The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before going on to the routine business, on behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the galleries today the following groups of students: first of all, fifty-three students from Fatima High School, St. Mary's - The Capes, with their teachers, Mr. Gordon Pike, Mrs. Patsy Dohey, Mr. Hubert McGrath and Mr. Melvin Critch; also, forty students from Holy Cross School Complex, Eastport, in the Terra Nova District, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Frank Finlayson and Mr. Robert Hiscock; sixty-three students from Valmont Academy, King's Point, in Green Bay District, accompanied by five teachers and three parents; and, finally, four students from H. L. Strong Academy, Little Bay Islands, in the Green Bay District, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Wayne Rogers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister received a letter yesterday, hand-delivered to him just outside the House, by the entire executive of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. Since we all saw the exchange, I wonder if the minister would tell the House what was in the letter?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, yes, I did receive a letter, and I was asked to deliver the letter to my colleagues in government. I have done that. The letter expressed the NTA's dissatisfaction with the decisions that the government made with respect to the wage freeze and the negotiations.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister tell us if the letter was a friendly one? We all saw the executive members refused to shake the minister's hand, and we know how he loves to shake hands. I wonder if he will tell us if the contents of the letter were as cold as the rejected handshake?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be well aware of what it is to be on the wrong side of the NTA. I remember years ago when there weren't any handshakes for the hon. member.

I got the feeling that the NTA were opposed to some of the government's actions. I do not consider it unfriendly in the sense of a personal attack. We understand the teachers' position on this, and I believe most teachers understand the government's position today in these very difficult times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, an individual who will confirm that the NTA never refused to shake my hand. The minister has a copy of the letter and, as a former President of the NTA he probably received his own letter, anyway. I ask the minister, what does he intend to do to address some of the concerns raised by the NTA in that letter?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was no letter sent to me directly by the NTA. The Minister of Education, as he has indicated, circulated a copy of the letter to all members of government and there is no role for me to play at this point in time. The NTA, as I understand it, are dealing with the President of Treasury Board and will deal with the Minister of Education. In their capacity, they don't need any help from anybody like myself or the member opposite in pleading their case. They will do that just fine themselves and they will do it through the proper channels.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, the contents of the letter mainly dealt with labour issues. So I ask the minister, does he support using legislation to break collective agreements and destroy collective bargaining? He supported it last year. Will he support it again this year? Will he again tell the teachers of the Province that their contract is not worth the paper it is written on?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the time goes on and we debate the full contents of the Budget I will have no hesitation whatsoever in explaining to the House of Assembly and the people of Newfoundland generally and my own constituents in the District of Exploits why I participated in and support the actions of the government taken in this Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health. I want to ask the minister about a statement in the Budget supplementary expenditures, the details. It says: 'All patients will be required to pay the first $500 on their travel costs, as well as 50 per cent of the cost thereafter. They will pay $1 up to $500; they will pay that portion of the travel cost and 50 per cent of the cost thereafter, effective yesterday, April 1, 1992. I ask him, Who now has to pay, and what category of patients will have to pay this exorbitant fee?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is a program in the Department of Health which assists patients who have to travel outside of the immediate area where they live to receive medical treatment. Up until this particular Budget year, the program applied to practically everyone who spent more than $500. The first $500 they pay themselves, a certain group did, and beyond $500 they paid half the expenses themselves.

Now, Mr. Speaker, prior to this Budget, certain people were exempt. People receiving various transplants were exempt. If a person had to go to Ontario for a transplant, the whole bill was paid. This will now be changed so that transplant recipients will be treated exactly the same as other people who require the care outside of where they live.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main, on a supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Let me correct the minister: transplants used to be 100 per cent paid.

MR. DECKER: That is what I said.

MR. DOYLE: I didn't think that was what you said. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. I spoke with an ambulance operator today and he told me that a trip from Port aux Basques to St. John's now costs anywhere between $1000 to $1,100, I believe. Before today, patients paid a basic fee of $50 or $75, whatever it was. Does that change now, in effect, mean that any patient, for instance, transported from Port aux Basques will now have to pay the first $500 and half the remaining cost which will be $800, for instance, whereas before he paid $50 to $75. Would the minister confirm that?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the hon. member is coming from. He is talking about two totally different issues. The ambulance program has not been touched. Whether the actual cost of moving a person from the Northern Peninsula to St. John's is $1.00 or $1 million, the patient still pays the $75 or $80, whatever the fee is. This is a totally different program, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member should try to get his act together and at least know what he is talking about. They are two totally different programs.

MR. DOYLE: Maybe the minister, then, could explain, Why does the Budget say 'all patients'? It doesn't say some, one, two, ten, or twenty, it says 'all' patients will be required to pay the first $500 of their travel costs, as well as 50 per cent of the cost thereafter, effective April 1, 1992. That is what I am asking him to explain. It is a simple question. Why do all patients have to pay it? If the minister is saying only some have to pay it why is he saying all?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the hon. member were to go through the Budget, he would find the word 'all'. It probably turns up in about 500 places in the Budget, and in different places it is in a different context. The context in which it is mentioned here refers to a specific program where the government used to pay the full shot for people who were receiving transplants, and after $500 would reimburse a portion of that money, so that is the context in which all this is explained here. There are no exceptions to that particular program now. A person who has to go outside the Province for a transplant will now be required to pay the first $500.

Now when that program was first brought in a transplant was almost an unique operation; it was so unusual to have a transplant that government felt at the time that it was necessary to pay the whole shot. But today kidney transplants and liver transplants have become just as common as cardiac surgery, so it is felt that we have to treat all our people fairly and to make the program apply to everybody. Everybody who takes advantage of that program now will be treated equally, whether you spend $500 to have heart surgery or whether you spend $500 to have a kidney transplant, you are treated the same and, Mr. Speaker, that is only in keeping with the way we treat our people and in everything else we do.

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

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

My question is to the Minister responsible for Mines and Energy. Yesterday, one of Quebec's daily French newspapers, La Presse, reported that negotiations had broken off between Newfoundland and Quebec Hydro on the development of the Lower Churchill. I wonder if the minister could tell us if this story is true. Have the negotiations been broken off?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Not to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I think something has been lost in the translation here. As he said, he is referring to a French newspaper. The translation that I have in front of me says that: a representative of Hydro Quebec said that talks have been frozen for three weeks. Well, the last meeting was March 3, and there has not been a meeting since March 3 and we are waiting. I guess Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is now waiting for the Hydro Quebec negotiating team to complete its analyses of the proposals put on the table at that time and in due course there will be another meeting.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe I did lose something in the translation, I have had it translated by the Association De Francophone Du Labrador, and they translated it as négociations rompues, that is: broken off, not frozen. But, Mr. Speaker, La Presse got its information from Quebec Hydro's Executive Vice-President, and according to Mr. Bolduc, negotiations broke off over the distribution of cost. Is the minister now prepared to tell the people of the Province, what the differences are between this Province and Hydro Quebec on financing the development of the Lower Churchill and the price for selling this hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat what I have said. To the best of my knowledge the talks between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Hydro Quebec have not broken off. I would assume that the Hydro Quebec negotiating team is still in the midst of its review of the latest counterproposals, and we do not talk about the details of the negotiations. To date, I believe the last meeting was meeting number thirty in the last two and a half years and I am sure there will be other meetings. I personally do not want to put a time frame on it as to when they may end.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, again the translation - the story that was in La Presse, if you translate the whole thing - part of it was covered in The Evening Telegram, but if you translate the La Presse story, part of the story says: the dispute which brought about the breakup of negotiations is centred on the distribution of costs.

On March 19 the Premier in this House said, and I quote: "I undertake to make the information fully available to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. Discussion of that kind of detail would not, right at this moment, be opportune." He was talking about the development of the Lower Churchill and the cost of the development in response to a question from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Now, recognising that, and given the series of events that have taken place over the last few days with regard to the quagmire that Hydro Quebec has found itself in with regard to borrowing on the bond market, I wonder if there is any doubt being expressed on Hydro Quebec's ability to proceed with the project, and will he make a full disclosure to the people of this Province now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is no disclosure to be made. We are negotiating. There are a lot of details in that negotiation, and at an appropriate time, if we reach an agreement that is satisfactory to us, we will make all the details available. As the Premier said in response to a question earlier, there would be some type of public review of any contract that is agreed to, when all the details will be carefully scrutinized by everybody. So to the best of my knowledge we have not seen any affect from what is happening with the matters concerning Great Whale.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. minister is aware that the bond rating agencies have placed Hydro Quebec on a credit watch. Quebec Hydro is already paying a 1 per cent premium on all its loans. Of course, we all recognize that is driving up the cost. Now is this a time to be negotiating with Hydro Quebec? Shouldn't we wait until Hydro's problems with the financial and credit positions are improved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Hydro Quebec is not a partner in this development that we are talking about. Hydro Quebec is a customer for the power that is surplus to the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think the matters that the hon. member has talked about are really relevant to it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government legislated wage freeze through Bill 16 expired on March 31. This legislation says in Section 7 that all collective agreements remain in full force and in effect for the term of that agreement or, if an election is made under section 6, for the extended term.

My question is for the President of Treasury Board. Can he tell the House whether the government intends to honour those existing collective agreements which are declared to be in full force and effect as the government prepares its next payroll? Or has he instructed officials in the government to violate those existing agreements and given advice to other organizations, such as hospitals and universities and other groups which are covered by this, to violate those agreements and not give the increases that are in the existing collective agreements?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been for the last six months but we have described time after time for the public, and in this House, what we have gone through in terms of contact with the public sector unions to try to solve the financial problem, or to give them some input into a solution for our financial problems, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman, I seem to remember, was in the House when the Budget was being read, or I think he was. In that the explanation was made quite clear that there has to be one more year in which we cannot increase our total compensation package, because of the difficult financial position that the Province is in and because of some extraordinary things that have been happening, Mr. Speaker. He also recognizes that those same unions, rather than being part of the solution, have deliberately chosen to be part of the problem.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This same legislation, which was passed into law by this government last year, permitted employees to elect to extend the terms of their collective agreement for a further year. Can the minister advise the House how many different bargaining units went by that, gave notice, as provided under section 6 of that legislation, to extend the terms of their collective agreements, and will the government be honouring its commitment made in this legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing, as announced in the Budget, is allowing collective agreements to end on the date that they were negotiated to end. That varies depending on the collective agreement. We are saying that in the interim, in this fiscal year, there will be a zero compensation increase. In the next year, the year after that, we don't see any magic pot of money anywhere and, therefore, we have to, at best, slowly move ourselves out of this situation. So we allowed for a 3 per cent total compensation increase the year after. That, Mr. Speaker, is what is going to happen, and I would advise hon. members that very shortly a bill will be introduced into this House to give effect to that decision already announced in the Budget.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, on a final supplementary, since the President of Treasury Board did not answer the question about the extension of collective agreements, will the minister not admit that not only did the government break its word after signing collective agreements one day and then introducing legislation to wipe them out, did they not again break their word by passing legislation to agree to extend collective agreements, and they are now going to break their word again and take back that agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, government's planning is done on many bases. One of the bases on which we plan is in the revenue that is generated within the Province and generated from the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, again I do not know where the hon. gentleman has been for the last couple of years, but he should realize that something has happened in this country. Something has happened in this country. Something very basic and fundamental has happened in this country and revenues are not forthcoming. The amounts of money that we get from Ottawa that we could have expected to get from Ottawa are not forthcoming. Mr. Speaker, he will also know that as soon as we knew this we started consultations with the unions. Two years ago we started consultations with the union - a year and a half ago - we started consultations with the unions to allow them to be part of the solution to this very serious problem.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we had choices to make. Do we lay off 5,000 people or do we say: I am sorry, we cannot increase your compensation. These were the choices. We had choices to make between paying 7 and 8 per cent increases or keeping hospital beds open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: I would say to the hon. gentleman that the people of this Province are indeed fortunate that the Member for St. John's East is not here to lay off 10,000 people and to close hospital beds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions about the Department of Justice. Since the Premier has departed from accepted democratic practice and appointed a Minister of Justice who does not have a seat in this House of Assembly, I cannot ask my questions about the Department of Justice to the Minister of Justice as I should be able to do, so, Mr. Speaker, I will address my questions to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, fifteen months after this government disbanded the Ombudsman's Office they brought down a Budget providing for $100,000 for a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Police Complaints Commission. My questions are, number one: why hasn't the government yet tabled in this House draft legislation creating the police commission? Why hasn't the government explained what mandate it intends to give the police commission? Will the government be introducing a bill in time for legislation to be passed in this Spring sitting of the House of Assembly? And when does the Premier propose to have the RNC Police Complaints Commission established, functioning and serving the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker. I have just a comment on her commentary before she asked the questions. It is established and well known practice that when you have a particular purpose in doing so, a Premier may well go outside the elected members and invite somebody to become a member of the Cabinet, and the normally accepted convention is that within a reasonable time they acquire a seat in the House. That, I can assure hon. members, will be followed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the questions, if the hon. member has any reluctance to ask me questions, she could write the Minister of Justice, because all those questions are not of such urgent pressing importance that they needed to be answered right at this moment. With respect to the variety of questions, they dealt with the police commission. The government is going to bring forward legislation to provide for the police commission in respect of which money has been provided in the Budget. The legislation has been drafted for some months, I think, at least I saw a draft of it earlier. Some months ago I think I saw a draft of it. I do not know if it is in final form yet, so I will inquire as to when it is in final form. I don't recall if the Cabinet has approved it yet. To the best of my knowledge it has not yet come to Cabinet for approval. Now, they had a Cabinet meeting this morning and I wasn't there, so it may have happened.

So it has not yet come to Cabinet for approval. The normal process is that after it comes to Cabinet for approval and receives approval, it will be tabled in the House. When it is tabled in the House all of the powers that are proposed and exactly what it is going to have or not have or what its limitations might be, will all become apparent when one reads the bill. If members of the House have different opinions as to what adjustments should or should not be made on it, there will be an opportunity during Committee stage to propose those changes.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I note the Premier did not answer my question about whether the legislation establishing a police commission will be presented in this House in this Spring sitting. Neither did he answer my question about the date he proposes to have the police commission functioning.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier whether the real reason he is so vague in answering my questions is that he really did not plan on having the police commission this year, but after I asked some very probing and embarrassing questions about the nineteen-month delay -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: - in the police investigation of a sexual assault complaint against the Member for Naskaupi, at the last minute the Premier slipped this into the Budget as part of his damage control campaign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I probably didn't answer all of the questions asked. There was a battery of them. I thought there was supposed to be one question. I don't have a secretary here to write down the questions. Maybe the next time what I will do is take it as notice and provide answers, if that is the way the hon. member intends to ask questions. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we intend to bring in legislation, and always did.

The hon. member puffs herself up unduly if she thinks her question ever had one iota to do with the police commission. It had nothing whatsoever to do with it. And that legislation had nothing whatsoever to do with the new minister. That legislation was planned before the new minister was appointed. So, all of that was part of the proposal from the beginning and it is in the process of being implemented, and the hon. member should not attribute to herself such a significant impact on the running of the government of the Province.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting to see how the Premier always resorts to a personal attack against me rather than answer my questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: It is very interesting and it is very revealing about the real character of this Premier.

Now, Mr. Premier, will you please answer my questions about when your police commission will be functioning, when your legislation will be passed, when you will present us with a draft bill, and you might add the real reason this suddenly appeared in the estimates?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are all embarrassed, look.

MR. TOBIN: No, we are certainly not embarrassed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, answers to questions are determined directly by the questions. If questions are focused and directed in a personal way, the only way they can be reasonably thoroughly answered is to respond in a personal way. Now, if the hon. member wants to ask questions in a normal, responsible way, dealing with public issues, I will be quite prepared to answer them in that same manner. But when the hon. member puts every question she has ever asked in a personal attack position, she has got to expect that kind of a response. Now, if she cannot stand the heat, she should leave the kitchen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: What is in every answer I will give is largely determined by how the question is asked, and if questions are asked in a civilized, sensible, responsible way, they will get treatment in kind, I can assure all hon. members of the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House that we -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

PREMIER WELLS: I have already told the House that we will be bringing forward legislation in this session. The hon. member has already pointed out to the House the money is in the Budget. Now, as soon as the legislation is put in place and the proper provision is made for it, action will be taken to implement the police commission. Now, whether that will be April 23, May 18, July 16 or some other date, I don't at this moment know. So the member's question, I don't see the point of it at this stage.

But the legislation will be brought before the House this session. Money is provided in the Budget for it, and the idea of a police commission, Mr. Speaker, originated with this side of the House, not that. The hon. member sat as Minister of Justice for five years and we never heard of a police commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At least we had an Ombudsman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that the Minister of Transportation is not here so I will direct my question to the hon. the Premier. Every year we get a letter from the minister indicating: what are your road priorities? Four budgets in a row I have indicated: finish the paving on the road to Harry's Harbour - Jackson's Cove. Can this administration tell us, can the Premier tell us, why, for the fourth budget in a row, no pavement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can only assume, Mr. Speaker - I do not know the specifics. I do not know the specifics about any road or any district. I can only assume that in the overall priorities as they were assessed, that did not rank at a level that was comparable with other roads on the normal basis on which it is judged. Now I operate on that assumption. If he wants me to I will take notice of his question and seek the specific answer in respect to that specific road.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier a very simple, and direct question. Is this administration still under the impression that the roads in Green Bay are paved with gold because it formerly had a premier as a member?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If that were so, then you surely wouldn't want the gold torn up and replaced with asphalt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Surely nobody can operate on that kind of an assumption. I cannot imagine that any government would be so disdainful of the public good of the whole Province as to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Extend Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province," Bill No. 17.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce the following resolution.

"WHEREAS seal meat was always part of the diet of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;

AND WHEREAS present economic conditions make it imperative for many residents to find ways to supplement their food supply;

BE IT RESOLVED that no Newfoundlander or Labradorian, being of legal hunting age and having passed the Hunters' Capability Test where applicable, be deprived of the right to kill a seal for food purposes."

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act," Bill No. 18.

MR. BAKER: Motion number 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion number 1. The adjourned Budget debate.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I started out on Monday. I have been speaking now on this motion for two days. The first day I had nobody on the opposite side listening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true!

MR. WINDSOR: Except for very brief occasions - very brief. The second day, Mr. Speaker, a considerable number of hon. gentlemen opposite paid attention and we got into a good debate. Of course I had to, on Tuesday, go back over everything I had said on Monday, for the benefit of hon. gentlemen opposite. Now today I have a gallery full of young people who missed both opportunities, so I am going to have to start again, because I am sure they do not want to miss a word of what I have had to say about the Budget, so we will go back to the beginning again.

MS. VERGE: Just give us the main points.

MR. WINDSOR: Give you some points on it, yes, Mr. Speaker.

MS. VERGE: About the smoke and mirrors and the hypocrisy - that is the best part.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, my colleague says I should talk about smoke and mirrors and hypocrisy. That is all I have to talk about. That is all that is in this Budget, Mr. Speaker.

When I finished the other day I was into an exchange with the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and I was making a point that the Budget has tremendously decreased the amount of funding that is available for job creation this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Say again?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. WINDSOR: That is not true? Well that is exactly what the minister said on Tuesday, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is saying everything he said on Tuesday as well, so I do not feel so bad. I am not repeating myself any more than the minister. He says it is not true so - I was about to get into the Budget, but it was five o'clock - so I said, we will stop.

We have to look on Page 266 of the Budget. That is Social Services. We will start there. We will start off in the Social Services of the Budget and have a look at the section under Employment Opportunities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: In Social Services? I will get to the minister's department. Have no fear. Have no fear.

When we look at community development projects, which is probably the greatest vehicle that has ever been put in place, to give persons on social assistance an opportunity to gain some useful employment, to feel some self-worth, to get back into the work force if they have had some difficulty and have been unable to find employment. It is a tremendous program to get people off public support and get them back into the workplace, doing something useful and productive.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt you please?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course.

MR. SPEAKER: I would not normally do this, but the hon. member is probably going to carry on for a little while. The Chair just wants to, on behalf of hon. members, acknowledge the presence in the Speaker's gallery of Mr. George Billard, the Deputy Mayor of Stephenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me add my voice, and the voice of this side, to welcome the Deputy Mayor.

Community development projects have been tremendous projects. Not only have they created thousands of jobs across the Province, and given people an opportunity to work, but there has been some very, very good community projects developed as well. A lot of this money has been very usefully employed in putting in place infrastructure in communities; in giving people the sorts of things that they could probably never have hoped to get in a long, long time without that particular project. It gives them an opportunity to do something for themselves, to build something in their own community. We have often heard lots of complaints that a lot of the money was wasted painting the fence for the third time. I believe that is greatly decreased from where it used to be years ago. I think that has improved tremendously. I think we are, to a large measure now, taking great advantage of that money - if the projects are well planned. Unfortunately we have seen some cases where the projects have been put forward on an emergency basis, when it is too late to usefully use the money. So you are throwing the money - what you are doing is throwing money to create jobs, and not getting the best utilization of those dollars, and last year was probably no exception.

The Budget last year held $9 million for that program in the estimates, and we see that by the end of the year the government spent $13.75 million. $4.25 million were added last year - $4.75 million - were added during the course of the year to increase that program. I recall full well that during the Budget debate last year we said to government: you know you are going to need more. Why not put the money in the Budget? Why not have it there so that the department can properly plan; that communities can come forward with some worthwhile projects? But instead of that, halfway through the year the Budget was increased by 50 per cent. Perhaps the first $9 million may have been spent relatively wisely, but I would suggest that last $4.75 million was spent hurriedly, haphazardly, and without proper planning.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true, none of it.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, we will see, maybe not. I hope I am wrong.

MR. GRIMES: You are wrong.

MR. WINDSOR: But I am not wrong in saying that if the money had been put up front it could have been spent more wisely than it was, and that is true, that is absolutely true.

MS. VERGE: They would not know because they have not experimented with planning yet.

MR. WINDSOR: Planning is a novel concept to the hon. gentlemen opposite, a novel concept that they have not gotten into. They have been in office for three years and are now just realizing that they had better come up with a three year economic strategy or something, a great economic strategy plan. It is about time. It has only taken three years for them to realize that. They have been sailing down a course without any charts for the last three years. I say to the minister this year there is $9.5 million in the Budget. Now, that is more than was in the Budget last year, but that is less than was spent by $4 million, $4.25 million less than was spent last year. I could live with that, I could understand that, if the minister's economic projections said unemployment is going to decrease by 3 or 4 per cent this year. We are going to go from 18.4 per cent down to 15 per cent, so we are not going to have such a great need for community development projects.

I can understand Government saying: therefore we will not need as much money and we will cut it back a little bit, but here they increased it by $500,000. If that scenario were true they could decrease it by a couple of million dollars perhaps and be justified. You could understand that and it would make some sense, but when the minister's own documentation says that unemployment is going to increase by 2 per cent how does this Government justify decreasing the amount of money to be spent by $4.5 million? Where is the logic in that, Mr. Speaker? Does this Government not realize the desperate situation that is out there?

MR. GRIMES: Do you want the answer?

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman will have lots of time to answer. I have lots more questions for him yet. We will save them up and maybe the Premier will loan you his secretary so he can write down the questions and answers, too. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no logic in that kind of thinking whatsoever. This Government should know now, and should have known last year, and we told them last year but, of course, they choose not to listen to us, we told them last year that they were going to have to put more money in there. When they came into office a few years ago they said they were not going to use that kind of program at all. Never mind the short-term make work projects. It is going to all be in the long-term economic development. Well, what did they think we were suppose to do for three years while they were coming up with their great economic strategy plan? Where do they think people are going to be, starving to death?

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. Premier was going to bring 30,000 home.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right, bring thousands of Newfoundlanders home. Every mother's son was going to come home. The daughters are going to go away but the sons are suppose to be brought home.

MR. TOBIN: We thought we were going to get to build ferries to bring them home.

MR. WINDSOR: We figured Marystown Shipyard would be going full time building ferries to bring Newfoundlanders home. The housing industry was going to boom, and the population was going to rise by 100,000 in no time at all. They were going to bring every mother's son home.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier said they wanted to kiss his feet.

MR. WINDSOR: There are more Newfoundlanders living in Ontario today than there are in Newfoundland.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier said one woman wanted to kiss his feet because he was going to bring her son home.

MR. WINDSOR: He will get a kiss alright, he will get kissed good-bye the next time he gets the nerve to call an election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Everybody thought it was wonderful. Mr. Speaker, just down on the same page in vocational services, and here is a Government that talked about long-term planning, vocational services, I say to the President of Treasury Board. I am not exactly sure what sort of things were funded in that but I have a fair idea, vocational services, there was $2.4 million in the Budget last year for vocational services.

MR. TOBIN: That is a social services component.

MR. WINDSOR: Now, that is for training people if I am not mistaken. That is providing funding for people who are on social assistance while they are getting some education. There is nobody going to deny that the secret to improving the Newfoundland economy is in improving the educational standards of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so that they are in a better position to support themselves and to make a meaningful contribution to our economy. What better program could one come up with than a vocational services program that helps people who are on social assistance become gainfully employed? A tremendous program - $2.4 million was in place last year, this year it is $138,000. What happened to the program? It is gone. One hundred and thirty-eight thousand dollars is absolutely nothing. There is absolutely nothing left except the administration of the program. There is no program now.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is $4.5 million under community development projects, $2.2 million under vocational services, for a total of $5.9 million in the Department of Social Services alone. Less funding for employment opportunities, $6 million less.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Say that again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You are going to transfer it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: From one heading to another. Well, I don't see any increase. Under total employment opportunities, the total for all of the headings is $16 million. Last year it was $22 million. That is $6 million less. You can take it from one hand and put it in the other, but that does not put any more in your pocket. You still have $6 million less in the Department of Social Services under the heading Employment Opportunities.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong there.

MR. WINDSOR: I am wrong. Well, Mr. Speaker, I should take advantage of vocational services funding and go back to school because I can't read. I am quoting from the Budget document, page 267 the eighth or tenth line down, I say to the minister. He should have a look at his own budget. Six million dollars less, he has to work with this year for employment opportunities. The only one that stayed the same was Employment Enhancement Initiatives, $4 million right across the board. Four million estimated last year, $4 million spent, and $4 million in the Budget again this year.

Departmental support services is down one-third the funding that was available last year for that small program, whatever that does for employment opportunity. Even Administration is much the same. Mr. Speaker, that is $6 million in social services, and the Minister of Labour tries to tell me that there is no difference.

Then I had a look at the Department of Labour. The minister tells me he hasn't lost any money this year. So let's have a look at it. Youth Employment Strategy, $1 million less in the Budget this year than the minister spent last year.

MR. GRIMES: What page?

MR. WINDSOR: Page 191. The minister doesn't even know how to find his own department in the Budget document. Well, I will tell him, it is page 191. That is the page I am reading from now. His department starts a few pages earlier, if he thinks he is missing something. Page 191 - Youth Employment Strategy, the minister can see that there. See total: Youth Employment Strategy, 1,898,600 for this year. That is exactly the same as was budgeted last year. But the minister spent $2.8 million last year. He spent $1 million more because there was money added during the year - obvious.

MR. GRIMES: Do you want the answer?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, tell me. I will yield for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to let the hon. member tell me.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member for allowing me just a minute to add some information to him as he continues in a most worthwhile debate. I think the hon. member recognizes and probably would like for everybody to understand that this is one of the headings in the Budget that in the fall of last year, actually, on October 4, the government announced an Emergency Employment Response program, a total of $13.5 million, because of the deterioration in the economy due to the collapsed fishery and other factors, and that we chose a number of appropriate headings in the existing Budget in which to funnel new emergency monies that were not voted in the Budget last year. This happened to be one of the headings under which an additional $1 million was put into that program because we wanted to have a wide-ranging program with more than one aspect or facet to it. One of the areas where we wanted to concentrate some of our effort was in the area of youth employment, and an additional $1 million out of the $13.5 million total was voted in the area of youth employment services to deal with the linkages program which allowed a lot of young people to be put to work for a period of time by sponsoring agencies.

We are not sure this year, as we indicated in the budget, and has been in questions before, but there probably will be some kind of a program later on this year. We are now working on what it may or may not be, and this may or may not be one of the headings where additional funds might appropriately be placed when the crisis is dealt with, if and when it arises. So I just wanted to point that out for the information of the hon. member.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for that information, but that doesn't change a thing. The point I am making is, if we had a crisis last year - and what the minister told us, in fact, only strengthens my argument - that this government was forced to respond to to the tune of $13 million. We told them during the Budget they were going to have a crisis and they should have had programs in there and planned to deal with it and not wait for the crisis. But the minister has just said: We are going to wait for the crisis again this year. We did not learn anything last year. We will learn again this year. We will wait until the crisis comes and then we will poke money in again. That is too late.

Why are we going to wait until September and October when people are starving to death and don't know how they are going to put clothes on the childrens' backs to send them back to school? Why are we going to wait until the best construction season is over and put people to work in October and November in the cold, miserable fall weather when they could be working in the summer far more productively, far more efficiently? We are going to wait, Mr. Speaker, until the end of the year, until we find out that there is no other alternative.

Again, Mr. Speaker, you could be excused if economic indicators showed that the economy was going to improve, but the minister tells us the economy is going to decline by half a per cent. He tells us unemployment is going to go up by 2 per cent. I mean, this government chooses to ignore their own factors. That's what is amazing about this document, that the first part of it seems to be put together so well. The research has shown exactly what is happening. Why bother to do that research, other than to fill up the first four pages of the Budget, if you are not going to use those factors to influence where you spend your money to deal with the problems? The minister has just confirmed that this government's strategy is to let the problem get worse and then we will panic, Mr. Speaker, as we did last year. That is what the minister is saying.

Why not tell the youth of the Province? And if it is not that program, the minister has had a year to come up with another program, if he is saying that this is probably not the best program. Come up with a better program for youth, but put some money in there so the youth of this Province will have something to look forward to.

This is April. University students are two or three weeks away from getting out of university. I have a daughter who will be graduating from business school in three weeks time, and the hopes of her finding employment in this Province are somewhere between zero and nothing. A very well qualified, very capable young lady who would be an asset to any business, but there is not a business out there that can afford to hire her or any of her classmates who are graduating from business school. That is the real problem we are facing. The opportunities are not going to be there.

Now, the minister has a program, the Graduate Employment Program, which, hopefully, will deal with that specific type of problem, and he has increased the funding by $700,000, from $1 million to $1.7 million. I am glad to see that, because there are so many of our young people out there in university who are absolutely frustrated, and I know, because I see them spitting out fifty and sixty applications for employment and getting back fifty or sixty form letters. I see it every day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) payroll tax.

MR. WINDSOR: Payroll tax is a big factor. I am going to get back to that one before the day is out.

I see it every day, but the opportunities are not there and we can put all the money we want into education and into post-secondary education, but all we are doing is educating Newfoundlanders to go elsewhere in Canada to make a contribution to the economy of other parts of Canada. That is what we are doing. Education alone will not solve the problem, we have to educate people but we have to have business opportunities and employment opportunities for them when they have their education. That is what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. We have to do both.

I could forgive the minister cutting back on his employment opportunities if I saw $20 million, $30 million, $40 million going into creating economic activity, so that the private sector was going to create job opportunities, but we don't see that either, Mr. Speaker. The Student Employment Program: $60,000 less than we spent last year; they budgeted $600, and $600 again this year but we actually spent $660. The Employment Generation Program, is improved, I am glad to see that, it is doubled from $1.5 million to $ 3 million this year, but is that enough to do what needs to be done, will that replace the millions that are being removed in other places? The adjustment program for fishplant workers is in the same category, an emergency program put in place last year, but does the minister think, or does the Minister of Fisheries sitting next to him think that fishplant workers are going to be any better off this year? Does the minister not think he is going to need $7 million to solve that problem?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: He will not do it.

MR. GRIMES: That has nothing to do with the (inaudible). That was a one-time program that was done to try to keep the three plants open (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You think you are not going to have to try to keep some open this year?

MR. GRIMES: That has nothing to do with the programs that are in place, that in case a plant closes and you have to give some assistance, that is already there.

MR. WINDSOR: I realize that, but does the minister not think he is going to need that kind of funding this year? Of course he is. You are going to have more fish plants close this year, not just three - you are going to have thirty fish plants closed this year, so $7 million may have to be $70 million. This is smoke and mirrors, Mr. Speaker, this document, and the President of Treasury Board said in the House the other day: Well, we don't need to worry about that, because any program that is put in place to deal with that crisis will be a cost-shared program, anyway. It will be 70/30 - the federal government will put in 70 per cent and we will put in 30 per cent. It doesn't change the bottom line, because any money that is cost-shared 70/30, any money that is spent, we get thirty cents on the dollar back, anyway, into the provincial treasury through taxes and other economic spinoff. So we are not worried about having to put in an extra bunch of money for an emergency program because we will get our share of it back, anyway. Of course you will!

But why didn't they spend the $65 million that was there last year that would have only cost this government $14 million? They could have spent that $65 million on capital works, created 2,400 jobs last year and they would have gotten $20 million back, they would be money in the good. What kind of economics is it, Mr. Speaker? Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, $65 million of capital funds were left unspent, mostly cost-shared funding, and the real cost to the Province was $14 million. That is what they saved, that is the only difference in their deficit, their capital borrowing requirement.

If they had borrowed another $14 million - they came to this House last year and argued and used their majority to get the Budget approved, saying we need to borrow all this money and then they left it there, they didn't borrow it. It is not as if the Opposition is saying, Go borrow more money. They came to the House with their Budget, saying, 'Here is what we would like to spend, give us the authority to spend it.' They were given it, then they didn't spend it.

Twenty-four hundred jobs would have made a big difference in the unemployment rate in this Province. We wouldn't be looking at 18.4 per cent last year. We wouldn't be looking at 20.4 this year if that money was spent last year and if the capital budget was not cut back by $17 million this year again - another 2,400 jobs gone this year. Twenty-four hundred jobs last year and 2,400 jobs this year would have made a big difference. If the Minister of Development can create 2,400 jobs as easily, then he should get on with it. Because it is not that easy. We all know that. But it could have been done by that means.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Response programs - there was a $2 million allocation there under that heading, that gets into the $13 million the minister referred to. In all, on the bottom line, under Employment Services, I say to the minister, in his own budget on page 192, halfway down the page, decreased from $15.5 million to $10 million. So the overall funding under Employment Services, I say to the minister, is down by $5.5 million. In Social Services it is down by $5.9 million. That is $11.4 million less this year for employment projects.

The minister tells me I am wrong. The minister should get together with the President of Treasury Board. He tells me that thirty and fifteen don't add up to forty-five.

MR. GRIMES: He's been telling you for two days that it does.

MR. WINDSOR: He's been telling me for two days. He has not convinced me yet.

MR. GRIMES: No, he's been telling you for two days that he agrees with you, that thirty and fifteen does add up.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, it does add up to forty-five. Yes. But he says I am wrong.

MR. GRIMES: He says your interpretation was wrong, he said nothing about your addition. It's just the way you interpret it.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, my interpretation is wrong. You tax me $30 million this year and you tax me $45 million next year, and that is not a 50 per cent increase. No.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well then, I'm wrong. I had better go back to school again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, that was the President of Treasury Board, who handles the finances of the Province. It is not the Minister of Finance who handles the finances. All the Minister of Finance does is read the Budget. The President of Treasury Board actually controls the finances of the Province. The Minister of Finance is responsible for taxation, and not a lot more, Mr. Speaker.

So there is your great employment program. The government says: What could we do? Well, maybe talk to their Liberal buddies in New Brunswick. I am not advocating totally what the Liberal Government in New Brunswick did. But they took a different approach. You see, their economy is just as bad as Newfoundland's economy and their unemployment rate is just as bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: No it's not.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, getting close to it. No, there is nothing as bad as Newfoundland. I stand corrected on that. But in relative terms, the problem they are facing in unemployment, compared to what they normally have, is just as severe as what we are facing compared to what we normally have. In fact, we are used to unemployment. It is the only thing that saves us in this Province. We don't know we are in a recession because we have never been out of one. We don't know what it is like not to be in a recession in this Province. But we are learning this year, I'm telling you, we're learning the hard way.

What does the Minister of Finance in New Brunswick do, Mr. Speaker? He cuts taxes. His consumption of liquor and tobacco was declining. So he cut taxes.

MR. FUREY: He had to. The federal Tory policy (inaudible) cross-border shopping crippled him.

MR. WINDSOR: It didn't. No, he did not have to cut taxes.

MR. FUREY: You think cross-border shopping didn't hurt him?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, sure, it hurt him.

MR. FUREY: Well, that's why he dropped the taxes.

MR. WINDSOR: And you think it's not hurting us?

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You think it's not hurting us?

MR. FUREY: What else did he do? Did he (inaudible)?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, sure, he cut back a bit.

MR. FUREY: Was that correct?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, he is about two years behind the government here.

MR. FUREY: That's right. And are we (inaudible)?

MR. WINDSOR: And he is about one year behind the government here in laying off some public servants and putting a wage freeze on. So he is finding all of the things that the government is doing here. That is not all he did. He said: we will give the people a break. We will cut the taxes on wines so that the restaurant and bar business -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We all need to get drunk in this Province. We should take the RCMP away from Fortune so that we can get everything we need from St. Pierre - the only reason that we would want to stay here.

That is what the minister did in response to a poor tourism industry. Of course he has competition from across border - no question - but he has lowered by 30 per cent the tax on wines. He said: we do that to stimulate the restaurant and bar industry and the nightclub industry because they were dead, as they are here.

AN HON. MEMBER: And slapped them with a payroll tax then.

MR. WINDSOR: We did here, oh yes. I am talking about the minister in New Brunswick who did that. Oh no, the minister did not give any cuts here. Liquor prices have gone up this week. Did you know that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fifty cents.

MR. WINDSOR: No, a dollar.

AN HON. MEMBER: A dollar?

MR. WINDSOR: A dollar on a quart of spirits. Yes. Nothing announced in the Budget because there were no increases, but there were wholesaler increases.

The minister does not bother to tell us that the Liquor Corporation marks up by a percentage, so if the wholesalers take an extra fifty cents, the Liquor Corporation gets an extra fifty cents. Aha! And everybody had sympathy. We all ducked the question because there was $7 million less in the Budget this year for revenue from the Liquor Corporation than there was last year. So we said, this is terrible. Liquor sales are really declining because of the price and because of the economy - not so! Liquor sales in Newfoundland are declining less than anywhere else in Canada.

MR. EFFORD: No fish, no drink.

MR. WINDSOR: Aha! That is right. That is what we all thought, I say to the hon. gentleman from Bay de Verde.

MR. EFFORD: Port de Grave, boy!

MR. WINDSOR: Port de Grave. That is in Bay de Verde, or Bay de Verde is in Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Where did they (inaudible) with? St. John's?

MR. WINDSOR: Bay de Verde is where?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It is not. Bay de Verde is in Port de Grave. No it is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) miles away.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. So it is. It is up the point. I am getting Bareneed mixed up with Port de Grave. Bareneed is in your district - a very beautiful part of the Province, too.

I say to the hon. gentleman, because he is under the same misconception that most of us were, that liquor consumption has dropped drastically. It has dropped less than 3 per cent in this Province. It has dropped more across the rest of Canada than here, and that drop is more as a result of increased surveillance on our highways, fortunately, than anything else. That is why consumption is dropping - not because of the cost as much as the increased surveillance on the highways, which is a good thing to see.

We looked at the Budget and said, $73 million this year; it was $80 million last year, so the question was, why did you not lower the taxes on liquor? Maybe that would stimulate sales. You wonder if that is a good thing to do. Do it on wines to try to help the restaurant business a little bit, but I found out the reason that there is $7 million less this year is not the sales at all. It is because the minister was pulling money from the Liquor Corporation the last couple of years, because there is money that has been there in the kitty ever since we had the beer strike and the Liquor Corporation brought in American beer. Do you believe that we can bring American beer into Newfoundland more cheaply than it can be produced locally. Here is where my friend, the Minister of Development is going to have to be very careful, and I know he is aware of it, because if we lower the tariffs, and if we allow them to come in and set their own rates, then we would have a great problem because you can get American beer here. We can buy it now more cheaply than we can buy it from local breweries, so when the beer strike was on, the Liquor Corporation did not lower the prices for beer, because if they had, the breweries would never get back into production.

The Corporation made tens of millions of dollars during the beer strike four or five years ago, and they have held that as retained earnings in the Corporation's account ever since, and they have been giving back a few million dollars to the minister each year, but they have run out. They do not have any more left in reserve to give back to government now. That is why there is $7 million less. So we find that it is not the cost at all. It is the minister playing with the numbers in the books that made it look better last year - made it look a lot better last year. Maybe the minister could have looked at it. Maybe he could have said we will lower it. The minister probably does not even know it, but in fact some wines actually are decreasing slightly in price. The minister does not know it, but they are, because some of the wines we have been able to get better shipping rates on so the prices are going down a little bit.

What else did the minister in New Brunswick do? He lowered the price of tobacco, seventy-seven cents on a package of twenty-five, the same time the minister here raised it by twenty-five cents. So that is $1.02 difference. Admittedly New Brunswick prices were higher before and he has the cross-border shopping, but we have just reversed the roles. It is again something to help stimulate the economy and to give people a break to leave a few more dollars in their pockets to do other things with.

Gasoline, Mr. Speaker, do you realize that the consumption of gasoline in this Province is dropping drastically? I think our revenue from gasoline in spite of the increases this year will go down. Gasoline, in fact, will go down by $2 million this year in spite of the fact that gasoline taxes are increasing because the price of gasoline is increasing and on an ad valorem basis obviously as the gasoline goes up so does the ministers cut, which is a percentage of the cost to the gasoline.

So we are charging a higher tax this year, even though the minister does not announce it, because he does not have to in the Budget, because it is on an ad valorem basis it automatically goes up. Only if he changed the percentage that he was going to take would he have to announce it. But because the price of gasoline is going up then the tax on the gasoline is going up as well. Nevertheless we are getting less. We are gaining $2 million less, 2 per cent less on the $100 million that gasoline raises because of utilization, consumption. That has to tell us, Mr. Speaker, something about the state of the economy as well. That has to tell us a great deal.

So the minister could have had a chat with is his friend, the minister in New Brunswick, his political buddies in New Brunswick. Maybe he could get some ideas from them on how he could have done something differently in his Budget to try to get some things moving in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the payroll tax again. Not only, Mr. Speaker, has this government done nothing to help business, but they take more money away from them under the payroll tax. Now the president of the NTA says: education in an excuse for a tax grab, and he is quite right. He is dead right, absolutely dead right. Health and education, Mr. Speaker, have been used for a fraud in this Budget and in the last two years since this payroll tax or health and education tax was introduced.

MR. BARRETT: The best tax we have ever had.

MR. WINDSOR: The best tax we have ever had. Let the record show, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Bellevue says it is the best tax we have ever had. Let the record show. Now we know where he is coming from.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I said I would review it with a view to eliminating and I probably would have eliminated it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said you would eliminate it.

MR. WINDSOR: I probably would have eliminated it. I do not deny that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I do not deny that. I am not quarrelling with the elimination of the school tax. I am quarrelling with cancelling a $30 million tax and replacing it with a $45 million tax and trying to say it is all in the name of health and education. It is a tax grab and nothing else.

DR. WARREN: Would the hon. member let me explain what is really happening?

MR. WINDSOR: I know what is happening.

DR. WARREN: Why the $43 million?

MR. WINDSOR: You are taking $15 million from the pockets of Newfoundlanders. That is what is happening.

DR. WARREN: Would the hon. member permit a comment, please, to explain the misinformation that he is perpetrating on this House?

MR. WINDSOR: The minister will have lots of time to explain, Mr. Speaker.

DR. WARREN: We are levelling up.

MR. TOBIN: You are not. You are robbing money from the people.

DR. WARREN: We are levelling up around the Province.

MR. WINDSOR: Levelling up what?

MR. TOBIN: You are rogues. You are a bunch of rogues.

DR. WARREN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, because that is misinformation, incorrect information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, that is misinformation. I won't accuse the hon. member of deliberately lying or misleading the House, but the government is collecting more than enough to replace the school tax because the government is putting in this year $9 million more to level up, to provide equality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: And $12 million next year, Mr. Speaker, $12 million a year more so that people in rural Newfoundland will be treated fairly. This government is not going to tolerate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. minister was on a point of clarification, I guess, if a point of anything.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, what I said to the minister, if he was listening, was that we have eliminated a $30 million school tax and we have replaced it with $45 million worth of taxation. Now, the fact that this government chose to put another $8 million equalization in there does not alter the fact that they are publicly on the record as saying: We are eliminating the school tax and we are replacing it with an increase in the payroll tax and an increase in personal income tax. And it gets you $15 million.

DR. WARREN: We are levelling up.

MR. WINDSOR: You are levelling up! I don't care what you are doing with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Who is paying for it? The people are paying for it. And you try then to bluff your way through and say: Oh, it is not costing anybody. There are 10,000 businesses that are not going to pay anything. That, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it is a lie, but whatever the alternate words are, that is what it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a lie.

MR. WINDSOR: - because it is not true.

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

MR. WINDSOR: You can check, and you will find out, Mr. Speaker, that the 10,000 businesses the minister talks about are proprietorships that either have no property, or if they had any small amount of property -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a lie. That is not true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is saying I am lying. He said: That is a lie.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I can slap it back, just as well as you can.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Mount Pearl is saying that the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs used some unparliamentary language. The Chair did not hear the hon. minister, but, if he did, I would ask him to retract it.

MR. HOGAN: If I did, I withdraw it. If I didn't, I don't withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Oh, Mr. Speaker, what a disgrace to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, that is a hardly a qualified withdrawal, but I don't want to waste any more time with the minister. That is fine.

The point of the matter is that you have 10,000 businesses that the Minister of Finance tried to convince the people of this Province will now not pay any tax, that were paying school taxes before. The fact of the matter is, I say to the Minister of Social Services, that the majority of those companies were proprietorships that had very small amounts of property, if any. They were paying a property tax based on their property, which was less than the $150 poll tax, and because they had a proprietorship they did not have to pay the poll tax. So most of those businesses paid less than $150.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are wrong. That is wrong,

MR. WINDSOR: That is not wrong. You go check with the School Tax Authority, as I did, and you will find out it is absolutely right. How about looking at the facts, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOGAN: A couple are worse off, but hundreds are better off.

MR. WINDSOR: Hundreds are better off.

How about senior citizens, Mr. Speaker? Does the hon. gentleman from Placentia think they are better off? How about the public service pensioners, Mr. Speaker? Are they better off? There are 55,000 people, senior citizens in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: One-third of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense! Nonsense!

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, there are not 55,000 senior citizens in the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you are going to say that they are going to be worse off (Inaudible) -

MR. WINDSOR: One-third of them are. One-third of them are paying personal income tax, yes. Now if the minister can prove me wrong, I'll sit down. But if not, put up or shut up!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, Mr. Speaker, there are 20,000 senior citizens out there tonight that are glad to hear from the Minister of Finance they do not have to pay personal income tax. They would like to get back what they paid last year. The fact of it is, they are going to pay 4 per cent more as a result of this Budget. They didn't pay school tax, because over sixty-five years of age they were exempt. So there are 20,000 senior citizens who are going to pay more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong!

MR. WINDSOR: Wrong! The minister is wrong! The minister is too stunned to realize what he is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Somebody over there, Mr. Speaker, made a comment that he must have been drinking at lunch. I assure whoever was ignorant enough to make such a comment that I was not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you drinking water?

MR. WINDSOR: I am drinking water, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They're obviously hurting now, Mr. Speaker, if they have to get down in the gutter like that. They're really worried now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. WINDSOR: They're hurting now. Twenty thousand senior citizens will pay more personal income tax this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I would say there are students who will pay school tax this year.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh yes. There are students who will pay more personal income tax this year. That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very few.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Oh. I have news for the hon. gentleman.

MR. TOBIN: No wonder the teachers don't shake the minister's hand (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No. There are students who will pay more tax this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very few.

MR. WINDSOR: Very few. There are a lot of students out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll pay a lot more.

MR. WINDSOR: I'll pay a lot more. I won't pay any more.

MR. TOBIN: Work term students will pay a lot more. No wonder they do not shake the minister's hand.

MR. WINDSOR: I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance would actually say that there is not 20,000 senior citizens who are going to pay more. It is an absolute untruth and the minister knows that. It is not anybody's calculations, as the Minister of Social Services said, it is straightforward fact. That one-third of our senior citizens do indeed pay income tax.

AH HON. MEMBER: But they're not just getting old age pension.

MR. WINDSOR: They are getting old age pension.

AN HON. MEMBER: But they are not paying - they are just getting old age pension. They're not paying income tax.

MR. WINDSOR: There is no senior citizen today, or very few of them, who are living on just their old age pension. If they are in a senior citizen's home or something, yes. But there are 20,000 of them out there - and these are the facts, I say to the Member for Bellevue. Twenty thousand of them who are paying income tax.

MR. BARRETT: Does that mean that somebody over sixty-five with an income of $150,000 should not contribute to the education of our young people?

MR. WINDSOR: I'm sorry, I can't hear the hon. gentleman.

MR. BARRETT: A senior citizen, sixty-five years of age, with an income of $150,000 a year, should not contribute to the education of our young people?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. WINDSOR: There are not a lot of them making $150,000 a year. Those are not the ones I'm worried about. How about the senior citizens with incomes of $15,000 a year? They are paying enough.

MR. A. SNOW: It is only cabinet ministers who are retired and making $150,000 a year.

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

MR. WINDSOR: A senior citizen with an income of $15,000 a year is paying about $1,200 a year income tax.

MR. TOBIN: Retire the university professors.

MR. WINDSOR: $1,200 a year income tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: They get $150,000 a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members on both sides of the House for their co-operation and help in maintaining some level of decorum and some integrity in this House. There is too much shouting, there is too much noise; the Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Mount Pearl and all other hon. members will have an opportunity to take part in this debate and I ask for their co-operation to maintain some decorum.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the hon. Member for Bellevue, that a senior citizen with an income of $15,000 a year will be paying around $1,200 on $15,000, income tax, and that person did not pay school tax, if they are over sixty-five years of age, and so they will now pay 4 per cent more personal income tax as a result of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, whatever it is the fact of the matter is, it is more.

MR. TOBIN: The senior citizens are paying school tax.

MR. WINDSOR: Now, how about the family with an income of $20,000 a year? The hon. gentleman might not know that the poverty level in Canada is $19,000 a year, I think that is the figure that is established as the poverty level, and there are a lot of families in this Province who are existing on $20,000 a year. The hon. Minister for Employment and Labour Relations agrees and he is right. There are lots of them - not very well, thank you, but they are surviving somehow on $20,000 a year. If that person or that family lived on the Burin Peninsula where they were paying $85.00 dollars a year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Under? Well there are places where it is $85.00, I am using the minister's two examples of $150 and $85.00 dollars, but if that person or a family was living in an area where the school tax was $85.00, I would say down in Burgeo area where it is $85.00, am I right, I ask the Member for Hermitage? Where is it $85.00, somewhere in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of them are $85.00 and a $100.

MR. WINDSOR: $85.00 and a $100, yes well $85.00. Anyway the minister used the example of $85.00 so I use his numbers. I am using his numbers.

That family which is living on $20,000 a year will pay $51.00 more next year. Now $51.00 may not sound like a lot of money and it is not in real terms a lot of money, but if you are living on $20,000 trying to raise a family, it is a lot of money. It is a lot of money when the minister tries to tell us that half of the people will be better off, some will pay less, some will pay the same and only a few rich people are going to pay more.

Well a person with $20,000 as a total family income is hardly a rich family, they are at the poverty level, so what we are saying is here is a family living at the poverty level that will pay an extra $51.00 next year, personal income tax, for what? The Member for Mount Scio is amazed, he has not bothered to take a pencil -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste my time arguing with the Member for Mount Scio, he is just not worth the time, but let me say to him, ask the minister for a copy of the document that the minister gave me. Have a look at the minister's own numbers. A family with $20,000 income will pay $51.00 more next year in personal income tax than the school tax they paid this year-

MR. WALSH: $100 less than last year, $100 less than last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be so stunned.

MR. WINDSOR: How can you pay $100 less when you only paid $85.00 last year?

MR. WALSH: In St. John's you paid $150.

MR. WINDSOR: It is no wonder the chicken business is in trouble, Mr. Speaker, I tell you. No wonder their chicken business is in trouble, the big chicken is sitting in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: I have lots of time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Seventy-five hours.

MR. WINDSOR: I can start again. I say the Member for St. John's South has been here long enough and he should know the rules, that there is no time limit. There is seventy-five hours on the debate of the Estimates but there is no limit on the Budget Speech, and I have unlimited time. I can take seventy-five hours myself if the hon. member cares to listen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman can think again. I have reservations for nowhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will tell nobody which one of your colleagues told me.

MR. WINDSOR: I do not care which one of my colleagues told you. I do not care who told you, but I tell you now I have reservations to go absolutely nowhere other than to my great historic district of Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are already here.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, I go there every night and I will be going there for a long time. Let me put a rumour to sleep for you, Mr. Speaker. Let me put some rumours to bed because my political opponents in Mount Pearl who want me to retire are putting rumours on the street that Windsor is not going to run again. Let me put that one to bed now, there is absolutely no question that when the next election is over I will be right here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: But I will not be over here I will be on that side of the House. What a glorious day it is going to be, Mr. Speaker. The Member for St. John's South will be fixing potholes down on Water Street. He will not be in the House anymore. He will be gone. The Member for Bellevue will be sweeping the floors on the senior citizens home out in Come By Chance. He will be gone. The Minister of Finance will be stoking the furnace at the University. He will be gone. The Member for Mount Scio will be up plucking chickens. There will be nothing left of him. They will be all gone, Mr. Speaker. We have a job for the Minister of Labour out on the Exploits River, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: A golf pro.

MR. WINDSOR: A golf pro. Oh, there is going to be a big change, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: The Member for Bellevue is going to run against you out in Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: The Member for Bellevue would not have enough intestinal fortitude. If the Member for Bellevue would like to run against me, and if the Premier would guarantee that the Member for Bellevue will have the Liberal nomination, if the Premier would guarantee to call a by-election I would resign now and let us have at it. Come on, let us have at it right now. The Member for Bellevue or a misplaced judge, I do not care, Mr. Speaker, put the two of them out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am waiting for Randy.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, you are waiting for Randy. Randy will get you. The member is worried, too. Oh, is he worried. The people of Paradise, St. Thomas, and Portugal Cove cannot wait either.

AN HON. MEMBER: He cannot get a candidate.

MR. WINDSOR: He cannot get a candidate. Mr. Speaker, the embarrassing thing about being part of this party now is that there are not enough seats for the candidates to run who want to run. That is the truth. I have never in all my years in politics seen so many people who want to run for our party, even when we were in Government. I say that in all sincerity. The President of Treasury Board does not believe me. I have never had so many people express so much interest in running for our party, and I do not think it is because of us. I think it is because they are so determined to get rid of the Premier first of all, and his colleagues second, but the Premier most of all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The Premier at the same time is both the most loved and the most hated, all at the one time.

AN HON. MEMBER: They love him when they are around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: There will be a big change the next time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The most loved and hated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, it works.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: While you are moving it over there. Yes, you are right. You need not worry. We are quite capable of moving all of our things over to that side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: There is going to be a big change, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) introduced now the former Member for Mount Pearl (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: There is no former Member for Mount Pearl and there is not going to be for a while because there has never been a member before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: You are spending too much time down talking to your lawyer.

MR. WINDSOR: And the Member for St. John's South, Mr. Speaker, should get a pair of sneakers on and start knocking on doors. The member for St. John's better start moving. He better get on the hustings.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is once again calling on all hon. members to co-operate in having a smooth flow of debate in this House. Hon. members have been asked on two occasions this afternoon. Again I say that all hon. members should know the rules of the House. The Chair does not make the rules, the Chair is here to see that the rules are carried out and the Chair needs the co-operation of all hon. members in doing that. Again I ask for your co-operation. Let's get on with the debate and have a smooth flow of debate here this afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was having so much fun taking shots at him. It had a certain appeal to me. I will try to get back to the subject. I was having a great exchange with the Minister of Education on educational funding. The minister was telling me that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - we eliminated the school tax. We raised an extra $21 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well then somebody is wrong, Mr. Speaker. There must be a mistake in the Budget. It says $21 million raised from personal income tax this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Twenty-one million dollars from personal income tax additional this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Because of school tax.

DR. WARREN: (Inaudible) tax replaced the money and level up so that the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador got equality.

MR. WINDSOR: Ten million dollars additional payroll tax (inaudible).

MR. WARREN: The rest of Newfoundland deserves equality of opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: So the minister says that raised the thirty and we put an extra $5 million - $9 million into equalization.

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible) million in the operation of schools and $12 million next year.

MR. WINDSOR: Nine million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister likes to ignore the fact that he cut $7 million out of school construction.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No he did not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes you did.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, well the Budget is wrong again, Mr. Speaker! We have to get the printer up here.

AN HON. MEMBER: They do not even know what is in the Budget.

MR. WINDSOR: The Budget says there is $20 million this year and not $27 million. The minister says, Mr. Speaker, $20 million will be provided in 1992 to build new primary, elementary, and secondary schools. There must be something wrong with the printer. Get him up here. In the Budget highlights in the back, Mr. Speaker, under education - where is it here? Oh, here it is, right in front of me. The school construction program has been reduced from the previous three year commitment of $27 million to $20 million annually. Somebody, Mr. Speaker, is giving wrong information here!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: How can you explain?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the explanation?

MR. WINDSOR: Explain it to the minister and tell him to put an addendum onto his Budget because he got something wrong. Sit down. I listened to him making his speech the last time he wanted me to listen to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The truth is coming out. That is why they are hurting so much over there. They thought they could cover it up, Mr. Speaker. They thought they could put this fraud over on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is not going to work. People are starting to see through them, Mr. Speaker. Any way you cut it, Mr. Speaker, they eliminated a school tax of $30 million and imposed $45 million of additional taxation. Now whether you spent additional money on equalization, whether you did anything else with it is irrelevant. You cannot change the fact that you replaced the school tax with $45 million of additional taxation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you expect?

MR. WINDSOR: What did we expect? We expected the government to be honest and come out and admit the truth, and not try to hide it. A little bit of honesty would go a long way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: That is what people expect. That is all they ask of their government. Be honest with us!

The minister tried to tell us, 'Well, we eliminated 171 fees and licences. ' Seven licences, he eliminated - seven.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Seven - exactly seven licences, I say to the President of Treasury Board.

In the Budget Speech he even read out: 'We are going to eliminate fees for 9,000 waiters and waitresses.' And I, foolishly enough, on Monday stood up and said, 'This a great thing. I congratulate the minister for eliminating it,' until I looked in the back of the book, and it is next year he is going to do it - a year from yesterday. Why does it take a year? Is there any rationale for that, or is that another typographical error? We ought to get the printer on the carpet here, Mr. Speaker. I know they rushed the Budget back the last minute because there was a page missing out of it. Maybe there is another page.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which page?

MR. WINDSOR: I don't know which page it was. Maybe there was a page too many in it and they had to get it out, but changed their mind the last minute.

The minister wouldn't let me see the Budget until twelve o'clock in the day, Mr. Speaker. The news media were invited in at 9:15 a.m. for coffee and donuts, and told they would get their documents at 9:30 a.m., and when we asked the minister to allow us in at 10:00 a.m. so we would have a reasonable period to review it, he said, 'Don't be so foolish. Twelve o'clock is long enough.'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. Twelve o'clock was long enough. And when I left there at 1:55 p.m. to come to the House of Assembly, they wouldn't even let me take my documents with me, with the notes I had in the books.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WINDSOR: They wouldn't let me take the notes with me. No, no, no, the minister might be embarrassed if you walk into the House with the documents before he tables them in the House. Well, what childishness! What childishness, Mr. Speaker!

It was 5:30 p.m. before I got my documents back with all my notes in it. How am I supposed to respond to questions from colleagues and the news media on the Budget when I am given less than two hours to study the documentation. The news media are given four hours, and we are given less than two. That is the kind of childishness - I shouldn't be too amazed by it. The Minister of Finance is over there yawning and making faces and saying all kinds of foolishness.

DR. KITCHEN: I am totally bored.

MR. WINDSOR: Totally bored. Well why don't you remove yourself and do the Province a favour if you are bored?

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't even know you are the Finance critic.

MR. PARSONS: The hon. the Member for Pleasantville is amazed that all these truths have been spoken. He is amazed. He is flabbergasted.

MR. WINDSOR: I wonder, has the minister sent out a notice to all the public servants in the Province of how much less they have to work with now? I wonder if the minister is prepared to send a notice out to the public servants? The average salary for public servants is $33,000.

MR. BAKER: That is close.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. The President of Treasury Board agrees. I thought I was going to have to send him my calculator again -$33,000. I will give him an exact figure - $33,611 if you simply take the total salary package and divide by the number of upper civil servants listed in the Budget document.

If you apply a 6.1 per cent inflation rate for the last year, because that is what inflation was last year, if you reduce it by 6.1 per cent for last year, and you reduce it by 1.8 per cent for this year, you will find that that salary now that was $33,611 two years ago is worth $31,119 this year, and $2,500 less is what the average public servant has to spend. If you say, well, the average public servant at $30,000 is going to break even this year - if he lives in St. John's - on personal income tax, he is going to pay $90 more next year, so that is another $90 less he has. But if he happens to be a public servant out where the school tax is $85, he is going to pay $65 more this year and he will pay $155 more next year. These are our wealthy public servants who are living on $33,000, who have not had an increase for the last two years. In effect, they have less than $30,000 now.

AN HON. MEMBER: More in total or is that with the school tax?

MR. WINDSOR: I'm sorry, what was his -

AN HON. MEMBER: More in total or is that with the school tax?

MR. WINDSOR: They pay less than school tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are going to pay less than they did on the school tax.

MR. WINDSOR: They will pay more than they did on school tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that amount more?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. This year, the first year, at 2.5 per cent increase in personal income tax, a person living in rural Newfoundland, a public servant who was paying $85 last year, will pay $65 more this year. Next year, because it goes to 4 per cent, that person will pay $155 more.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's with the $85 subtracted.

MR. WINDSOR: That's with the $85 subtracted. One hundred and fifty-five dollars more than they paid. Now if you lived in St. John's and paid $150 this year, you'd pay the same. Thirty thousand dollars is the break-even for this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: The rural fisherman making $10,000 will pay a lot less.

MR. WINDSOR: A person will pay $65 a year less, this year - not next year, they pay the same next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: A person making $10,000 will pay the same?

MR. WINDSOR: A person making $10,000 will pay the same next year as they paid last year.

MR. NOEL: How do you figure that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-five less this year.

MR. WINDSOR: Pass the calculator over to him again, Mr. Speaker. A person, as I said, earning $30,000, a family person, will pay $155 more next year in rural Newfoundland.

MR. GRIMES: Do you realize that the majority of people other than those living in St. John's and Mount Pearl out there beyond the overpass, can't dream of making $30,000 a year?

MR. WINDSOR: That's right.

MR. GRIMES: Can't dream of making it?

MR. WINDSOR: That's right.

MR. TOBIN: Because of this government!

MR. WINDSOR: And the family making $20,000 a year, which is the poverty level -

MR. TOBIN: You should be ashamed to say it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The family making $20,000 a year, which is the poverty level -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: - will pay $51 a year more next year!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: If the hon. gentleman is so proud of that, go out into rural Newfoundland and tell these people who are living on the poverty level that: We have just increased your taxes by $51!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Where are all the poor people in Harbour Grace and Carbonear?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: How about twenty thousand?

MR. PARSONS: The richest people in the country are in Harbour Grace, Carbonear and Port de Grave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: People in the gallery (inaudible) talking about. $30,000 a year. A lot of people out in Conception Bay North (inaudible) dollars a year.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the impact of this Budget on the average public servant. And there are a lot of public servants making less than $33,000 a year, a heck of a lot of them. But that is the impact on the average public servant making $33,000 a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: I am just waiting, Mr. Speaker, that's all. I have lots of time.

I will move on now to a couple of other items in the Budget, Mr. Speaker. In the midst of all this there are a couple of positive things. Five million dollars for a centre for engineering technology. Good. I am not sure what - it's a really small centre, I would assume, for $5 million, but that is an improvement. No doubt that will be - I am not sure if that is attached to the University, is it, or to the Marine Institute, that centre of engineering technology? Maybe the Minister of Education, does he know? The centre for engineering technology, is that attached to the University or -

DR. WARREN: No, that is part of the Cabot Institute. That, Mr. Speaker, is going to be part of the new college. This is a new $12 million to $13 million technology centre that will be under construction within the next two or three months.

MR. WINDSOR: But is that part of the University?

DR. WARREN: No, it will be part of the St. John's Regional College.

MR. WINDSOR: Anyway, we welcome that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: And the school milk program, Mr. Speaker, $150,000 for milk, it is a good program. I remember when I was in Grade VI, the government then was talking about providing free milk to all the schools -

AN HON. MEMBER: Go away boy (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is true, I remember when I was in Grade VI, not even Grade VI, what am I saying, I was in Grade II, I think, Grade II or III, but I remember when I was in Grade II, I was ill, I was off for quite a while with - I do not know, some strange disease -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I do not know what it was, it wasn't Aids, no. Scarlet Fever, I think it was called, Scarlet Fever, it was not a social disease - I was under quarantine as it was a very highly contagious disease, I was off for quite a while. I remember while I was away from school it was announced, a new school program is going to be introduced and I remember when I went to school for the first time after, I went down fully expecting at recess time there would be milk available but I was never so shattered when I found out that no, they are talking about a school milk program, but there is no school milk program yet. It is funny, it is one of those little things that happens to you when you are young that totally devastated me and I have never forgotten it, so I had to chuckle when I saw this the other day. It is a good program and I am certainly very pleased to see it.

A Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre at Whitbourne. Maybe the Member for Bellevue is planning on getting a job out there, he should apply now -

MR. BARRETT: I would not have to get a job there. I will get a bigger majority than you will in Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: If I was a betting man, I would like to take that one on, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: $2 million is provided for an ongoing comprehensive computer system, Mr. Speaker, for the Department of Social Services. Well, it will not do a lot for the people who are on social assistance but it would probably be of great benefit to the social workers out there who are grossly overloaded right now. Social assistance rates are increased by 2.2 per cent, that is barely holding inflation, but at least they got something and that affects a lot of people because there are a lot of people on social assistance today, far too many people are receiving social assistance, far too many. The Victim's Services Program is going to replace Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the Law Reform Commission will no longer be funded, these are the great reforms I am sure in the Justice system.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the central point of what I started to say -

MR. MURPHY: Pay rates of $2.83 per hour for student assistants (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Is the Member for St. John's South making his maiden speech, Mr. Speaker, or what is he doing?

MR. MURPHY: I made my maiden speech, there is no need of getting (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Unfortunately, yes, you have. The point, Mr. Speaker, that this government has missed is the fact that we do have serious problems facing Newfoundland today and they need to be addressed. Unfortunately the government failed to address these serious problems, all you have to do is look at the percentage of the Budget that is being directed towards natural resources, agriculture, tourism, industry and trade, 5 per cent of the Budget only and there is where real job creation will take effect.

As I said before, we had to do it at two fronts. I think somebody was quoted in the paper yesterday as saying that we cannot just do it with natural resources, and I could not agree more. Our natural resources unfortunately are getting taxed to the limit. We have not done a particularly good job of utilising them. I think we need to direct more effort at further utilising our natural resources. More value added. I spoke a couple of days ago about the fishing industry. I welcome this initiative in the Northern Peninsula, in Roddickton, to activate that sawmill plant there to export -

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

I wonder if the hon. Member could take his seat while I announce the questions for the Late Show.

The first question is: I am not satisfied by the response of the acting Minister of Justice to my question about the termination of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Program. I would like to have these questions debated at greater length on the Late Show, Thursday - the hon. Member for Humber East.

The second: I would like to debate the answer given to me by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs concerning the MOG - the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern.

The third question: I am not satisfied with the answer given by the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy re: the break off of negotiations between Quebec and Newfoundland - the hon. Member for Menihek.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, we have to attack the problem on two fronts. Have to have the long-term strategy. It is critically important. I guess we have to attack it on three fronts. Long-term strategy is critically important, and that has to be the key to long-term economic stability in the Province. So we are anxiously awaiting this great economic strategy plan. Can't wait. We're talking, what, the Spring sometime? Late Spring? This is Spring now. When are we -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Harold Lundrigan gets (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Just after the House adjourns for the Summer, no doubt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) we can keep the House open (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Oh we can keep the House open. You can be sure of that. Keep her open to Regatta Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: So, Mr. Speaker, this great economic strategy plan is something that has been long awaited, and is long overdue, I say to government. I say that without having any concept of what might be in it. It frightens me a little bit what might be in it. But we will wait and see. At least there will be a plan that we can look at. There has been extensive consultation, I think. There have been a lot of opportunities for people to make representation. Whether or not it fell on deaf ears remains to be seen. But for the moment we will give the government the benefit of the doubt that they have given people an opportunity to have input.

I went through the other day the amounts of money that are in the Budget for various economic strategy groups, economic councils, Economic Recovery Commissions, economic strategy plan implementation, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately, far too few of those dollars are actually going where they belong, which is to create some activity. Too much of it is in planning, strategy and administration. Paperwork. Bureaucracy.

When you look at the overall strategy of the government this is what you have to look at. This tells you the story of what the government is doing - or what they are not doing, perhaps more properly put. Five point one per cent of the Budget is directed towards natural resources, agriculture, trade and industry. Only 5.1 per cent. So that tells you something. Social welfare takes 13 per cent. Debt charges and finance charges take 15 per cent. Education takes 24 per cent. Health takes 24 per cent. We are only able to direct 5.1 per cent at developing our natural resources.

So that signifies the problem that we have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It is not good, no. I say to the President of Treasury Board that he is right. I agree with him. It is not good. It really is not good. It is frustrating to all of us, I am sure. It is a sad commentary when so much of our provincial dollar has to go on other things so that there is nothing left to put into resource development, unless we can somehow change that, and direct more funds in that manner, because right now we fail to create the economic climate in which private enterprise can do it for us. That is government's real role, not to create the jobs but to create the economic climate that makes it attractive for private enterprise to move, to work, to invest, and to create jobs and economic activity. All government does is redistribute the wealth. Government's real role is to deal with the social problem - to look after the social things - and to create an economic climate so that the economy can support itself. That is what our goal has to be. I do not think we are going to do it with 5 per cent of our dollar, only, going toward it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could take his seat?

The Chair has ruled on many occasions that hon. members are not permitted to interject during the debate. Also, hon. members have been asked in the past, if they wish to carry on a conversation that they do so outside the Chamber. I ask hon. members to my left and the hon. members to my right, if it is absolutely necessary that they engage in a conversation that they do so outside.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point I want to make is that we must create an economic climate that is attractive, and that is, I think, government's real role. It is not to give handouts to private enterprise. Some incentives unfortunately, from time to time, are necessary, and you may rest assured that private enterprise will lap them up. I think government's money is better directed at creating a climate that will allow private enterprise to work without huge subsidies, without heavy grant levels. Now there are certain areas where we do have to provide that type of incentive, not as an incentive but to remove some of the disadvantages that are inherent in our economy, of simply trying to do business here - not the least of which is the very small market that we have available to us, particularly locally. So we often have to put in place programs to overcome the disadvantages from a transportation point of view, from a manpower availability point of view, from an educational standard point of view, unfortunately, as well. So we have to deal with that. Five per cent of our dollar aimed at that part of our economy will not allow us properly to do that and to put in place all of the infrastructure that is required to assist, or to make it the kind of environment that private enterprise can work within. That is one aspect of what we have to do.

The second aspect, of course, is education. We have to put emphasis on education. We have to improve the standards of our people in the workforce, and unfortunately the more we seem to do in that regard, the less opportunities seem to be available for them. So we are losing them - the old brain drain syndrome we have talked so much about in this House. It is still very much a reality today. Some of our better students, some of our more qualified citizens, are forced to leave the Province and find employment elsewhere, so we have invested all of our resources into making educational opportunities available, and again it is a two-pronged approach from government's point of view. One is the social responsibility to make education available to Newfoundlanders, and the second is to train Newfoundlanders to work productively in our economy. So we have at least fulfilled the first part - at least, we're trying to. We are training and educating Newfoundlanders, giving them the skills that they need to be productive in the workplace.

Unfortunately the opportunities are not there, as I started to say earlier. So we have to create for them some opportunities. We need to give them some hope that when they come out of University or trades college or whatever the case may be, that they have opportunities available for them to use their skills. There is nothing more frustrating for young people than to spend four or five years of their life in a post-secondary educational institution and be faced with the hopelessness that there is no opportunity out there for them to use the skills and the education that they have gained.

The third aspect of how we have to deal with the problem unfortunately is to create short-term employment for those who cannot hope to find a job, for lack of skills or obviously because of lack of employment opportunities. Unfortunately in this Province we are going to be a long time before we can totally eliminate the need for that type of a program. As much as -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Unfortunately. As much as none of us like to see that. But it is a fact of life. What is even sadder, Mr. Speaker, is that it has become a way of life, more so than a fact of life. There are many Newfoundlanders out there who because they have been forced into this situation for so long, we are getting into second- and third-generations that have become accustomed to that as an acceptable way of life. The objective now is not to get a full-time job. The objective is to get a job for long enough to get your stamps. That is sad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I say to the Minister of Education, I am not saying that is generally applied.

DR. WARREN: If jobs were available people would take them.

MR. WINDSOR: Some would. There are tens of thousand, hundreds of thousand of Newfoundlanders, yes, who would take them. I am not saying they did not want the job, but they are filled with despair and the hopelessness that a job is there. They no longer expect to find a job. It no longer becomes unusual for them that there is not a job available. Okay? That is what I am trying to say. Not that they are satisfied. There are always some who would rather sit home then go to work. They are the minority, by far the minority.

Newfoundlanders - more so than many other people in the world - are born and bred to work. We have clung to life on this rock not easily. Unfortunately, it is becoming not accepted but not unusual. So it has become a way of life in Newfoundland. After a while you start to give up, you know. You do not think that there is any hope of changing that. So the way of life tends to become more acceptable because you are used to it for so long. I see so many communities, particularly in rural Newfoundland - and sadly, not only in rural Newfoundland today. It used to be only in rural Newfoundland. Primarily. It used to be that generally speaking there were employment opportunities in St. John's, in the St. John's region, and in the larger centres, if you wished them. A lot of people moved to the larger centres to find employment.

But it is not there today. There used to be a big difference between the unemployment level in St. John's and in rural Newfoundland. Not so today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Toronto, it's not there either.

MR. WINDSOR: That's right. You had the option of moving. But they are coming back from Toronto because it is not up there. As I said on Tuesday, if I were forced to live on that kind of income I would sooner live in rural Newfoundland than anywhere. You are better off going home and living than trying to survive in a big city where everything costs you money.

So it is a hard road we have ahead of us, Mr. Speaker, to try to pull all of these factors together to strengthen our economy. Where are we going to find the resources to do it? The Government of Canada cannot always be relied on to help us. This government has cried a great deal about the reduction in the amount of funding that is being made available from federal funds.

The fact of the matter is the Government of Canada is doing a tremendous amount for the people of this Province. We would all like to see more, but you have to realize the problems we are facing are that much worse at the national level. The national debt is far worse than the provincial debt on a per capita basis.

So they have very serious problems to deal with and their problem is growing, and they have to reverse that trend immediately. Unfortunately, some of that burden is being shifted to the provincial level and, in turn, the provincial level will shift it to the municipal level, and ultimately, the burden will rest on the shoulders of the taxpayer. The bottom line, the buck stops somewhere, and the economic buck stops on the shoulders of the taxpayer, invariably, regardless of what happens at what level. Invariably, in the end analysis, it is the taxpayer of the province who is called upon to find the solution.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to be innovative and imaginative. We are going to have to use the few dollars that are available to us in the best possible manner. That is not easily done, and it is not always easy because there are so many demands on government today. I can sympathize with government. I have been there, and I know what it is like. Every day there is another group coming in with a purpose, a very valid purpose, a very worthwhile organization with a mission that deserves some government support. Every day there is a hand out and another hand, and another hand. Government could spend their full time meeting with those delegations, these popular movements, and the minister probably does.

The President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, and every minister who has a program, every minister, literally, has a group that will come to him or her looking for funding. The Social Policy Committee is incredible, just incredible! And they are all worthwhile causes in their own right. If you look at each one of them individually, and these people are so enthusiastic because they all have an interest, either a vested interest because of a personal family problem or it has become an issue that they have taken on to contribute to society. It may be the General Hospital Corporation and the person may be volunteering on the board, but that person takes it seriously and looks at that particular question, tries to deal with it, and tries to do the best job that they can do. Every time they are coming to government looking for more help.

They have to realize, I think, that when you are coming to the government you are coming to the people. The government is only redistributing the people's money, the public purse, the tax pot. Government's only role is to set policy and direction as to what the public purse will be used for, how much will go to social programs, and how much will go to resource programs. It is to manage the public purse, that is the government's role. There is no great divine right given to government when they are elected to do anything that is so wonderful, it is simply to manage the public purse.

I guess our role as legislators here, and our role as an Opposition, particularly, is to ensure or try to ensure that government does that wisely and well, and in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people. When the people no longer agree with government, then they are no longer the government. That is the way our system works. It is as simple as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't tell that to Mulroney.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Prime Minister Mulroney may well find out. I am sure he knows that. He may well not find out. He may find out that the people would like him to stay there another shot. They just might.

MR. NOEL: They are waiting for Mulroney to have an election now.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

MR. NOEL: They are waiting for Mulroney to have an election. (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: He will have an election in due course.

MR. NOEL: Not in due course - now. The economy is stagnating now, waiting for Mulroney (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The economy is recovering very nicely, thanks to the economic polices of the federal government.

MR. NOEL: Oh yes? Where is the evidence?

MR. WINDSOR: You will see the evidence. The evidence is there. It is not something that happens in one day or in one week, but it is on the right course. That will be obvious before too long. Where are interest rates today? Where is inflation today?

MR. NOEL: Real interest rates today are as high as they have ever been. Because the inflation rate (inaudible). Interest rates today are very high.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you're a real fool!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Mr. Speaker!

MR. WINDSOR: My friend is stating the obvious.

MR. NOEL: Why don't you explain what you said?

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the economy of Canada could be in far worse shape. I say to the hon. gentleman opposite that I believe we will come out of this recession. There is very little sign of it yet, let me tell you. There is very little sign yet of the recession ending, in fact, it appears to be deepening, if anything.

MR. NOEL: I thought you just said it was improving.

MR. WINDSOR: Nationally, not provincially. Nationally we are starting to see some movement. We are usually six months behind the nation so one can only hope that over the next few months we will start to see some improvement. As summer comes we should start to see some improvement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: He does not understand economics.

MR. A. SNOW: Boy, I am glad to see the economist of Water Street back into the fray. (Inaudible) - right wing zealot.

MR. EFFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: I want to bring to the attention of the hon. Speaker - I don't know if he heard it. But I thought the hon. member would apologize. The name that he called another hon. member across the House is not - it is disgraceful for another hon. member in this House to do it and not have the decency to stand up and apologize to the House for doing so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order. The Chair didn't hear any comments being made by anybody. Unless the hon. member were to identify what the comments were, it is difficult for the Chair to rule. So there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: When he does get to his feet - he is shut out of all of the conversations now and (inaudible) demonstrations. All he can do is nitpick around here.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: I have to get that out of Hansard. (Inaudible). Could he explain that? I asked (inaudible) about that.

MR. WINDSOR: What did he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: The real interest rates (inaudible) inflation.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, the real interest rates are gone up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Tell him what real interest rates are, 'Neil'.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that in this House, hon. members are referred to by the districts they represent, not by their names. I ask hon. members to refrain from doing so.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a nice little break when we get a point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: A good little break, yes. I appreciate the scattered point of order so I get a chance to sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: See if we can get another couple, now.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, we have only five or six minutes left now, anyway, so we will soon adjourn.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you'll make it now.

MR. WINDSOR: I'll make it now, to the end of the day, for sure. By tomorrow morning I will be full of energy again. I will be able to say it all again.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the general state of the economy and the attitude today, and basically, the apathy that is inherent in society today. People feel defeated, business people particularly, and that concerns me greatly. I almost feel a hopelessness and that is really frightening. You can appreciate somebody who is unemployed, somebody who is on social assistance, somebody who has not been able to find work, feeling that attitude, but when the business person who is out there running business and seeing the business doing so badly and starting to go downhill rapidly, when that person gives up hope then a very serious situation is setting in, because if the business people give up on our economy, Mr. Speaker, then all is lost, for sure.

I had hoped that this particular Budget would have given the business people of this Province something to cling to, would have given them some hope that government had confidence in the economy, that government was confident the economy would improve, that government was prepared to invest some money to help the economy improve, but we didn't see that. We heard the minister tell us there was nothing he could do. The economy is going to decline by half a per cent. The minister told us unemployment is going to rise by 2 per cent and he told us that government is not prepared to do a thing about it. The only hope the government held out is a great economic strategy plan that somebody is going to put together for us, but the government showed no commitment to investing in the economy, to investing in private enterprise, or investing in the people. It showed no hope and no confidence that the economy is going to survive this recession. There is no hope whatsoever that private enterprise could see things improve and that they could begin to invest again. We saw no help from government in this Budget, nothing to say, We know you are having a tough time, we know it is difficult out there to keep things going, to keep the wheels turning, but we are going to do something for you to make it easy. We are going to reduce your burden, even for the short-term. We are going to give you a break for this year. Instead of that, government increases the payroll tax and broadens it so that thousands of other employers now will be forced to pay the payroll tax. I spent a great deal of time earlier debating with the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations the reduction in employment funding that is contained in both the Department of Social Services and in the Department of Labour. Both of been reduced, a total of $11 or $12 million altogether from last year. Perhaps even more significant than that is the impact of the payroll tax. I know the President of Treasury Board has talked to people, too, since the Budget came down, to gauge their reaction, and I think he will have to say there have been a lot of employers who have said to him, What the payroll tax does for me is it means I cannot hire a summer student.

I spoke to one small businessman who runs a service station here in this area. He said the payroll tax will cost him $4,000 and that is his summer students gone. That is what will happen in all of these little companies that hired a student or two to do odd jobs around or to fill in for summer vacations, or whatever. The difference in the payroll tax will eliminate the flexibility to hire the summer students. That is going to have a dramatic impact on employment this summer, particularly young people who are in university or vocational schools or whatever. It is going to have a tremendous impact on the number of jobs that are going to be available to those people, and it may well have an impact on permanent jobs. It could well.

If you have a company out there today that is losing money and now has to pay additional payroll tax. If you have a fish plant that is losing money and now has to pay payroll tax for the first time, and I gave an example a couple of days ago of one company in this Province that has a payroll of $2.8 million, is still losing money and now will lose an additional $28,000 because of that. An additional $28,000 on top of the loses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member would -

MR. WINDSOR: It being 4:30, I will adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It being 4:30 with the motion for adjournment I call on the Member for Humber East.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to discuss at greater length the issue of the government's terminating the Crimes Compensation Program. Earlier in the week I asked questions about that regressive measure to the acting Minister of Justice, and I was not satisfied with his responses. Of course the same as most people in the Province, I am extremely unhappy with the government's priorities reflected in the Budget, but I am also dissatisfied with the minister's comments about the Mount Cashel survivors since his remarks indicate that he does not fully appreciate what has happened in that situation.

Mr. Speaker, the government eliminated completely the Crimes Compensation Program. As of yesterday, April 1st, the government will not accept any more applications from victims of crime for reimbursement of their out of pocket expenses, for their loss of wages resulting from crime, nor for awards of token amounts for their pain and suffering to assist them in the healing process. Mr. Speaker, that is extremely regrettable, especially in the face of recent revelations about the nature of criminal injury, about the trauma experienced by victims of personal injury crime in particular.

Mr. Speaker, the Mount Cashel situation is different from most crime situations. It is different in that the provincial government has a special responsibility. The boys who were victimized at Mount Cashel were in the legal care and custody of the Director of Child Welfare at the material time, and that criminal activity resulted from failures of the Provincial Government Child Welfare Authorities, the police, and the Department of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, when the previous administration established the Hughes Inquiry into Mount Cashel, we provided in the terms of reference, for the commission to have the power to make recommendations about compensation for the victims. The Wells administration removed that from the Hughes Inquiry mandate. When I questioned the Premier about that change, the Premier's reply was that the proper place for the victims to go is the Crimes Compensation Program. Now, Mr. Speaker, what the acting minister apparently did not realize when he spoke the other day is that most of the Mount Cashel victims - now survivors - have already gone to the Crimes Compensation Program and have already received payments.

Mr. Speaker, because of the likelihood that the Mount Cashel survivors will get damages through private court actions or through out of court settlements perhaps from the provincial government, perhaps from the Christian Brothers, perhaps from the Roman Catholic Church, there is an understanding that from such private awards the money that is being paid by the Crimes Compensation Board will have to be reimbursed.

However, Mr. Speaker, there are one, two or three Mount Cashel survivors who have planned all along to apply for crimes compensation, but who decided to wait until the conclusion of the final trial before submitting their applications. One of those Mount Cashel survivors contacted me from Toronto to express his shock and dismay at the Budget decision. He said that he has made twenty-seven trips from Toronto to St. John's because of Mount Cashel for Hughes inquiry hearings, for preliminary inquiry hearings, and for all seven trials. Now he, unlike most of the other Mount Cashel survivors, did not submit an application to the Crimes Compensation Board. He discussed with officials of the criminal justice system his intention to wait until the final trial. The final trial, the Kenny trial, concluded on March 30 with a guilty verdict.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: So surely the government, for the sake of four days, is not going to deny that victim the same compensation as the other victims, and as the Premier promised in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the hon. member degenerates into talking about a specific case. In that specific case, an individual had done quite a bit of travelling. She seems to imply that this was at his cost. That is what you imply, and all the costs that it took and so on, and now he is not going to get compensated. I would suggest that the hon. member go back and check her facts again, and next time give the House the correct impression as to what went on.

Mr. Speaker, there are some - the hon. member is right - there are some specific individuals in this one case. I believe there are twenty-nine applications that have either been processed, or will be processed, from the Mount Cashel case, and there are probably some that have been overlooked. Obviously we will do our best to deal with the individual cases as they come along. There is no doubt about that. The hon. member, if she wants to get something done about a specific case, should go to the Department of Justice and talk to them about it. That is the effective way of doing things. The hon. member instead chooses to grandstand.

In the 1990-1991 fiscal year, the federal government announced they were totally withdrawing funding from this particular program - as a matter of fact from two programs. There was phase one, which was the criminal injuries compensation, and phase two, which was the services to the victims of violent crime. They announced all of a sudden that they were withdrawing from both parts of the program, and in reality two separate programs. That left us in a spot, obviously. If you go back over the numbers, you will find that in 1990-1991 when there was some cost sharing - I think it was done 60/40 with the province picking up 60 and the federal government paying 40 - there was about $350,000 spent, cost shared. The next year there was $800,000 spent - no, I guess $900,000 spent - and that was not cost shared, a total cost to the Province. This coming year, in 1992-1993, we budgeted $1,163,000. So these are big budgetary increases, Mr. Speaker. But at a certain point in time you have to look at your programs. We decided that the scarce provincial dollars that are available, because the federal government backed out - and the hon. member should talk to her colleagues up along about that - the federal government backed out; the scarce provincial dollars are better put into a victim services program.

This victim services program provides crisis counselling at the time of victimization. It provides victim witness assistance during the trial process, which is extremely important, and the other part, which kind of overlaps with the first part of the program that we are eliminating, the referral of victims in need of longer term counselling to appropriate services. I will repeat that again. The referral of victims in need of longer term counselling to appropriate services, and the development, at the community level, of these appropriate services. We feel that is a very significant and important thing to do, and the federal government has gotten out altogether, the provincial share of the money is perhaps, we feel, better targeted to that part of the program providing the services to the victims. Now, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the crimes compensation, one of the major components of it, in terms of dealing with the individuals, was, the appropriate counselling services and that kind of help because of what the situation was doing to the lives of the people. That type of long-term counselling can still be available through the Victim Services Program; can still be available, I will repeat -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: The member shakes her head, but she does not know, she chooses instead to grandstand rather than try to find out what is going on. I am telling her what is going on - will be available and we will try to handle as many cases as we can in terms of the counselling services -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. BAKER: - which are extremely important through the Victims Services Program, so, Mr. Speaker, the services are going to be provided to the best of our ability.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was almost disappointed when I saw my old friend, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was not here and I figured that the Government House Leader, the Jack of all trades, would be here to answer me in debate, but no, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the minister is here.

Before I go into it, I really get a charge out of it every time the hon. the Government House Leader, the President of Treasury Board and all his subjects on the other side, every time they get up, no matter what it is, it is blame it on the feds.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. PARSONS: Now, the Mount Cashel situation, again, blame it on the feds. Why don't we live in a real world? Granted you may not get all you wanted from Ottawa because if you did, you would take all that the ten provinces were due, you would take it all, but there are hundreds of millions of dollars extra brought into this Province this year, from Ottawa, hundreds of millions, so with that said, hundreds of millions. You are talking about down-loading, Mr. Speaker, if there is any down-loading, it is the down-loading of this government on the local people, on the local councils, that is the down-loading, those are the people who are suffering and, Mr. Speaker, let me say this to you: this government talks about no increase in taxation, but what they did, they took from the councils the money that they were giving to them and then the councils had to increase their taxes to offset it. You talk about chivalry, you are talking about stealing out of people's pockets, when in essence they say: we are not after increasing. This year they increased it 4 per cent- this year and next year, 4 per cent to offset the School Tax Authority, but, Mr. Speaker, there are no tax grabs, what they did is they took the money from the municipalities, they stole the money from them.

I said the other day to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Torbay - I took one town for instance, Torbay, which increased their tax rate by 1.5 mils overall because of the changes in the MOG which this government brought about and I am not sure if the minister agrees, I do not think he does because he is a pretty fair-minded fellow, I have known him for years and I cannot see how he would go along with it, and he was not there when these changes were made.

Torbay, loses $200,000 which has to be made up through extra taxation. Now, taxation from the Province was not accelerated, was not changed, was not increased, but the town had to increase 1.5 mils just to stay afloat, and, Mr. Speaker, they did not stay afloat because they are still in debt $200,000, they are still in the red $200,000. But what I want to say to the minister: look, we had components, we had the road component, we had the social services component and we had the household component.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the social services component, which was a good component is gone. At least there was some services rendered to the people of the communities through those social service programs. That is gone, eliminated last year. Now, Mr. Speaker, they have a confused situation, they have a confused grant system. No one understands it. I venture to bet, I bet my bottom dollar that there are not ten councils out there, not ten people on any of the councils who understand the MOG. They don't understand it. I go around to councils and they say, 'Tell us about it, we don't understand it. No one can understand it. You could be a Philadelphia lawyer and you still wouldn't understand it, Mr. Speaker. That is why they have it done like it is, to confuse the people so they do not know what in the hell they are paying for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I was mayor of a small town for ten years. The road component was a necessary means of survival. The last year that I was mayor, we received $2,200 per kilometre and today, it is $904.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I still didn't get the hon. member's question. He didn't ask it first or last. But his comments on the taxation in Torbay, I can't bear out because I only have what he has been commenting on the last couple of days, that they are paying -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) $200,000 –

MR. HOGAN: If he would stop batting his gums for a few minutes and let someone answer. I will try to answer as best I can. I don't know why Torbay is paying $200,000 more, or getting $200,000 less than what they did last year or the year before. If they have increased their capital debt and they have to pay more on it I can understand why it has gone up, but I can't understand why it has gone up $200,000. I would have to examine each individual case on its own merit. The municipal operating grant has left some questions in my mind, yes, and it has left some questions in the mind of government. Hon. members are not the only ones who are looking at that program for review. It has been discussed with the Federation of Municipalities. It has been discussed with the Administrators' Association on many levels and we are going to review it. If it is the right thing to do to change it then we will change it, and if it is setting the municipalities and the government back, then we might have to change it, but the hon. member will have to come up with a more direct question if I am going to have to give him a direct answer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Anglais or Français?

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak in French.

MR. A. SNOW: Bonjour le Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can speak French, can't you? Do you know how to speak French?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Menihek stating his dissatisfaction with an answer from the Minister of Mines and Energy re the break up of negotiations between Quebec and Newfoundland.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, Mr. Speaker. En Français?

MR. SPEAKER: Oui Monsieur.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the answer that the Minister responsible for Mines and Energy gave to me this afternoon with regard to my questions on the story in La Presse, a Quebec Francophone newspaper, concerning the break off of negotiations between Quebec Hydro and the Newfoundland Government.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to spend a lot of time over the actual translation of the headline in the article, but it is 'Négociations rompues'. Rompues is an adjective, and it says here in the French dictionary that it means 'exhausted'. That is what it means. That means negotiations have been exhausted. That is what the headline said. As I said, I do not want to spend a lot of time on the actual translation of the headline.

What really bothers me with regard to the answer that the minister gave me in reply to my question, was when the hon. minister said that Hydro Quebec is not a partner in this development we are talking about. Hydro Quebec is a customer for the power that is surplus to the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador. That really bothers me, because what I asked him was how the effect of Hydro Quebec being placed on a credit watch is going to affect these negotiations.

It is very important that the hon. members opposite, especially cabinet ministers, pay attention to this, because this is important. Newspapers all across this country are talking about the problem that Hydro Quebec is having on the bond market. They have been placed on a credit watch. They have been placed on a credit watch by the very people that this government worships at their feet, Mr. Speaker. Hydro Quebec have been placed on a credit watch because of the constitutional uncertainty and the cancellation of a contract with New York Power Authority.

Now the fact that the minister suggests that there is no problem between the customer and the operator of a business means that this minister, albeit he may be very well qualified in geology, does not understand one bit of economics. He does not understand that it is important, and neither does this administration understand this, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Development thinks it is humorous and he can joke about it, and that is probably what occurs in Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to understand what occurs in an economy. A customer is very important to the business, Mr. Speaker. It is not just a partnership that is important in a business, the customer is important. The amount of money that a customer is willing to pay for an article is very important. Whether you are selling apples, oranges, or electricity, Mr. Speaker, if that customer does not have money he cannot pay the operator of the business an appropriate amount of money.

Now this minister does not understand that simple principle. You do not understand economics. You come down with a Budget and take more money out of customers, people who spend money in the economy. You think that is proper, well it is not right. It is not going to help the economy. It is going to drive the economy down, Mr. Speaker. That is what you are doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you serious?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I am very serious.

Now the hon. Minister of Development does not think -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Ignore him. You are after a bigger (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I am very serious, Mr. Speaker, because if they don't understand that a customer's credit or the amount of money they can raise on a bond market is important to them they should not have the responsibility, should not be looking for the responsibility to develop the Lower Churchill, because it is important. Mr. Speaker, if you are only going to develop the Lower Churchill to get a few wheelbarrow jobs and get re-elected, you are wrong! That is what happened before in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and we should not be allowing it again.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard hon. members over there before talking about this. They would like to create employment but, Mr. Speaker, you have to do this properly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in my view, to use an appropriate phrase, this is much ado about nothing. The hon. member should not get over excited about this. Keep the blood pressure down.

MR. A. SNOW: Now, you hear that?

DR. GIBBONS: I still consider the comments relative to the article to be more a misinterpretation of language than anything else. We all know you can pick an English word and there are numerous meanings. The same can be said about French words and you can probably get a lot of different meanings in a lot of different dictionaries. Go right to it I would advise the hon. member.

This afternoon, since Question Period, I have talked to a Vice-President of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro who has talked to one of his colleagues in Hydro Quebec. He did not get through to the particular member concerned but the comment was that this was a misinterpretation. We are between meetings and we are waiting. Hydro Quebec is doing an analysis and one of these days, I expect, they will be having another meeting when everybody is ready for it. In the meantime I think we should just sit back and wait. We will be trying to get a deal that is good for Newfoundland and Labrador and I am sure Hydro Quebec wants something that is good for them, and if we have a meeting of the minds there will be an agreement in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform hon. members that tomorrow I intend to call the Budget Speech again, and the Finance critic opposite informs me that he will probably finish his preliminary comments tomorrow and maybe get a start on his speech sometime tomorrow. I would just like to indicate that is what we are doing tomorrow. I think we can call it 5:00 o'clock.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday at 9:00 o'clock in the morning.