is no reflection on the

people who made the application, Mr. Speaker. Cabinet receives recommendations

day in and day out, some of which are accepted, some of which are not. That is

the way the Cabinet system works.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the minister and his

colleagues are not living in the 90s. We have seen too much evidence of where

they are living in the 60s and practising 60s politics. Will the minister

confirm to the House that the Chairman of the Board who served on that

committee, Roger Pike, and another member of the board, Mr. Wayne Morris have

both resigned and can he confirm that they resigned out of absolute frustration

because of the disastrous way in which the minister has handled this whole

issue?

Secondly, what was the cost of that particular committee's

work? Can he tell the House the cost of the committee's work? And would he table

a list of all expenses associated with the selection process?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the first question, I have a

letter from Roger Pike, who was the Chairperson. 'It is with regret that I

submit to you my resignation as Chairman of the Board of Governors. I wish to

thank you for the opportunity to serve; however, due to personal and business

reasons, I find I am not able to...'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: I will table it.

J. W. Morris, 'Please accept this letter as my resignation

from the Board of Directors, Central Newfoundland College, effective

(inaudible), due to personal reasons.'

Now I do not want to impute motives to those hon. gentlemen,

those volunteers who so willingly gave of their time. The pressure of business

was too much for one gentleman; personal reasons for the other. I will table

this, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: As for the cost of the interviews, the

survey, that belongs to the Public Service Commission. I am not sure I have the

liberty to do that, but I will take that question under advisement and if I am

permitted to do it, I will certainly ask the Public Service Commission if we can

table the cost, Mr. Speaker; but I can guarantee him there will be no $2,000

tips; there will be no $2,000 stretch limousines in the answer.

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

MR. SIMMS: I wonder can the minister tell us if there

will be any $600 doorknobs associated with it?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: Is he aware of

the following public statement made by the Chairman of the Board: 'There is no

denying, and I would be less than truthful if I said that the handling of this

latest incident did not give me concern and prompt me to reevaluate my role.'

And after discussing the matter with his family and fellow board members, he

felt he had no choice but to tender his resignation. Is he aware of that public

statement, and doesn't he think that now shows frustration with the way the

minister has handled this situation?

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

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that

public statement; however, I just tabled two letters which outlined why the

gentlemen resigned. I would now ask the hon. gentleman to table his public

statement so I can see where it came from.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister has appointed a new

committee, as I understand it now, to undertake the selection process - correct?

I would like to ask him: Who are the members of that new committee?

Will the committee be responsible to the Public Service

Commission, and how will this committee differ from the other committee? Why

would Cabinet be any more obligated to accept this particular committee's

recommendations?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is a long established

tradition in this House that when you read from a document or when you wave a

document in the air, you table it. I have asked the hon. member to table this

public statement that he is waving in the air.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it! Table it! Be a man, boy, table

it.

MR. DECKER: It is obvious that it is probably a figment

of someone's imagination, Mr. Speaker, and there is a great difference between a

public statement and a figment of someone's imagination. Let's clear up any

misunderstanding and ask the hon. gentleman to table his document.

AN HON. MEMBER: As we did with the letters.

MR. DECKER: What was the other part of his question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it was a double-barrelled

question. I will try to address the second barrel.

The committee which we have now put in place, Mr. Speaker: I

personally have asked the board of the Central Newfoundland College to appoint a

person to the new search committee which we are putting in place. Up to this

moment, we have not received any names from the new search committee. I am

planning to put a three-person search committee in place. I have asked the

Central Newfoundland Board to give us one recommendation but, to date, they have

not. We are having discussions back and forth.

I have not definitely made a decision as to who the other two

people will be. I have several people in mind. I have had preliminary

discussions with them, but the bottom line is the committee is not yet in place.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I told the hon. gentleman earlier, we

have appointed an acting president in Central Newfoundland, hence there is no

need for any great rush to go now and find a new president. We have appointed an

acting president.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Social Services. The

minister personally has been faulted for negative municipal affairs changes the

government made when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs. In fact, it was the

Premier and the whole Cabinet who were responsible. The new Minister of

Municipal Affairs has acknowledged the mistakes and promised to take corrective

action.

I would like to ask questions about social services mistakes

made three years ago. Three years ago this fall the government made a serious

mistake in social assistance policy by classifying maintenance and child support

as non-allowable income. That was a mistake, number one, because it deprives

single parents, mostly single mothers and their children, of up to $115 per

month, and second, because it took away, it removed the incentive, for people to

try to get court orders for child support and maintenance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: Questions: Will the new Minister of Social

Services acknowledge that the government made a mistake three years ago in

classifying maintenance and child support as non-allowable income? - and will he

correct the mistake? Will this Minister of Social Services show that not only

one minister in the Cabinet can be a hero in correcting earlier mistakes of the

Administration?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask for the Reader's Digest version.

MR. GULLAGE: I don't know, Mr. Speaker, if I get equal

time or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it, anyway.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what I should say

about the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, I know what I would like to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GULLAGE: I won't ask her to repeat it.

Mr. Speaker, government obviously makes policy and makes

decisions, and ministers make recommendations, and ultimately a decision is made

by government. This is one of those decisions, and until a change is made or

until we see a need for change, the policy, as it sits right now and as it is in

place, will continue to stand.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the minister

that he won't have equal time in this Legislature to me and some of my

colleagues here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order please!

Hon. members know that we are not supposed to debate answers.

Hon. members also know that

preambles to questions should be brief. I ask the

hon. member to get into the question, please.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of

Social Services explain his rationale for classifying maintenance and child

support as non-allowable income?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, my rationale for doing it - I

am not sure of the context of the question. I don't personally have a rationale

for anything. Decisions are made -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: I don't think any minister in any

government, Mr. Speaker, has the luxury of personal opinion and personal

decisions. It is the decision of the government, made on the recommendation of a

minister at the time, and that stands.

DR. KITCHEN: A good answer.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I think that will

be the quote of the week. I will switch to another subject for the Minister of

Social Services. Why did the Minister of Social Services refuse this September

to provide a child care subsidy for single parents just starting a

post-secondary education program, for first-year university and college

students, while he did provide a child care subsidy for single parents who were

in school last year? Why this discrimination? How does he expect single mothers

on welfare to get off social assistance and become self-sufficient if he won't

provide them with a child care subsidy to start their post-secondary education?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that no

changes were made in the assistance to single mothers attending university or

any post-secondary facility. We, in fact, continued all payments and assistance

to these single mothers. Any changes that were made in the assistance were on

the education side and had more to do with loans and assistance from education.

No changes, to my knowledge, from information given to me by my officials, were

made in the social assistance portion of their subsidy.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister realize that this September, his department

provided a child care subsidy as part of the social assistance allotment to

single parents going to university and college who were there last year but

denied a child care subsidy to single parents on social assistance trying to

start a post-secondary education program? Does he realize that discrimination

took place?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I take the question as being

identical to the first one and I can only answer the same way, that we did not

make any changes in the amount of allowance and assistance to single mothers at

the university.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Culture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. HARRIS: It is easy to see that the Premier is away,

Mr. Speaker. I know the Minister of Tourism and Culture has been waiting

patiently for a question in the House, but I want to ask him what steps his

department has been taking to ensure the preservation of an historic building

with cultural heritage in St. John's East, Mr. Speaker? The King George V

Institute is a valuable part of our cultural heritage in Newfoundland, having

been the home of very many services throughout the years, both to seamen,

fishermen and to the public. Mr. Speaker, we understand that this building is

being abandoned by the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I don't want to hear from the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation. I want to hear from the Minister of Tourism

and Culture. Can he tell us what steps he has taken to ensure that this building

is preserved?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Culture.

MR. ROBERTS: Quit while you are ahead, Jim.

MR. WALSH: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the Member for St. John's

East for asking me my first question as Minister of Tourism and Culture. I have

been waiting patiently for three weeks, but he is at least going to let me end

the week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it under advisement.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, anyone who knows me knows that I

am forty-two years old and I have been waiting since I was fifteen for a

question like this. I have been waiting twenty-seven years and my first reaction

is to take it under advisement, but I won't.

To be a little serious, Mr. Speaker, it is Question Period -

MR. SPEAKER: I was wondering.

MR. WALSH: - and I don't want to take time from the

members of the Opposition. Let me say that the officials in my department are

having ongoing discussions with the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation. Although we are cognizant of the fact that this building is an

important part of the City of St. John's, we also realize that the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation is responsible for the building, and that we

are working with them to see if there is some means by which the building can be

preserved.

If it gets to the point where we are talking about massive

expenditures from our particular department, Tourism and Culture, we are not in

a position to do that. But I am working with my colleague to see how we can go

about preserving the building so that it can be there for future people and

future generations to see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister will know that one of the problems with that

building is that it has been neglected for the past ten or twelve years by the

very department he is now seeking to work with to preserve it, so he will have

to work extra hard.

I want to ask the minister a more general question about the

preservation of historic buildings. We lost one in the last year in St. John's.

One of the oldest examples of an Irish farmhouse in St. John's was lost. Does

the minister have a plan to ensure that certain buildings in this Province will

be protected from destruction? Does he have an overall plan, and can he tell us

what plans he has to make sure that we do not have to deal with these historic

resources on a case by case basis when it comes time to try to save them from

the wrecking ball?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I understand the

preamble in

terms of what can the department and what can the government do, but our hands

are somewhat tied in the sense that heritage zoning is a responsibility of the

City of St. John's. If the City of St. John's were themselves looking to make a

stand on this particular property, we would have to deal with it a little

differently. But if the City of St. John's is more than willing to see the

building disappear, then there is not a great deal that we can do in terms of

designating that particular property. In the City of St. John's, heritage and

heritage zoning of properties is their jurisdiction, and I don't feel that we

should have the right to interfere with their jurisdiction.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize

that there are ways that a central government can control and prevent the

destruction of cultural heritage? It is done in England, it is done in other

countries, and it certainly can be done here. It is not a zoning issue dealing

with the City of St. John's.

Will the minister not look into ways that the central

government, the Government of Newfoundland, can designate certain buildings as

being historic resources and prevent them from being destroyed?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Tourism and Culture is very concerned about

all of the historic properties within this Province, and we will do everything

we can to make sure they are protected. As a matter of fact, even this past

year, government were generous enough to give us additional funds in order to

keep the historic sites open during the buffer end of the tourism season. We

managed to keep the facilities open that much longer; and we are working

vigorously on trying to upgrade the facilities we are in charge of. However, I

don't believe that we are in a position to go in with a heavy hand and say to

the City of St. John's what they can or cannot do. Maybe one of the Tory

candidates down there, Mr. Stapleton, might be able to help us with this

particular issue, or maybe he will sit on the sidelines and let it die.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

direct a question to the Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

Last Thursday, the Minister of Finance indicated in his

Ministerial Statement that there would be a 1 per cent reduction in salary and 3

per cent in operation. Six days later, I asked the Minister of Education if any

instructions had been given to post-secondary institutions in this Province,

with reference to a reduction in expenditures, and he said he didn't know. I now

ask him, eight days later, if the minister knows what is happening in his

department? If he does, can he tell the House if they have been asked, first of

all, to reduce expenditures, and, if so, by how much?

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

MR. DECKER: Well, you talk about righteous indignation!

Here is a personification of righteous indignation if ever you saw it.

What the hon. member asked me six or seven days ago was not:

was there any discussions with the colleges. What he asked me was: did any

letters, and Hansard will verify it, did I send any letters out to the colleges

or did the department send any letters?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I personally had not sent any letters and

was not aware that the department had and I told the hon. member that I would

take it under advisement. Well, in due course I will report, but the answer, I

already checked it out - at the time that the hon. member asked the question, no

letters had been sent from the Department of Education to any of the educational

institutions asking them to make cutbacks in the vicinity of 1 per cent or 3 per

cent. That is not to say, that is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are not

ongoing discussions with the institutions saying: what if, Mr. Speaker, what if

we asked you for $500,000, what would you do if that were the case?

Institutions are telling us: if you say we want $100,000 we

would do this or that or this and we are saying: maybe you should do that but

not this and maybe a part of that and a part of this. It is an ongoing process,

Mr. Speaker, the details of which, the absolute, final details of which,

unfortunately will not be made known until the hon. Minister of Finance gets up

in this House and presents his financial statement in due course.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hansard indicates that I asked the Minister of Education this

question, and I quote Hansard -

AN HON. MEMBER: What date?

MR. SULLIVAN: The date is November 18, page 2407: "I

would like to ask the Minister of Education if instructions have been given to

school boards, community colleges and the University to reduce expenditures for

the balance of this fiscal year.", and that is the fact.

I will ask him to check his facts first of all, and since

that I now ask the minister, in light of the Ministerial Statement - not the

Budget, is not the question I am asking on, I am asking in light of the

financial statement, the Ministerial Statement, has the Minister of Education

asked school boards, the University and other post-secondary institutions, to

cut a certain number of dollars from their budget, or, is it his intention to

act unilaterally and make those cuts?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have a

re-enactment of Question Period of eight days ago, I will re-enact my answer.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say specifically that they have or have

not, however I would suggest that over the next little while the schools will

indeed be asked to come to grips with the expenses problems in view of the

fiscal statement, which my colleague, the Minister of Finance will address. So

if we want to re-enact Question Period, let us go back three years ago when we

were bombarding them about spending $23 million at Sprung. Let us re-enact that

Question Period, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question and my concern is about the present. What is the

minister going to do, how much has he asked these to cut if he has, or is the

Department of Education exempt from the Ministerial Statement last Thursday.

Could he tell this to the House, and furthermore, is it his intention to do more

contract stripping with the 2 per cent savings clause and severance pay in the

Teachers Collective Agreement? Has anything been done by his department to

initiate those 1 per cent and 3 per cent cuts respectively? I have not received

an answer, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to apologise about my

remarks about Question Period and Sprung, because as hon. members know, they

would not open the House of Assembly and we could not ask questions about Sprung

so you won't find that mentioned. Now, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: What have I done, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to continue with his answer, please.

Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker -

MR. ROBERTS: We are going to declare Len Simms a historic

site.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

That is all the Chair wants. The hon. the minister.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not know why

they continue to ask questions if they won't listen for the answers, Mr.

Speaker, it is beyond me. I am not used to questions being asked and people not

waiting for the answers. I remember when we were over there, Mr. Speaker, we

used to wait patiently for the answers which never came forward. It certainly is

a different world.

MR. WALSH: Hansard will show never any interruptions.

MR. DECKER: Now, Nr. Speaker, what the hon. member is

asking me to do is to tell him exactly what the hon. Minister of Finance is

going to say within a week's time or two weeks whenever he makes his statement.

I cannot pre-judge that. I can tell the hon. member and the people of this

Province that in view of the fact that we have an operational deficit of $150

odd million, that we are looking at everywhere that the Province spends money.

We are looking at the educational system, we are looking at the health system,

we are looking at Department of Works, Services and Transportation, Development

and Tourism, we are looking everywhere. We are working through a process and we

are talking to the people out there, the foremen, the school principals, the

superintendents, the school boards, the presidents of colleges. This

administration is known for the way it consults with the people of this

Province. We're asking: what if we took $100,000 there, what if we did that

there?

It is participatory democracy. That's what we're going

through. Hon. members are not used to it. They cannot relate to that kind of a

system. We're asking our people, the people out there, to give us suggestions on

what can be done. It is the kind of a government that I am proud and pleased to

be a part off, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I'd like to welcome to the

Speaker's Gallery today a former member of this House, Mr. Mel Woodward, a

former minister and former member for Labrador North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday or the day before the

hon. Member for Ferryland asked a question concerning income from CPP, which is

considered as income for student loans. The hon. member made the accusation that

we have changed the regulations so that as of now survivors' benefits are indeed

counted as income for students who go for loans.

Now the hon. member is partially correct. He's like the first

mate who wrote in the captain's log that the captain is sober today. It was the

truth. But the other 364 days the captain was also sober. That wasn't written.

So partial truths can be more deadly than outright lies.

CPP is a resource to students payable to students who are

enroled full-time in secondary education. This comes under survivors' benefits

to students who are full-time enroled in a post-secondary institution. If they

are not enroled they do not get this money. It comes specifically for

educational purposes.

Prior to September of 1992 for a dependent student who was

living with his parents, this was not taken into account as income. For the

independent student, on the other hand, this money was considered as income. So

there was a dichotomy there. For the dependent it was not considered, for the

independent it was.

The independent students brought this to the knowledge of the

Student Aid division, complained about discrimination, said: we are being

unfairly treated, it is not fair, this money is given for educational purposes,

we have to declare it, the dependent student does not have to declare it. The

student loans division quite rightly, recognising that this money would not be

received - remember that - would not be received unless the student is in a

post-secondary institution. Therefore the regulation was changed partially.

The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, made the claim that every other

province in Canada -

MR. SULLIVAN: Read Hansard!

MR. DECKER: - does this differently. As a matter of fact

he said he had phoned three provinces, and based on these three provinces he had

come to the assumption that all provinces were doing it differently.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Hansard.

MR. DECKER: That's what the hon. member says, Mr.

Speaker. I can't help if he wants to change his mind now. That's his business.

But I know what he said yesterday. The facts are that our sister provinces in

the Atlantic - PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick - all are consistent with exactly

the same thing as we are. That's the (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Fearmongering! Fearmongering!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question

concerning caseloads in my department, and I guess specifically at the time the

question dealt with caseloads in the child welfare area. So I'm pleased to table

for the House statistics going back some nine years, really, showing the number

of children who are in care and in their homes, and the number of children out

of home.

For the information of the House, the difference is that in

home service is defined as services provided to children and their families with

the children living in their natural environment. This would include home

visits, counselling, formal therapy and respite. Out of home service would be

defined by the removal of the child from its natural family environment for

placement in foster care where further service would be provided.

The House will note that the figures under children out of

home have been declining. Children at home, those figures have been increasing,

because we are, wherever possible, having children stay in their home

environment where care can be provided in the family setting, rather than taking

children out of home, and that is the preferable way of treating children who

need our services and our counselling.

I have also provided for the House, the social assistance

figures, cases and recipients, going back some nine years, showing the cases. A

case can be anywhere from one person to five or six people, depending on the

size of the family, so I have shown the cases and the recipients.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just to tell the House what we have done

recently, and really the history of dealing with the problem of caseloads, as of

November 19 there are 120 frontline staff working in the area of child welfare,

and 157 frontline staff working in the area of social assistance, for a total of

277 frontline staff.

In March of 1990 the department hired 50 social workers to

work specifically in the area of child welfare - were hired for that purpose. In

addition, we have recently moved eight positions from Confederation Building to

the front lines. Six of these were clerical, and two were made into financial

assistance officers. We are also reallocating eight positions from the

developmental group home closure, a home we recently closed, to district offices

as four -

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

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

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister is on Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given. He was asked to table reports in the

House, and he said he would. He is up now giving what is really a Ministerial

Statement, and should have been given as such so there could have been an

opportunity to respond to it.

If he has caseload analysis studies that were done in October

to table, which he was asked, he should table them and not make what is really a

Ministerial Statement.

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

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, let me

say simply that the minister took it as notice, as my hon. friend agrees. It is

up to the minister how he delivers the answer. The hon. member has no right to

determine the form in which the minister answers, any more than he has no right

to determine the substance of the answer itself.

The hon. gentleman's right is the one he has exercised, to

ask the question. The hon. minister is entitled to take it as notice and to

answer it in an appropriate form, which is what he is doing, Sir.

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

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

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader

should stick to his storybook instead of getting up and making those kinds of

statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Speak to the point of order, please.

MR. TOBIN: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that under Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given, is not supposed to go into a six

minute speech by the minister involved.

There was a request for an answer. The request was, if the

report would be tabled in this Legislature - if the minister would table the

report?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Unfortunately the minister has decided to make

a speech. I ask Your Honour to call him to order, have him table the document

that he is now reading, and get on with the business of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As the Chair has said many times in the past, the precedent

in this House with respect to Answers to Questions for which Notice has been

Given has been that ministers will stand and give answers. Some of them have

been very, very long, but this Chair has said that answers should be very, very

brief. Ministers should not take advantage of the situation and prolong the

answers, for the sake of expediting matters in the House. So I have asked

ministers please - and I do believe that the minister was becoming rather

lengthy. He has documents to table, and custom has been to just give a prcis, a

few remarks about the tabling, and then proceed to do so.

Members should remember that Answers to Questions generally

follow the same rules as Question Period, and a minister or anyone else should

not stay up for unlimited time to make long speeches.

I ask the minister, please, to clue up.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, obviously they do not want the

answers, and they do not want the details.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister, please, to proceed with

the answer.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I will sum up in about one

minute, I would say.

To continue, we are reallocating eight positions from a

developmental group home closure, to the district offices. Four of those are

behavioral management specialists, three child management specialists and one

social worker. We have also moved five staff, three social workers, from our

regional office, to help support the district offices in the St. John's area.

The total, Mr. Speaker, is twenty-one positions that we have moved to the front

lines, nineteen of which went to St. John's. As I have said in the House

previously, the three St. John's offices have the most serious caseloads where

they are up some 100 per cent over the last three years. Because of that, the

immediate changes we have made have been focusing on those offices.

I might say, in a final comment to the House, Mr. Speaker,

that the realignment of our district and regional offices throughout the

Province, all fifty-two district offices and five regional offices, that

realignment is ongoing and continuing. We will continue to move people from

positions other than the district offices, other than the front lines. We will

continue to move people into the district offices to assist our financial

assistance officers and our social workers with the caseloads they have to deal

with.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: I take it that perhaps the minister is

finished now. I was going to raise the same point of order that I raised before.

The minister was not listening to the orders of Your Honour in cluing up his

statement and tabling any reports if he had them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, may we resume, I guess, the

conclusion of the Second Reading debate on Bill 48, which is still Order No. 20,

Sir.

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

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister of

Social Services is going to table the report.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Okay.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I adjourned the debate yesterday, in looking at moving

second reading of this bill, Bill 48, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation

Act," I had dealt briefly with the issue of the number of people working in the

Province - that point that had been raised - now versus a couple of years ago. I

had dealt with the issue of the annuity and the changes that are spelled out in

this piece of legislation and how that will affect the people as of January 1.

There were some five or six other points that I had made note of in the

representations made by hon. members during their speeches both on the second

reading and in the various amendments that were proposed, one out of order and

one that was debated for some time. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I should take a

little time this morning to address three or four of these issues before I do

move second reading of the bill.

One of the other issues raised yesterday by the hon. Member

for Menihek, that he asked for some further clarification of, was the rationale

as to why we felt it was important to deal with the issue of top ups. I think

all hon. members have expressed an interest in that on occasion. The point has

been raised by an number of speakers that the top up itself, the provision of

top up, is not a direct cost to the commission and that the motivation for many

of these changes was to try to rescue the commission from the precipice of

bankruptcy. If that was the case, why would we deal with an issue like top up

which is a cost to the employer, not to the monies of the commission itself?

To answer that question and give the rationale one more time,

because I did go through that briefly in my introduction, Mr. Speaker, we have

to go back again to the establishment of an injury fund in workers'

compensation, the basis on which it was put in place and how it has now changed,

and the fact that these changes are needed to bring it back to what it was

intended to do.

A couple of things did happen. I mentioned that in the early

1950s we had workers' compensation established in our Province and it has been

here ever since. It was not until the 1970s that, in collective agreements,

there started to appear certain provisions that would say: while I receive a

certain benefit to compensate for my injury from the commission, because certain

employee groups had gone to the bargaining table and could not get the levels of

compensation for salary and so on from government and other employers that they

sought, they were successful in putting in place top-up provisions whereby the

employer would say: We can't give a raise to your total work force, but for

those who are unfortunately injured and are at a certain level of benefit, while

injured we will pay the difference to bring that up to the amount they would

have earned if they were injured.

There was one very serious oversight in that, particularly

when it got into the mid-eighties, where this became a prevalent feature, after

the change from the loss of limb type of policy and philosophy to a wage

replacement, an earnings loss system which has been in place now for seven

years.

The thought at the time, when it was moved from 75 per cent

of gross to 90 per cent of net as a salary wage replacement, an earnings loss

system, the reason that the 90 per cent figure was chosen, was because it was

felt and agreed by everybody involved that that was the equivalent of no loss to

an injured worker. Ninety per cent of net. It was recognised by everybody that

that was as much benefit to them as 100 per cent when they were working. Because

while they had sustained an unfortunate injury they were now at home recovering

or undergoing medical treatment and they didn't have the ordinary expenses

associated with working, with employment.

Everybody understands that concept. It's understood now, it

was fully understood at that time, that there are certain expenses related to

employment. As a matter of fact it was so well understood in the country and in

the Province that it was eligible for an income tax deduction up to about three

years ago. That you were allowed to deduct a certain amount of money because

everybody recognised you had expenses just to get back and forth to work. You

had to pay your transportation, you probably had to buy lunches. You might have

had to buy uniforms or clothes and those types of things. If you were home

injured you didn't incur those expenses. So that's why the 90 per cent figure

was chosen.

This is the first time it's really been reviewed since then.

So everybody in this compensation system which is an insurance system, trying to

make sure that an injured worker is not disadvantaged, agreed that a 90 per cent

level was no disadvantage. That at 90 per cent you were losing nothing. You were

just as well off as if you were working and getting 100 per cent. So that's why

the level was established as it was.

We checked as well with the people who were bargaining at the

time. They were saying: this was not a preferred thing that the people even came

in looking for, was this top up. Because the representatives of the workers had

agreed that 90 per cent was no loss. By being home you had saved probably 10 per

cent or so anyway, or that your expenses were reduced, and financially you were

just as well off as if you were working. There was always the consideration that

with the tax reimbursement you could get some money back later on. You'd have to

wait until you filed a tax claim. You might actually in that first few weeks or

months of an injury, after you claimed your tax, even access more money than if

you were working. But that's only true in the first few months, and that's what

reflected in our Bill as well.

Because the bargainers could not get the level of increases

that they wanted one of the things that was added on in these last-minute

settlements was to say: we can't give you 7 per cent, we might be able to give

you 4 percent - because those were the kinds of increases that were going on at

the time - but what we'll do, because it'll make it easier for you to sell it to

your membership when you go back, is we'll top up these injured people. We'll

give them another 10 per cent. Because the employers were looking at it and

saying: it's very little cost to us. We have a small percentage of our workers

injured. That's not going to break the bank for me as an employer.

What it did, and what people didn't recognise, is that it

destroyed the whole insurance concept behind workers' compensation. Because now

you put an irritant into the system that destroyed one of the principles on

which it was built. I put that in context with one of the others. We've also

asked the Commission - it's not in this Bill - but we've also asked the

Commission to do a study of entitlement. What are the basic

definitions under

which you can be declared compensable anyway? Because that definition has

broadened very greatly since the 'fifties, and it has added great expense to the

system. This also has put in place a wrinkle, Mr. Speaker, whereby injured

workers in any number of categories, at all different salary and wage levels,

could in fact be home with a 90 per cent benefit from Workers' Compensation, a

top up from their employer, and a tax rebate, in receipt of monies that could

equate as high as 126 per cent of what they were receiving if they were working.

Nobody ever envisaged that as a possibility.

The other point as well relating to that, Mr. Speaker, at the

time, was that it all happened at the point in history when the ceiling for

compensation was being raised from a maximum of $21,000 back around the same

time of the Ocean Ranger disaster, to a ceiling of $45,500. At a point in time

in history had this Province with the highest compensable level in the country,

so a number of complications entered the system that destroyed some of the basic

underpinnings and basic principles under which the system was established in the

first place, and people now recognize clearly, that with a benefit received from

compensation to compensate for your injury and with a top up that the whole

notion that a person would not be disadvantaged, has gotten destroyed and

twisted to the point that at least in the early stages the person clearly can be

advantaged.

The other thing that people do not like to talk about a lot

but was clear in the whole system of any insurance policy and this is what

workers' compensation is, it is a broadly based protection insurance policy to

provide a benefit for injured workers, to compensate them for lost salary and

wages. In any of these systems, in normal everyday type of insurance principles,

the highest types of levels that you can usually purchase are in the range of 65

to 70 to maybe a maximum of 75 per cent, and everybody understands that you

cannot get any more than that, and if you get money from other sources, they are

deducted and clawed back. It is a normal feature of insurance policies, and that

was always intended to be a normal feature of the workers' compensation system

and the top up system destroyed that completely.

There is always in these as well, indicated that while people

should not be at a disadvantage, there certainly should be no disincentive for

them to return to work, and it has been clear that if somebody can be in a

position where they can access more money while injured than while working, that

can only be described as a disincentive to return to work and the whole notion

that the top up has to be eliminated is based on that type of rationale.

We want to bring this system back to what it was designed to

be in the early 50s, so that it will provide basic, fundamental compensation at

a level that will not unduly disadvantage the injured worker for the foreseeable

future, rather than have a system that is about to collapse because people have

put other items tagged on to the system that have destroyed the basic principles

on which it was established and make the system now almost totally

unrecognizable from what it was intended to be and almost totally unable to

continue functioning and almost ready for collapse.

One other item as well, Mr. Speaker, that I did want to deal

with for the record: The hon. Member for Humber East in her representation and

her comments on the Bill, spent a fair bit of time dealing with the case of

injured nurses and made a couple of comments that I would like to deal with for

a couple of minutes before I move second reading.

One comment that I did not challenge at the time but I felt I

must at this point in time because the record needs to be clear. One comment

that the hon. Member for Humber East presented to the House as if it was fact,

is that the number of injuries in the health care sector and for nurses in

particular have skyrocketed, have absolutely skyrocketed and she said that as if

it were true, and presented it as if this was an unquestionable fact.

I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, for the record, that the

latest statistics on lost time accidents and the comparisons for the last three

years indicate this; and this is in the area where we have heard from the health

care sector and from nurses in particular, their difficulties are with sprains

and strains, that is the most common type of injury. With sprains and strains in

this calendar year up to the latest statistics recorded to the end of July, for

the first seven months, 2,661 injuries reported. For the same seven-month period

last year, 1991, 3,470; it is reduced by over 800 in one year. The previous

year, 1990, 3,588 a reduction of a further 100, so rather than being on the rise

and being rampant and everybody being out there injured and falling down

willy-nilly every time they go to work as you would think was true, from the

representation from the hon. member opposite, the exact reverse and opposite of

that is true.

We have had in place a Back Injury Prevention Program

targeted at the health care sector in the hospitals. It is working. They have

been paying particular attention to strains and sprains with people attended in

the health care system, particularly nurses. The numbers are steadily and surely

declining because everybody has recognized it as a problem area. In the three

years now, since 1990, it has gone from 3,588 down to 3,470 and further declined

this year down to 2,661, the exact opposite of what the hon. member opposite

would have everybody believe. If the record wasn't corrected, then Hansard, as

the record of this House, would have everybody believe that the number of

injuries are going through the ceiling. They are not going through the ceiling,

Mr. Speaker. There are special programs in place to deal with sprains and

strains, particularly in the health care sector, and there have been dramatic

decreases in each of the last couple of years.

Ever since 1990 when the review was first done and it was

brought to our attention, the Back Injury Prevention Program has been in place.

It didn't need to wait for a bill and legislation. We enacted it immediately. It

is in place, it is working, and the numbers verify that, completely opposite to

what the hon. member would have you believe.

The same types of things are true when you look at the other

injuries recorded, to arm, wrist, hand, fingers, thumb and upper extremities. In

every category the comparisons over the last three years, in injuries that are

very common in the health care sector, have shown a steady decline because

people in the health care sector had it pointed out to them two-and-a-half years

ago, in the review, that there was a problem. They focused on it and everybody

paid attention to it. Management and the workers and unions together decided

they would address it, and have done a very good job of bringing the thing down

on an increasing basis. Their goal objective is to look for further decreases in

the years to come.

One other item, Mr. Speaker, that I will deal with before I

move second reading - and other individual ones we can look at in committee -

the Opposition critic, the hon. Member for Fogo, indicated that I had given some

impression in my opening remarks that this was a new phenomenon and the

experience of the last two years was what was really causing this. He obviously

totally misunderstood what I had indicated. What happened in the last two years

or the last three years was that the board of the commission disclosed the real

state of the finances of the commission, rather than omitting it from financial

statements. In fact, for the last decade the commission has been in a position

where they have not been able to put enough money into the investment fund to

pay for future costs of injuries that have already occurred. The unfunded

liability has been growing regularly for a decade. It is only because the board

that was put in place by this administration exposed that to the whole world,

that we became aware of it, generally, as politicians and as the public of the

Province.

He also made the point, Mr. Speaker, that we had done our

calculations based on an average income of $25,000 and that we were ignoring and

didn't understand the impact on lower incomes. If the hon. member had looked at

the statement that was released on July 2, the exact opposite of that again was

true, which I will point out, just for the record, before I move second reading,

Mr. Speaker. The assessments that were done by the actuaries on our behalf

indicated that with all of the assumptions at all wage and earnings levels, with

the tax implications taken into account, regardless of the level of earnings

from minimum wage up to anybody at the senior, executive levels in the Province,

our system puts in place a new benefit structure that, with tax benefits taken

into consideration, will make sure that nobody receives any less than 81 per

cent of what they would have been receiving if they worked.

So it is the fairest system in the world because it doesn't

matter if you are making minimum wage or the highest salary in the Province, if

you access the compensation system you will be maintained at what is the

equivalent of roughly an 80 per cent benefit level which is what the actuaries

have indicated to us is sustainable for the long term.

In moving second reading, Mr. Speaker, I point out that the

changes that are here are clearly designed and will go a long way, and are

recognized to go a long way, toward making sure that we have a viable,

sustainable, compensation system, to make sure that injured workers in the

Province are not disadvantaged and not left without benefit in the years to

come.

So it is a pleasure for me, at this point, to move second

reading of the bill. Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 48).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we will proceed with Order 7,

Bill No. 20. I had hoped to do Order 9, Bill No. 30, but the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs is absent for a moment or two. Maybe we can

pick up. I am not sure how long we will need to debate that. That is the Waste

Material Disposal Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) done.

MR. ROBERTS: No, it has not been finished.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend from Harbour Main, we

began the debate but we had not concluded the debate. There may be other hon.

members who wish to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 20.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Waste Disposal Act - I had better check with the Table to

make sure I did not speak on this. I am not sure.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, you did not speak.

MR. DOYLE: I spoke on it, and Jack spoke on it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I will keep going anyway. If I did speak,

I will withdraw everything I say again anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a few words. I was not

expecting this legislation so quickly today, because the minister is certainly

on public business, I am sure. I still have seven minutes left? I thought I had

a few words on this before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I did not know then, but I am sure

that I had a few comments on our dump in Long Harbour. No doubt that was the

basis of my comments. If I had my own copy of the act, I guess there would be

notes on it.

Mr. Speaker, I am not ducking out here. I am just trying to

find my act.

I want to have a few words on this act here.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you doing with my twenty?

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have yours, but I need mine for my own

notes. It is gone. I have a copy of it, but it is not my copy.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a few words on this act,

just to go over and sum up what I did say before. I remember speaking to the

minister, and noting to her that this act, although it will raise fines from

$2,000 to $500,000 - the fines are not the problem in this Province. The problem

in this Province in enforcing the regulations that we already have, such as

regulations for Come By Chance.

I heard this year, and it is too bad the Member for Bellevue

is not here because I would like to know what the Member for Bellevue feels

about this. I heard a Mayor of either Come By Chance or Sunnyside this summer -

MR. DOYLE: Sunnyside.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Mayor of Sunnyside this summer, was

very concerned about the people in his district becoming sick. There seemed to

be quite a few extra illnesses in that area this summer, so he was wondering

about the emissions from the Come By Chance oil refinery. 'I wonder could this

be causing it?' is what the gentleman said on the radio. 'Is this what is

causing the extra sickness in Sunnyside this year - the emissions?' So what he

did was try to get in touch with our Department of Environment and Lands, and

ask the department what checks they are doing on the emissions in Come By

Chance. 'Can they tell me,' is what the gentleman said, 'if the emissions coming

from Come By Chance are at acceptable levels and will the Minister of

Environment and Lands have those emissions checked, or is the minister having

them checked periodically?'

The answer he got back from our Minister of Environment in

Newfoundland, the Department that is - I can't read that yet till I sit down,

Mr. Speaker. Our Minister of Environment who should be looking after the

environment and checking these emissions, said: everything is alright at Come By

Chance, and do you know how I know?

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Because the company is doing the checks

and they told me that it's okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) strawberry fields.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now that is actually ridiculous, Mr.

Speaker. There were no emissions on the strawberry fields because they're too

far away. Had there been I'd have been quite concerned. Because people do grow

food in the Come By Chance area. There are small gardens in the Come By Chance

area. There's no way to know what affect the emissions have, if they are above

acceptable levels. But we don't know for sure. Because the Minister of

Environment said that things are okay because the company told her so. What were

they going to tell her? What was the company at Come By Chance - which was in

deep trouble financially at the time, they couldn't pay their employees their

cheques a couple of times, they had to delay paying their employees. Our

Minister of Environment for Newfoundland said: everything is okay in Come By

Chance because the company told me so.

Yes, there is a song that says: I hope there is a chance in

Come By Chance. But, Mr. Speaker, with our Minister of Environment it should

mean there will be no chance in Come By Chance.

I would say from the financial difficulties that the company

did have, and from the discussions I had with some of the people working out

there, they said they were sitting on a time bomb. There was no money going into

maintenance at the time, zero money going into maintenance. There were

difficulties out there. They were trying to keep things patched up and get as

much put through as they could so they could get some cash turnover. I would say

that the emissions coming from Come By Chance last summer were probably well

beyond the standards set.

We'll never know, because our Minister of Environment -

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

The Chair reluctantly interrupts at this point in time. In

the past the Chair has indicated to members the undesirability of meetings

within the House. We have several meetings going on within the House. The noise

is getting intolerably high. I would ask hon. members please in the future to

conduct their meetings outside the House. Otherwise this is going to lower the

decorum here in the House. I find it difficult hearing the hon. member, and he

must be finding it difficult to speak. So if hon. members would do everybody the

courtesy. If we're having meetings, let's have them outside.

Another procedure that we often do in the House is if you

want to carry on a low conversation with a member is to slip into the seat where

the member is and we don't nearly have to talk as high as we do when we're

standing and conducting a meeting from three or four feet away.

I'd ask hon. members to cooperate, please.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It

could also be that nobody is interested in what I'm saying too, that's why the

noise level, and that's probably the reason. I appreciate it, because if people

opposite there are interested or not, it is important to know what happened this

year in the Come By Chance area.

On the other side of the enforcement issue, we had an issue

in the Goulds, in my district there, a couple of years ago. Where a construction

company went in and changed the river because it was going through a

subdivision. A good friend of mine actually and a very hard worker, a good

employer in this Province, who improved a flood plain area in the Goulds. He

went to federal fisheries and got his permits, he went to the City Council at

the time and got his permits, he asked the Environment to come in and inspect

it, but they couldn't get there. They wouldn't come in and inspect it because

they were too busy. So he did the work anyway.

He improved that area. If fish habitat is the problem there

will be more fish in that river now because there's less silt going to get into

the river because of the flooding of the general area. It will be better for the

fish of the area. More importantly in my mind, much more importantly, it's

better for the people who live in the area whose houses and properties are not

being flooded. Yet, we have that person fined in court because he improved the

river in the Goulds in that subdivision, and we have Come By Chance not even

being checked.

Now, there is something wrong with the system in this

Province, something drastically wrong, when a small contractor can make an

improvement in an area that the people of the area, the town council of the

area, and federal Fisheries agreed with, yet our Department of Environment laid

charges and our Department of Justice prosecuted, and the gentleman was fined

$1,500.

Now, if that happened today, I wonder would his fine be

half-a-million dollars? Would they want to put him out of business for improving

the area? Yet, we have a company like that in Come By Chance - that is the only

example I know of right now. But what is even more frightening is that we are,

quite probably, if this government gets its way, going to have in Long Harbour a

dump for importing garbage from other parts of the world. And the company

running that dump, responsible for bringing in that waste material and having it

incinerated in this Province, will be checking their own emissions. They will be

checking the ash that comes out of it and the disposal of the ash, according to

what is happening in Come By Chance. Because they are a big company and, for

whatever reason I don't know, the Department of Environment will let them go,

the same as they do in Come By Chance.

Now, I don't know what is going to come out of that

incinerator. I don't know what will go into that incinerator, which is the most

important thing, I guess.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: By leave to finish?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Just a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker. I

just want to make the comparison between what is happening in this Province with

the larger companies, Come By Chance, in particular, the potential for a dump in

Long Harbour and what is happening to small contractors who are being hassled

quite a bit for changing drains or flood areas, while the large companies that

are creating very serious problems are not being dealt with - and, Mr. Speaker,

that includes Newfoundland Hydro and the facility at Holyrood. Thank you very

much.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I understand, no other members

wish to speak. The minister is in Gander. She is on Her Majesty's business, as

one might expect. She is attending the official opening of the Women in

Successful Employment program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman from Fogo, I would think,

would be an object lesson at the official opening of a program for women in

successful employment - but, in any event, that is where the minister is,

attending her official duties. So, I know the House will understand why she is

not here.

I shall say, simply, in closing the debate on her behalf,

Sir, that I will make sure the Hansard record of my hon. friend from Kilbride's

eloquent remarks are - once he found his notes they were really quite eloquent;

a bit of a delay getting under way, but once he clicked in, we got some points

that need to be addressed. I will make sure the minister is aware of them, Mr.

Speaker, and ask that she address them in the Committee stage, where the debate,

of course, can carry on in due course.

I move second reading of the bill, Sir.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material

Disposal Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 20)

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

Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs has resumed his seat and unfastened his seat

belt, so perhaps we could call Order No. 9, Bill No. 30, "An Act To Amend The

Municipal Grants Act."

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Municipal Grants Act". (Bill No. 30)

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, with the tolerance of my

colleagues, I will be referring to briefing notes because of the formulas and

everything that we have to refer to in this. I have already discussed with the

critic opposite that I will supply him with a copy of the briefing notes, as has

already been discussed with the member opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In recent times, particularly here in this House and in the

press, we have heard many an erroneous statement concerning the government's

municipal grants and subsidy systems. For the benefit of all members I would

like to provide the House with information that would, I feel, clear up any

misunderstanding about the program - what it is, why it was introduced, and what

it is designed to achieve.

In 1991, government introduced a new municipal grants and

subsidy program which I think was one of the better undertakings of this

government in dealing with the municipalities, in that it was designed to attack

two problems - municipal operating grants, and water and sewer subsidies. In so

doing, the thrust of the undertaking was to provide the smaller municipalities

with more benefits, I guess is the best way to describe it, than the larger

municipalities. Those who had more resources would have to spread the wealth and

assist those with lesser resources.

At that time I think it was clearly stated by the minister,

funds payable for operating grants under the new system would be significantly

less than the total paid under the old system. To help alleviate any hardships

these reductions would impose on certain municipalities, we took the position to

phase in the new system over a three year period. This phase in mechanism is

designed to alleviate any adverse impact on the municipalities.

At the time of the introduction, we strongly emphasized that

any municipality which received an annual reduction of greater than 10 per cent

could apply to government for special consideration, and that we would, where

they demonstrated the need, in some way alleviate the burden, either through

spreading out the payback or the discount, or in providing an outright grant.

During this three year period the total grants are being

reduced from the original $48 million, paid in 1990, to $46 million in 1991, $44

million in 1992, and $41 million in 1993. For example, if a council received

$100,000 in 1990, and was otherwise due to receive $70,000 in 1993, under the

new system, the phase in grants would have been $90,000 in 1991, $80,000 in

1992, and $70,000 in 1993.

We went to great lengths to explain at the time that this

would result in increases in some grants for some councils, and decreases for

others, over the 1990 amounts. Councils were advised that these additional

reductions in 1992 and 1993, were important to keep in mind in preparing annual

budgets for these years.

As indicated to my colleague from Fogo yesterday when he

asked that question, this is what I am advising councils to do now -

notwithstanding any anticipated changes which might come because of new

restraints or new introductions. The councils can only operate on the

information that they have now, and if they do so, I can assure you that this

government, this side of the House, will take that into understanding, as they

did in the introduction of the original program.

It is only trying to deal with these municipalities in

fairness, and taking into consideration the burdens which are placed on them.

They have never yet been turned away, I do not think, by this government or even

by our predecessors, although they were treated very badly by them.

The current difficulties experienced by councils regarding

adjustments to municipal grants part way through their financial year was

unavoidable, due to necessary changes in two major factors for determining grant

entitlement - namely the number of households, and local revenue generated in

the prior financial year.

This adjustment, Mr. Speaker, has to be carried out in the

current year and was always there. However, because of the particular formulas

that are used in the new system, and as indicated, total amount of the grants to

be paid is capped. Further, not only are they capped but the total level of

grants are being reduced over the three year period from $48 million and some

odd dollars to $41 million in 1993. The total impact on municipalities in 1992

as a result of these adjustments resulted in 123 municipalities receiving

increases totalling $1.5 million and 171 municipalities receiving reductions

totalling $1.2 million. I'll have more explicit figures and detailed figures for

the member opposite when he gets a copy of the briefing notes.

To alleviate any hardships experienced by municipalities, as

I said before, as a result of the implementation of this system government has

provided in this budgetary year an additional $700,000 in operating grant

funding. This initiative, taken by my predecessor, the hon. the Minister of

Social Services now, is designed especially to accomplish four main objectives.

Number one: to allow government to properly control the

amount of grant funding paid to municipalities in any particular year. Under the

present system the program is reactive and it does not allow government to

pre-determine the amount of funding it will forward to allocate for municipal

purposes. The new formula starts from a base sum of dollars which can be

approved in total by government and then is allocated according to a set formula

to the municipalities.

The second part was to allow government to redistribute fund

granting and the payments on the debt servicing for water and sewer projects on

a more equitable basis. The existing system was most inequitable in this regard,

and monies paid through the grant structure were paid on a formula basis, having

no regard for equalization or need. Payment on debt servicing was based on

repayment according to the council's fixed revenue, having no regard for the

size of the debt itself or the ability of the town to pay its share of that

burden.

The third reason was to ensure that all residents of

incorporated communities make a fair and reasonable contribution toward the cost

of their municipal services, and to encourage fiscal responsibility throughout

our municipalities.

The new system, for the sake of being accused of repetition,

but it needs to be gone through so that people can understand it better, has

four main components. There is the equalization component, determined as

follows. Municipalities which impose property tax: this component will be paid

to councils which have lower than average property values. For example, if an

average property value in a municipality is $30,000, and the average for the

Province is $50,000, this means that property values in that municipality are 60

per cent of the provincial average. It is therefore short of the provincial

average by 40 per cent. The council then is given a grant of 40 per cent of its

property tax revenue to help compensate for the lower taxing capacity. Bringing

it up. For municipalities which do impose the property tax this component will

be paid at the rate of forty dollars for each household.

A local revenue incentive component is also there, payable as

a certain amount for each household, based on local revenues per household in

the municipality. It's calculated as follows. From zero to fifty local revenues,

there's zero grant. Nothing at all. From 251 to 500 local revenues, there's a 15

per cent grant per household. From 500 on to 750 there's a 25 per cent; 750 to

1,000, there's a 40 per cent; and maximum grant per household is $200. Again

using an example, Mr. Speaker, if a council has local revenues of $150,000 and

170 households, the average revenue per household is $882. Council will receive

zero dollars in a grant for the first $250, fifteen for the next $250, and so

on, as I've stated. In the end this would be a grant of $26,010 at a rate of 170

times $153.

Local revenues then are defined as the total amount of

revenues derived from property tax, water and sewer tax, poll tax, business tax,

grants in lieu of tax and tax grants. A household component which is calculated

at the rate of $85 for each household in the municipality. A household means and

is defined as a separate set of living quarters with private entrance either

from outside or from a common hall, lobby, vestibule, stairway or inside the

building, very simply so that entrance to the dwelling must be one which can be

used without passing through the living quarters of another.

A Roads component, as my friend across from me says: here

lies the problem. Consisting of the balance of funds remaining from the total

MOG and payable to the individual councils at a certain amount for each

kilometre of the road in the municipality. Again using the example, in 1992 the

total equalization component was $3.9 million. The local revenue was $21 million

and the households component was thirteen for a total of $39 million. When this

total is subtracted from the overall total fund of $41 million, the balance

remaining is $1.9 million and this amount is available for the roads component.

The $1.9 million amount is divided by the total road kilometres of 3,913

kilometres which represents the total in all municipalities for a grant of

$493.84 for each kilometre of road.

Our analysis, pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: $493.84 per kilometre.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Down from 2,000 is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: 2,000 from the old (inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Yes, but the others have increased not as

dramatically as the decrease, but they have increased for the smaller

municipalities. Our analysis identified the following inequities in the old

system -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Under the old system, government could not

control the total amount they paid out each year. When the tax incentive grant

was introduced in 1980, the annual amount paid was $10.8 million and this has

risen to $32 million in 1990. No. 2, the population component of the general

municipal grant. This proportionately provided the greatest benefit to

municipalities with the greatest population having no regard for the financial

needs of the municipality and the social assistance component of the grant,

duplicated social services policy which pays municipal taxes on behalf of its

recipients. There is duplication here, Mr. Speaker, which I guess was realized

in latter years of the previous administration and they were also withdrawing

from it at that particular time because what was happening was, the local social

services office was paying the taxes and the government was in turn also paying

out straight from the government's revenues.

A considerable number of municipalities were receiving both

large tax incentive grants and significant water and sewer subsidies. Others,

with the above average fiscal capacity received more than their fair share of

grants and subsidies. These grants and subsidies did not take into account the

fiscal ability or lack of resource within the municipality to raise local

revenues. In all cases, Mr. Speaker, where there was an indication in many

municipalities that the reduction would have a serious and detrimental effect on

their ability to meet normal operating costs, their situation was thoroughly

reviewed by the officials of the department and where justified, as I said

earlier, special grants were provided.

I can assure the House and my colleagues that as clearly

experienced and as I have outlined today, the government has provided additional

funding to alleviate any hardship. The municipalities in the district for

example represented by my friend for Ferryland, I am sorry he is not in the

House to hear it, but I will just give you a few examples and I will table these

two. My friend for Ferryland is not here so I'll table them so then he can get a

copy from the Table. The municipalities of which he spoke were all visited, Mr.

Speaker, and this document will show the dates on which they were visited and

what their financial position was at the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Oh yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: This documentation will show otherwise. For

example, I'll read one into the record for my hon. friend. A review of Renews -

Cappahayden: a review of this community's financial situation completed in

October 1992. The MOG was reduced to 73 per cent of what it was in the previous

year, and in spite of this a balanced budget was submitted by the council, the

difference being $7,000. As the record that I have here says: this council is in

stable financial condition in operations for 1991 and produced a surplus, Mr.

Speaker, of $29,000. That's from their audited statements. Unlike - my friends

are saying that they just checked their bank balance. By all appearances from

the examinations and visit on that particular day and during that visit -

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll probably help us out.

MR. HOGAN: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Probably help us out.

MR. HOGAN: Probably can help us out, as my colleague

says.

There will be little significant change in the surplus status

in 1992. There's also a little long-term debt in that community for water and

sewer charges which are a 100 per cent council responsibility, which are being

fully paid for council this year. Council's bank balance at the end of September

was $16,478. This should allow for an adequate cash flow to sustain operations

to year end without any additional help by government. By all appearances the

community of Renews - Cappahayden is in a reasonable financial state, and

council will be advised that no special assistance will be forthcoming. So it's

a matter of documentation, Mr. Speaker, which I'll be delighted to table.

MR. DOYLE: Can I have a loan of your notes (Inaudible)?

MR. HOGAN: Yes, my son, you can have whatever you want.

Ask me. I'm looking for a paper clip to clip it together for 'stunnedhead.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Norm, you've been called some weird things in

your day (Inaudible). You asked for it.

MR. HOGAN: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: No, you can table that, that's being tabled.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Table that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't give him the Cabinet table.

MR. HOGAN: I'll give him whatever he wants.

MR. DOYLE: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Could I have the Page deliver this to the hon.

Member for Fogo?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, before I take my seat I would

also like to refer to Hansard of November 2, 1992, where my hon. friend, the

Member for Ferryland says, and I'm going to read it out: "I am very impressed by

the hon. Minister of Employment and Labour Relations in his sincerity." I don't

know why he would do that, but he did it. "I do not echo the same sentiments for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs." I can't understand why he

would say that at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring Charlie back.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'd figure you were the best one in here.

MR. HOGAN: That's right, I am. I don't know as much about

fishing gear and buying some stamps now as my friend for Ferryland does, but....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HOGAN: Anyway, he said - I'm not into the fishing

gear: "His department official informed the mayor of one of the towns in my

district that they would not receive funding because they voted heavily PC. He

told the town manager in another that they had a poor chance of getting a

project under recreation; and told the chairperson of a recreation commission in

another - actually that was the same minister who came to the district on June

22 and spoke with the mayor, and invited the recreation commission to a rally in

the district, and was assured by the candidate they would receive funding." That

is poppycock, Mr. Speaker, out-and-out lies.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the truth, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOGAN: I have searched the Southern Shore and I can't

find them. I don't know as much about the Southern Shore as my hon. friend, but

I know enough to speak to them up there. I spoke to the people in the department

and I can't find a department official over there who would relay such

information or would try to.

Those, Mr. Speaker, are the facts and figures that I can

provide, but I will have more information on this particular program any time

that the hon. members would like to have it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suppose the first thing I have to say is the introduction

of this bill is a bit late, since it is to authorize payments or give effect to

a new system for grants that came into effect January 1, 1991. So I guess we

will have to first say that this is retroactive legislation since it is already

nearly two years old.

Mr. Speaker, when the former minister started in 1989, and

during 1990, talking about this new grant structure that was going to replace

the existing one, and how it was going to improve life for those of us who lived

in rural Newfoundland, we thought there was a glimmer of hope that someone

finally understood what was going on in rural Newfoundland. Well, Mr. Speaker,

we were in for a major disappointment because the former minister - and I have

to be critical of him - in his implementation of this grant system did more to

harm councils in rural Newfoundland than any other single piece of legislation

that we have ever had. Mr. Speaker, it did not do what it was intended to do.

The minister, by his own admission this morning, said that

the amount given has been reduced from $48 million to $41 million. Mr. Speaker,

what he didn't say is how much municipalities have had their debt retirement

increased as well. This is a two-pronged attack: One, we are lowering the amount

of money that is available; and two, we are increasing the amount that

municipalities have to pay back. Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't address it but

that is what the former minister did.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the present minister is having a

difficult time with this piece of legislation. I realize he is having a

difficult time with the entire MOGs because he inherited a system that he knows

is not correct. He knows the system -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) straight.

MR. WINSOR: It is a good system but it is not straight. I

thank the minister. It needs to be straightened out. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it

certainly does need to be straightened out.

MR. HOGAN: It is a good system without the restraints.

MR. WINSOR: A good system without the restraints, the

minister said. Well, unfortunately, we are living in a time of restraint and

what has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that municipalities are suffering

considerably from it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to look at the four components that the

minister alluded to because there are four components. Number one, the

equalization payment, Mr. Speaker. That was the ace in the hole. I thought we

were going to do well when I heard this, because those of us who lived in rural

Newfoundland and had property values somewhat lower than the provincial average

would then have the equalization formula to kick in whereby you could get up to,

I think, forty dollars maximum per household. Anyway, it was an opportunity

whereby we could collect some revenue.

Mr. Speaker, the next regulation was the local revenue

incentive component. It took it all away again, for those of us who didn't live

in an area where we had access to a fair amount of fixed revenue. For example,

in the area that I live in, and most of my district, there is not a lot of money

that can be derived from the business community. When we do up the revenues, the

local incentive revenues, they are done on a determined amount per household

from all the revenues that accrue. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but

where I live Gander becomes a major beneficiary.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. WINSOR: Yes, they do.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

MR. WINSOR: Because all the business tax that normally

should accrue in my community to add to the local revenue incentive goes to

Gander, because that is where people shop and where the nucleus of stores have

been built, Mr. Speaker. And more specifically, the minister has already had it

discussed with him by some councils. In my particular area, in Fogo Island, for

example, the minister has heard that criticism, that the small communities are

receiving very little in local revenue incentive component because of that

scale.

MR. HOGAN: Yours is an isolated incident.

MR. WINSOR: The minister says mine is an isolated

incident, Mr. Speaker. I beg to differ with the minister. If we live in an area

where we are serviced by the - the Member for Lewisporte would find the same

thing, that the surrounding communities that Lewisporte benefits from, do not

avail of very much from the local revenue incentive component. Included in that,

Mr. Speaker - and the minister was right - is every dollar that is raised in the

municipality, for example, water and sewer.

MR. HOGAN: The first one offsets the second.

MR. WINSOR: The first one doesn't offset the second,

because if we live in these places, that is the reason the assessments are down

- we are still getting less revenue to work with, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible) formula.

MR. WINSOR: It has nothing to do with the formula, but

the whole system is flawed, I tell the minister, that what he thought was going

to work has not worked, and the minister knows it is not working.

So the second component didn't work, it didn't do anything to

help us. It made the poor poorer and the rich richer, that is how the system

worked, Mr. Speaker.

Now,

section (c) "an amount prescribed by regulation" - $85

per household, Mr. Speaker, that was the only fair component in it all. It

treated rural Newfoundland the same as St. John's, $85 per household - or Corner

Brook or whatever, because the City of St. John's Act might be different. But

the $85 per household was fair.

Mr. Speaker, the clincher came in

section (d). When we, prior

to 1990, were given, as councils, $2,000 per kilometer of road. Now,

incidentally, that was never enough, and when the former government was in

power, I argued loud and long that this was absolutely crazy, that you could

expect us to maintain and operate roads on $2,000 a kilometer, and the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation budgets $5,000 for every kilometer of

road. So it was wrong then, at $2,000, because you needed much, much more. The

$2,000 wasn't enough.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this present formula, because of its being

capped, has an amount of money in the pot, and the last one left is local roads.

Mr. Speaker, it has gone from - I think, the first time we saw this formula

introduced, it was $1,976 per kilometer of road. We didn't get the $1,976 - that

year it was reduced to $1,250; that isn't the right amount, but close to $1,250.

Mr. Speaker, we were led to believe last year during the

preparation of the budget that it was going to be something, I think, in the

range of $850 per kilometer and subsequently, it was reduced to $483, as the

minister has said. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you live in a community where there is

one kilometer of road, it doesn't matter a whole lot, you have just lost $1,500

from what you had three years ago, but if you live in a community like Cormack

which is a good example. I have a community in Musgrave Harbour in my district,

with twenty-two kilometers of road that that community has to service. They used

to get in the range of $44,000. Mr. Speaker, that has been reduced to less than

$10,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Zamboni.

MR. WINSOR: Yes, Zamboni, Mr. Speaker. I have talked to

the minister and our stadium is almost becoming a reality - it is getting closer

and closer. The minister has given some indication that we are next on the list,

and rightly so. This minister understands rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. I

only wish he could convince some of his Cabinet colleagues of the real

importance of rural Newfoundland. We should have twelve or thirteen ministers

like him, and then we would get some fairness and balance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the roads component,

because the minister recognized that it is wrong. It is gone to, I think he said

today, $1.9 million left for all the road component in the Province. The sad

part about this, Mr. Speaker, is that each day municipalities are acquiring more

roads.

MR. ROBERTS: Even as we speak.

MR. WINSOR: Even while we speak, some municipality is

putting in a subdivision that is going to pick up another kilometer of road.

That takes more from the budget because it isn't capped. That is the one

component that you could not cap because there is always an ongoing expense in

maintaining roads.

For most councils, their equipment is not capable of taking

care of such large sections of road without some offset in revenues. Mr.

Speaker, there is not one member, who has a municipality in rural Newfoundland,

who has not been impacted very severely by this present regulation.

I suppose the most unfair component of all is

Section 10,

where 'The minister shall, out of funds provided by the Legislature,' get his

debt retirement. It started off at $300, and we were told - and I have never yet

understood this one - it was supposed to have been a phase-in period over three

years for both. It has been only two years since implementation, and already

municipalities are up to - $300 was the cap - it was not to exceed $300, but

then, the next year, a cost of living allowance came into it and now we have it

up to $318 per household. It is going up again next year a further 2 or 3 per

cent, whatever the cost of living is going to be; but remember what has

happened? The amount of revenues that the town can get are capped. The town is

not going to receive any more, so there is nothing in this provision now to

allow the town any inflation. Wages have gone up in the town, gasoline prices

have gone up, equipment repairs have gone up, but there is nothing in it that

allows for any provision for the municipality to get any more, but you are going

to have to pay more back to government. Mr. Speaker, that is one component of

the unfairness. One component of the unfairness is that the amount of $318

increases each year.

Now, that is only a drop in a bucket compared to the

unfairness with which many of the communities in my district are being faced. We

have one town - one town in the entire district - that is completely serviced,

with the exception of ten or twelve households. That local council is able to

get, because of its water and sewer rate, approximately $300 a year from water

and sewer fees that it cannot pay back. Now in that town that works quite well.

What about the town of Tilting, for example, that is half

serviced; has ninety households. It has to pay back $27,000 plus - nearly

$30,000 in debt retirement, but it only receives revenues from about forty of

them. It can get eight thousand dollars in water and sewer fees, but it has to

pay $30,000 back in debt retirement. Where does it get the other $22,000?

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Up the taxes, the Minister of Health says. Up

the taxes, Mr. Speaker.

DR. KITCHEN: What is the mil rate?

MR. WINSOR: The mil rate is six or seven.

DR. KITCHEN: Six or seven? It was 11 last year.

MR. WINSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is 11.5 here. Who pays

for the fire department here? We go out and have to raise locally several

thousand dollars each year to run volunteer fire departments. Who provides all

the services around town, recreation and so on? It comes out of your 11.5 mil.

No one comes knocking on your door, collecting to see if he can get enough money

to pay the light bill to run the local rink. No one does that in your town, but

they have to do it in the towns in rural Newfoundland, because we provide

thousands of hours of volunteer work -

AN HON. MEMBER: Spoiled brats.

MR. WINSOR: Make no wonder the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs would have trouble, if that is the kind of thing we are

getting from St. John's members on that side. If that is what they are saying,

make no wonder there would be trouble.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is one component -

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: If the Minister of Health wants to say

something, let him get up. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, ask him to be quiet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let him get up on his hind legs and speak

and stop barking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, can you silence the barkers from

the back bench there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINSOR: I am quite willing to give it, and I am quite

willing to take it, too.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINSOR: I can do all of that, Mr. Speaker. I can give

it and I can take it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is an unfair component of this water

and sewer. And, Mr. Speaker, what is even more unfair, and the Minister knows

it, is that there are a number of communities in this Province that have dry

pipelines, no water and no sewer going through them at all, yet they are still

required to pay $318 per household. Mr. Speaker, how can that be fair when the

community receives no services? Mr. Speaker, in some of our towns - and if the

Speaker were in the Chair he would know what I am talking about because a number

of his communities in Bonavista North are similar to some in my district, in

Fogo, where there are only water services provided. So if a town has 300

households maybe 200 of them are serviced, yet they are still assessed, $318 per

household, even though, they only have water services. How does that council

make up the difference? Mr. Speaker, it makes up the difference by doing two

things, they take all of their local revenues to pay on the water and sewer debt

and then they have to take a fairer portion of the MOGs that they get, so the

town is effectively left with no money to run itself. Mr. Speaker, how many

municipalities in this Province do not receive MOGs because they all get

intercepted, we don't even get them out in our communities because they are

intercepted by the Department of Finance, because the towns are unable to make

budgets. They are unable to get their amounts paid in. And the minister is well

aware of a large number of municipalities in this Province that are unable to

make their budget, and they have their MOGs taken back.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another hardship that the Minister has just

recently inflicted on municipalities - and I am not sure if the minister is

aware of this one yet, I meant to mention it to him last week - is that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: I have to wait to get the minister to listen

to this one. Under the present system of people on social assistance, payments

are made on a quarterly basis. Anyone who is on long-term or short-term

assistance, social services will pay water and sewer rates for that quarterly

period. But what has recently happened is that if that person is not on social

assistance for the entire period, if, for example, he were on social assistance

for two months, and one month they had found income or he were on unemployment

insurance or whatever, then the department will not pay water and sewer for any

portion of that quarter.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what this is doing the receiver of the

service is not aware that social services is not going to pay it and then the

municipality is having major difficulty in collecting this money, because these

individuals don't have it to give. Now, this is the first time this year that

social services water and sewer were not paid month for month, it is done on a

quarterly basis, and the minister should have a look at it, because it is

causing a fair amount of hardship. A small municipality the other day was short

revenue some $1,700 as a result of that change, and the municipalities weren't

informed of it until two months ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is wrong.

MR. WINSOR: That is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is wrong.

MR. WINSOR: That is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) when I was minister.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, it didn't start happening until

this year. Mr. Speaker, he might have informed them, but the minister never

implemented it. It was never in place, Mr. Speaker, until the past two months.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: No, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong. It is placing

hardships on council. It is placing hardships on individuals.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The Minister of Forestry was out a few

minutes and we are going to get our Zamboni. We have had some good meetings with

the minister. The minister recognizes the tremendous contribution and efforts

the people of Fogo have made to do something for themselves in raising $150,000.

The former minister would have done it but his Cabinet colleagues interfered

with the due process, and of the six that he recently approved, only three of

them were within the criteria that had previously been laid down, and some

arm-twisting from some Cabinet ministers changed the criteria and the minister

and went out and announced three new swimming pools that were not considered in

the prior list. The minister had a Cabinet colleague who did it; I won't say

from where. That Cabinet colleague, though, didn't get a swimming pool.

AN HON. MEMBER: By the minister.

MR. WINSOR: By the minister, who announced a major

recreation program of $1.5 million a year and turned around and spent $9 million

- a great minister, except he didn't use one of the planks, fairness and

balance, to decide who was going to get it, he used arm-twisting by his Cabinet

colleagues to determine who was going to get what.

Having said these few words, Mr. Speaker, I want to sum up

for the minister that this formula has not worked; the minister knows it doesn't

work, and having heard the Minister of Health today, I can visualize the

difficulty the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has in Cabinet, in

trying to get through a program that will treat rural Newfoundland fairly. The

former minister who introduced it sits in the Cabinet, and I have a lot of

sympathy for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs as he tries to get

Cabinet to come to an understanding, a realization of the hardships that are

being placed on rural Newfoundland as a result of the changes in MOGs.

Mr. Speaker, it is an unfair system, it hasn't worked, it is

not going to work until the cap is lifted,and I am a bit disturbed that

yesterday the minister couldn't be a bit more definitive when I asked him a

question on MOGs for next year. The minister said, and I quote: 'There are no

implications that I know of, Mr. Speaker. The report that he speaks of is in the

system and being studied by officials and will take the normal course to be

accepted or rejected.' Then, Mr. Speaker, he said: 'At this point in time, it

has no implications on next year.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, 'at this point in time' I would assume,

means from now up until the implementation of the mini-budget that is going to

come next week. We cannot possibly have municipalities endure more hardship as a

result of cutbacks. It is mighty difficult to run a municipality now in this

Province. If there are further reductions - and I fear there might be, because

the minister does not have the support of his Cabinet colleagues. I am surprised

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, from Windsor - Buchans, an area that -

MR. FLIGHT: I have a Zamboni in every town.

MR. WINSOR: He has a Zamboni in every town. Yes, Mr.

Speaker, thanks to the former Administration that treated Liberal districts

fairly and gave the minister stadiums for Buchans, one for Badger, one for

Windsor. Yes, the former Administration did that. I only hope that he will do

the same when it comes up for municipal grants this year for recreation, that

districts like Fogo will be considered. But more importantly for the minister, I

hope that he will support his seatmate, because I believe that the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs is going to press hard to have this unfair

system changed.

Mr. Speaker, I know what certain members from St. John's who

are in Cabinet are going to say. The member representing a number of smaller

communities, I hope that he will lend some support to the minister to say that

the capping of the system is unfair. We have to lift the cap, it is not right

because for every household in this Province, $85 dollars more comes out of the

money left for roads. Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. It has to be changed and the

minister should help. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will support

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs as he attempts to change the

unfair water and sewer debt repayment that is presently in place. it is unfair

to set it at $318 per household when a number of households are being charged

for services they don't receive. It is unfair - totally unfair. The minister

knows it is unfair, and he wants to change it. He is asking for your support,

Mr. Speaker, because you have a difficult task to try to convince the St. John's

members, who are sitting in Cabinet, that this system is unfair. They believe

that every community in Newfoundland has a system somewhat similar to St.

John's. That is not the case, so I ask the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

- I notice he is pointing to the real culprit - the former minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he is pointing out the real

culprit, the man who designed this. Yes, he was the culprit. I can remember how

he used to boast how municipalities throughout the country were flocking to get

this - he made us believe there was a parade of municipalities and governments

rushing into his office to adopt this system.

Well, if Newfoundland has to judge them, then I think the

former minister's new grant system will be weighed in the balance and found to

be wanting.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to discuss

this bill,

An Act To Amend The Municipal Grants Act, to deal with the

incompetent way this Administration has approached provincial funding of

municipalities. I cannot think of a more blatant example of the incompetence of

this Administration in running the government.

Early in their term of office, they set out to make major

changes in municipal affairs policy. The first salvo was the declaration by the

former minister that the government was going to carry out wholesale municipal

amalgamation. Then, a few months later, he announced that the government was

going to bring in a new municipal operating grants formula.

Mr. Speaker, this Administration is employing a whole

squadron of public relations specialists, and these people's job is to put a

positive spin on what the government is doing. In the case of their announced

municipal operating grant system, the spin was that the new formula would favour

the poor and take from the wealthy municipalities. The spin is that the new

grants would be distributed in a more equitable way, which sounded fine.

Shortly after that announcement, I remember being at a

meeting of the Great Humber Joint Council, an organization comprising

representatives of about twenty-five municipalities in the Bay of Islands-Humber

Valley-White Bay South area. The meeting dealt with the changes in municipal

operating grants, and when the topic was introduced, the Chairperson asked each

councillor and mayor around the table to tell the group, to tell the meeting, of

the effect of the new grant system on his or her municipality.

Mr. Speaker, it turned out that every single municipality

represented at that meeting, bar none, was being hurt by the changes.

Municipalities, small and large, were being hurt. Municipalities with high

property tax rates and no property tax were being hurt.

Mr. Speaker, the City of Corner Brook, for many years now,

has had the highest municipal tax rates in the whole Province, and the City of

Corner Brook has been hurt by the Wells' administration's changes in the

municipal operating grants formula.

The truth is that there was no equity involved in the new

formula. It was not a matter of taking a Robin Hood approach. The truth is that

funding was being cut across the board. In reality, the provincial government

was withdrawing financial support from municipalities and requiring

municipalities, mostly made up of volunteer councillors, to levy higher taxes.

It was an instance of the provincial government raising taxes and extracting

more money from the citizens of the Province indirectly. The administration did

the same thing in cutting subsidization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and

charging a loan guarantee fee to Hydro. The effect of that, which added up to a

reduction in provincial government support of Hydro of $40 million a year, was

to jack up the electricity rates charged consumers. So as with light bills, we

see municipal taxes rising, and the people responsible are the provincial

government - the members opposite - but, of course, they are trying to keep in

the shadows.

In the case of municipal operating grants, worse than changes

that hurt municipalities was the fact that the government proceeded to retreat.

The same as they did with amalgamation, having failed to do proper research and

analysis, having failed to consult with municipalities, not really knowing what

they were doing, they retreated. They changed. They amended. They announced up

front a grand new scheme over three years. Then, as the months went by, they

altered it. They altered it in an unpredictable, ad hoc way.

Municipalities, and I say they are mostly made up of

volunteers - volunteers who have been elected - for the last two years now,

perhaps three years, have prepared their budgets in good faith. They have

assessed their revenue potential, believing that they would get from the

provincial government what was indicated by the formula then in place - by the

formula then announced. They looked at their operating expense requirements,

drew up budgets, determined tax rates accordingly, and even sent out tax bills,

only to have this government change the rules in midstream. There is no excuse

for that, Mr. Speaker, no excuse whatsoever.

The members opposite are doing their best to throw me off

track - to interrupt - but I assure the members opposite that there are hundreds

of municipal mayors and councillors around this Province who understand what I

am saying and who agree with what I am saying.

MR. EFFORD: How come they all voted Liberal in the last

election?

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for - what is his

district over there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Port de Grave.

MS. VERGE: - Port de Grave is asking about people having

voted Liberal in the last election. I say to the member that not as many people

voted Liberal in the last election as voted Progressive Conservative - that is

Province-wide - and in the district I represent, more people voted for me than

voted for his esteemed leader, the Premier of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is his leader now, not his esteemed

leader.

MS. VERGE: I do not blame the Member for Port de Grave

for being disgusted with the Premier. I do not blame him one bit. What I cannot

understand is why the member persists in sitting behind the Premier.

MR. EFFORD: Because the seats don't go back any further.

MS. VERGE: 'Because the seats don't go back any further,'

he says. Well it is a pathetic sight to see the Member for Port de Grave over

there in the back bench, muzzled, day after day sitting there passively, not

opening his mouth to address the pressing concerns of his constituents, not

saying a word about the deterioration in the fishery and in the economy of the

Province, not having any contribution to the debate about municipal operating

funding. It is a pathetic sight, it is a real shame; it is a real shame.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: He says it is very difficult, very difficult.

Yes, I can imagine.

Mr. Speaker, the muzzle after all, is self-imposed. There is

nothing preventing the member from standing up and speaking his mind, letting

everyone in the whole Province know what he really thinks about his Premier and

the Cabinet running the Province. Nothing is stopping the member and if he would

like to rise now, I will gladly yield to him. I would like to know what he

thinks of the job the Premier is doing of administering the government.

MR. EFFORD: Be patient.

MS. VERGE: Be patient he says, be patient. I am not a

patient person actually -

MR. EFFORD: You were there for seventeen years.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I am not that old, I say to the

Member for Port de Grave; but coming back to municipal operating funding, as I

said in the beginning, this government has made a complete mess of funding in

municipalities, a complete schemozzle as they say. I said in Question Period to

the Minister of Social Services that he personally is taking much of the blame

for the mess and that is not really fair because he alone is not responsible.

These decisions were made primarily by the Premier, certainly by the whole

Cabinet but everyone knows that it is a one-man show, but yet the Minister of

Social Services, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount has taken the brunt of the

criticism and now the new minister is able to come in and acknowledge that a

mess was made, that mistakes were made and he is now trying to present himself

as the hero by saying that he is going to correct the mistakes. Well, I don't

know if I would take that if I were the Minister of Social Services, it is not

really fair.

Now I pointed out in Question Period that in his new

portfolio he has a chance to admit that the administration made Social Services

mistakes two or three years ago, and he can be the hero in Social Services and

take corrective action. He admitted rashly in Question Period that he does not

have any rationale for anything he does. Well, there is certainly no rationale

apparent in government operating grants for municipalities over the last three

and a half years, no rationale at all when you look at the erratic pattern of

decisions, when you look at announcements and retractions and revisions; when

you look at changes made in mid-stream, when you look at the deductions made

after the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs had notified

municipalities, and councils had prepared their budgets in good faith depending

on that information, Mr. Speaker, you cannot avoid the conclusion that they have

bungled.

Mr. Speaker, one of the shortcomings of this administration

is a lack of appreciation for volunteer service in municipalities. Mr. Speaker,

I suppose that is because the Premier has put behind him his rural roots, he has

become an urban creature. He is quite out of touch with the vast majority of

people of the Province; he holds himself far above most of his constituents and

he really does not realize the extent or the significance of volunteer service

in running municipalities. That's evident, Mr. Speaker, in his handling of the

amalgamation issue. He alone seems unable to see that his proposal to combine

Massey Drive, Mount Moriah and Corner Brook will result in higher overall

operating cost, will necessitate higher taxes, and naturally people don't want

it.

The proposal was made three and half years ago. Again, no

advance research had been done, no analysis had been done. Under the

Municipalities Act there had to be a feasibility study conducted. Contrary to

the spirit of the Act, if not the letter of the Act, the government didn't

appoint independent commissioners to do the feasibility study. They appointed in

that instance an executive member of the Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, holding his job at the pleasure of the Premier, and then a second

commissioner chosen by the three municipalities. That independent commissioner

was Hubert Harnett. Mr. Harnett is a chartered accountant who was a member of

the Royal Commission on Municipal Government which did its work in the 1970s.

Mr. Harnett