March 12, 1991               HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLI  No. 7


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding to the routine orders of the day, on behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome the special guest in the Speaker's galleries today, Mr. George Erasmus, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as required under Section 26.1 (4) of The Financial Administration Act, 1973, I am pleased to advise this hon. House that a contract has been awarded for the construction of a forest access road in the Chouse Brook area for $198,920. to CONCAP Management Limited of Pasadena through a pre-commitment of funds under the 1991-92 Resource Road Program.

The reason for this pre-commitment of funds is that there is an immediate requirement to find alternative sources of timber in this area where timber supplies are near depletion, thereby ensuring continuing employment for the years to come. In order to make this timber available by mid-summer 1991, an early start of construction is necessary, and this can only be accomplished through a pre-commitment of funds. This will then allow local logging operations to be maintained at existing levels.

Upon completion of this project, an estimated 460,000 cubic metres of commercial timber will be made available to local operators. This is part of Government's ongoing commitment to maintain a stable supply of timber for sawmill operators in the Hampden-White Bay area. It is anticipated that seven sawmill operators employing approximately fifty people over the next twenty years will operate in this area. The Department is also proposing to carry out pre-commercial thinnings employing an additional ten to fifteen people over the next twelve years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for the copy of his statement before coming into the House. And I would also like to say at this time that it is one of the more positive statements coming from the other side of the House in recent days, and I would certainly like to echo the comments.... when you see something pertaining to economic development in this Province, and the showing of some initiative for long-term employment, especially for people in the rural areas of this Province who are being hit every day with cuts in some way, shape or form, this is a very positive statement. And I would like to commend the Minister at this time, Mr. Speaker, on making sure these monies were allocated last fall and that tender was called. Because this particular piece of road that is left in that area would put the operators in there next summer, as stated in his statement. Other than that, there would be fifty people out of work, with absolutely nothing to do.

This will give them access to the timbers in that area. Kruger will have first call on the pulpwood in the area. It is all overmatured stands. It is something that should be done, and will be done I am sure, in other parts of the Province, in order to make the timber accessible to the sawmill operators and pulpwood operators in the Province. Too much of our forest is being destroyed in this sense - just overmatured, no accessibility, and the companies themselves are not going to get to it.

So it is a positive statement, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to other statements with regard to the White River Road Project, which the Minister is aware of, and so on in the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier said yesterday that the 1991-92 Budget decisions were made `solely on the basis of an intelligent, dispassionate assessment' of what was best for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, the House might remember that back in the 60s the Liberal Government of the day hired an expert, Mr. Parsifal Copes, to go about to do a dispassionate, intelligent assessment of what was best for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Now we know what the recommendations of that assessment was, massive resettlement of the rural areas to the urban centres of this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier, is the Premier now following that plan again? Does the Premier realize that if Newfoundland and Labrador is governed dispassionately by the cold logic of cost-efficiency there will be no health care in rural Newfoundland, there will be no education in rural Newfoundland, there will be no water and sewer in rural Newfoundland, there will be no fishery and no jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Now, is that the direction in which the Premier is headed, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has either misread, misinterpreted, or misrepresented what I said. He quoted me fairly accurately as saying that the decisions were made on the basis of an objective, dispassionate decision of what was right for Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not what was economically beneficial or anything, it is what is right. Taking into account rural Newfoundland, urban Newfoundland, education, health, our financial means, all of these factors, we made the decision without political involvement in any way on the basis of what was fair and right for the people of the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, that is what was done. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may want to twist it back to Parsifal Copes if he wants to, but he has a big chasm to jump and he has fallen in between.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's denial rings pretty hollow in this House. The Government is the one that has jumped into a hole in this Province. Now let me ask the Premier, has the Premier not already used the Parsifal Copes approach to rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Was it not the Premier of this Province who just a few months ago, in a speech here in the capital city, said one of the biggest problems facing Newfoundland and Labrador today is 6000 miles of coastline and too many rural communities? Did the Premier not say that? And is the Premier not now, in the Budget that was produced in this House a few days ago, pointing to a final solution to the problem in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is destroy the small rural communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. I did not say one of the problems facing Newfoundland and Labrador was 6,000 miles of coastline and too many communities. What I said was, one of the problems facing Newfoundland and Labrador is a population of 573,000 spread among some 800 communities around 6,000 miles of coastline.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is right. That is exactly what I said. I did not use the word too many at all, those are the Opposition Leader's words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is a reality that we have to face, and this Government, at long last, Mr. Speaker, is facing the reality and we are dealing with the matter on a fair and balanced basis and will continue to do so, much to the chagrin of the Opposition, no doubt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the master of deception is riding free in this House again-

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. RIDEOUT: - and all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, will the Premier not admit, Mr. Speaker, that coming on the heels of what he just said, coming on the heels of the most devastating Budget this Province has seen since 1932, that this Premier and this Government fundamentally believes that the basic problem of Newfoundland is too many communities, too many rural communities and they must be resettled to urban Newfoundland and Labrador. Stand up and say it if you believe it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. That is the effort that I get from Mr. Crosbie, that I keep trying to resist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: His proposition is that we should concentrate-

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

We must have a semblance of order. The question has been asked and I want hon. Members to give every hon. Member the opportunity to be heard, and in silence.

The hon. the Premier

.

PREMIER WELLS: His proposition, that is Mr. Crosbie's, Mr. Speaker, is that we should concentrate on helping the urban communities, and I have disagreed with him. I have been fighting with him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The question has been asked and it is very difficult for the Chair to decide when the question has been answered, if hon. Members keep popping additional questions.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, let me say again, that is the proposition that I am fighting tooth and nail in dealing with Mr. Crosbie, and I am fighting tooth and nail in dealing with Mr. Crosbie because I want to protect rural Newfoundland to the maximum extent that we can.

Mr. Speaker, I am bound and determined to make sure it is the Government of this Province that governs the Province, not Mr. Crosbie or his Federal counterparts in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, let me say again, in direct answer to the hon. Member's question, let me say that we put in place the Economic Recovery Commission and spread the offices throughout this Province specifically to deal with the problems of rural Newfoundland. That is our commitment to rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: And if you want to see just how strong our commitment to rural Newfoundland is, just watch us in the next two years and the next two terms of office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier thinks he is going to be around for two more terms he is not even being honest with himself let alone the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of Treasury Board. In early April of last year the Minister of Finance knew at that time that his projected $10 million surplus had disappeared. In fact, by August he knew that this Province was facing a $120 million deficit as a result of his over-expenditures and over-optimistic projections of revenues. He also knew he was facing an even more difficult situation for this year. In view of that information can the President of Treasury Board tell us why he entered into such wage settlements with collective bargaining units during the past year knowing the action he was facing for this year?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The sequence of events is probably close to what the hon. Member has mentioned. During the summer it became obvious that there was some deterioration. By the end of September we knew that we had some serious problems in terms of our revenues, as well as expenditures for this fiscal year. So we made the announcement, and made the information public to all the people of the Province at that time. Also at that time I sat down with the heads of all the unions and explained the situation in detail as to exactly what our problem was this year and the problems that we were facing in the upcoming year.

So I would say to the hon. Member that we had started sixteen months ago negotiating and we had received certain collective agreements and there were certain collective agreements reached during the summer period and during the fall. But as soon as it became obvious that we had problems, dialogue was initiated with the unions in terms of suggestions as to how we could together combat this problem. We wanted suggestions from organized labour. We did get some.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of that information then would the President of Treasury Board tell us when, in fact, did he first look at the real options that were facing him for this year? And when in fact did he first consider a wage freeze? And is it not true that he first considered a wage freeze early last fall?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we started looking at all real options seriously, starting in early October. That is when we started looking at all the options seriously. All hon. Members of this House know that what happened then was we went to our systems and told them we wanted information on the affects of a frozen budget. We gave them time and we assessed that information and put it all together. In the meantime, we attempted to get proper dialogue with the public service labour movement as well. All of this was being put together and I indicated to this hon. House within the last week, in response to another question, that after we had gone through the whole public service and gone through the essential services that we needed to provide, and did as much as we could do with that. Once we talked to the financial people and reached decisions about our abilities, our limits of borrowing on current account, once we had examined all the tax options at that point we came up short by a considerable sum of money. It was at that point we had to look at other options. It was within two weeks of the Budget that we started considering this other option that we eventually took. At that point in time we also, as the Premier indicated yesterday, talked to the four major unions, indicating that we were looking at choices and indicating what these choices were. It was within a week of the Budget that the final decision was made in terms of the wage freeze and how that would take place. So the sequence of events is approximately that. Sorry I cannot provide the hon. Member with specific dates, but it may be possible if I sat down and thought for ten minutes or so.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, now that we know that it was being considered since early October, why then did the President of Treasury Board -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Well, that is what he just said!

MR. WINDSOR: That is what he just said. Why then, Mr. Speaker, did the President of Treasury Board continue to negotiate with public service unions with a spirit of, take these settlements rather than looking for other benefits? And in many cases, Mr. Speaker, I am told by collective bargaining groups, the President of Treasury Board asked these groups to take these wage settlements instead of looking for other benefits and other items that they might have had on the negotiating table, knowing all the time that indeed he was not going to give any increase at all, that there was going to be a wage freeze.

Why did the President of Treasury Board continue to do that in order not to have layoffs in those bargaining units, so that now he has not only layoffs - in fact, 3,000 layoffs - but he has a wage freeze as well?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The original assumption that the hon. Member started off with, of course, is not correct. In my answer I very clearly outlined the fact that it was very, very recently that we considered that particular option. So I would like to say to the hon. Member that that particular comment he started his question with either indicates that he did not listen to the answer, or he did not understand the answer, or he deliberately misinterpreted the answer.

As to some of his other comments, as well, Mr. Speaker, they simply are not true. I operate on the principle that being open and forthright and honest and telling the truth counts for something in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, one more supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final supplementary to the President of Treasury Board again. I assure him I did understand his answer, and I understand his failure to fairly negotiate with the unions. Would he tell us why he did not during the course of the year, knowing the problems with which he was faced, negotiate in good faith with the unions and look at other options, such as ways to avoid massive layoffs through negotiated job sharing, reduced hours, leaves of absence, lower wage increases and so on? Why was it that his Government was bent, Mr. Speaker, on massive layoffs and the intended hardship on thousands of Newfoundlanders?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By the end of September, I indicated, we knew we had a serious problem. At that point, we sat down with the heads of all the public service unions, outlined our problems, asked them to work with us in terms of providing us with alternatives, alternatives to the process that was then in place, indicated that we would have to take measures to try to curb a major deficit this year, that we were running into major problems in the year ahead, outlined the full extent of these problems and asked for some input as to what solutions they saw to the problem. At that point in time, we informed them that we were looking at cutbacks in the public service, and at that point in time we were looking for alternatives to the cutbacks in the public service. That is exactly what I talked to the labour union leaders about: alternatives to the cutbacks.

At that point in time, there were many things that could have come forward from the unions. As a matter of fact, some of the things the hon. Member mentions were actually mentioned to some of the leaders of the unions at that time. At that time, most of them indicated a lack of co-operation; they indicated they did not believe that we had a financial problem. Some of them even went public and indicated, told members of their group that this was a game the Government was playing, Government was playing a game, trying to interfere with the collective bargaining process by going out and telling lies to them. We do not really have a problem, is what they said. Well, Mr. Speaker, everybody now knows that we were not playing games, that we were telling the truth, that there was a massive financial problem in this Province caused by a number of factors, including the mismanagement of the last 17 years.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Buried in the footnotes of the Minister's Budget is a $6 million reduction in funding for community development projects through the Department of Social Services. My question to the Minister is why did the Minister not include this $6 million cutback in his Budget Highlights, which, by the way, included cutbacks as small as $100,000? Was he embarrassed? Was he trying to hide the cuts from the public view? Or was he trying to mislead the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I understand the Member's question correctly it is why was there a cutback in community development funding this year? First of all, let me say to the hon. Member for Port au Port that there were no cutbacks in community development funding this year. Last year, in the Budget analysis, there was $25 million allocated for community development projects. This year there was $25 million allocated. There are $3.5 million going into Vocational Services, $4.3 million going into employment enhancement programs. The only difference is during the year there was approximately $3.5 million allocated for a special program, for brush cutting, which is not in the Budget this year. The Budget remains the same for 1991 as it was last year

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I mean, is this document worth anything or not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have not recognized the hon. the Member for Port au Port as of this point in time. But the hon. Member may remain standing, I am about to recognize him. The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, is this document worth anything or not? It clearly says in the Department of employment opportunities for everybody to see in the Province that there is a cutback of some $5.89 million, and the Minister gets up and says there is no cutback.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary and I ask him to get into the supplementary, please.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect to get a straight answer but I would like to ask the Minister, what effect will the cutback have on the number of people receiving social assistance? How many people will be denied the chance to get off social assistance, which community development is all about? And would the Minister confirm that $6 million will mean somewhere close to 2000 people will not be able to get part-time jobs this year?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell the hon. Member, and all Members opposite, that the Community Development Program and the direction we have for the future is greatly improved over what you people had in the past. Let me also tell you very clearly that we are putting more money from community development funding into retraining and education programs instead of short-term - ten/ forty-two weeks. That is our intent for the future and the direction of the community development programs. We are also working with the private sector to get, instead of ten weeks with the private sector, twenty-six weeks. Let me assure the hon. Member that there will be no less people on social services working on community development programs in 1989-90-91 than there will be 1991-92. There will be less people working on community projects, but more people in training and education programs.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the only training being done - it was done before, it has not been done as much, that there have not been as many community development projects in this Province as there were before -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. Members that there is supposed to be no preamble on a supplementary, and if hon. Members keep insisting, I am going to have to go to another Member. The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister believe that there is adequate money in his Budget - which, by the way, has been cut more than any Budget in Government - to meet the demands of social assistance recipients that will inevitably occur because of the Budget and the effect the Budget is going to have on the economy? Will his whole Department, I am speaking about now, be able to handle the problems that this Budget has reeked on the Newfoundland people?

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

MR. EFFORD: I do not know what Budget the hon. Member is reading. Of all Ministers in Government, I have been congratulated as Minister of Social Services for getting the most for any Department this year, much more than we got last year in fact, some $15 million more than we got last year, Mr. Speaker, including an increased fuel allowance, including extra money for single parents, some $9900. The hon. Member must be reading a booklet I am not reading, because I am very proud of what we were able to accomplish under the financial problems this Province is experiencing.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In a press statement last Friday, the Minister of Education indicated that Memorial University was going to get an increase of some $5.5 million for its operating Budget next year, 1991-92. The Budget actually told of an increase of only $1 million. Who do we believe on this one, the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Education?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week, I said to the press and to the public that Memorial University had requested a total of $12 to $13 million before the salary freeze was announced, and we had decided before the salary freeze was announced to grant a $5 million increase of that $12 to $13 million requested. We understood, of course, that Memorial was also considering fee increases, and they were also considering some cuts for this year. Mr. Speaker, I do not have the final figures as to what the salary freeze means for the University, but I have asked for them today. In fact, at this very moment my officials are meeting with Memorial University to work out all the details. We must consult. I am sure the hon. Member realizes that we must consult with all the Boards of Governors and the Board of Regents, and my officials are doing that, as they should. Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Education said there was a $5.5 million increase. The Budget shows, in fact, in Operations Grant, under Heading 3.2.01, that there is actually less than $1 million. Could the Minister of Finance explain where this $5.5 million comes from, when it is not shown in the Budgetary estimates? Where is it?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we get the final details worked out with the university, I will be prepared to table the actual figures for the Member. The implications of the salary freeze, we are examining today and I will table these for the hon. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This question is to the Minister of Education since he is the only one who is going to respond. The Minister has indicated that the total number of layoffs will not exceed the number of positions eliminated as a result of declining enrollments in the secondary school system, yet there is a number of professional positions eliminated at board offices, some of which are teachers, the question then is: how many actual educators in the secondary field of education are going to be laid off, including those at board offices?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right, how many?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, in the Budget last week, the Minister of Finance said it was estimated that in education a total of 350 persons would be laid off as a result of the Budget. 133 exactly in elementary and secondary education; approximately 100 in the colleges; approximately 100 at Memorial was our estimate; and the remainder in the Department of Education or other positions in education, so a total of 133 persons in the elementary-secondary system will be laid off.

Most of these, ninety odd per cent of these, are as a result of declining enrollments. Mr. Speaker, I think the public of the Province understand what is happening. Each year, Mr. Speaker, we lose about 3,000 students-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: - an estimated 3,000 students this year will be lost, that means that about 122 positions would be lost as a result of declining enrollments, Mr. Speaker, and we have lost 35,000 students. If the hon. Members would listen, they might learn what is happening in the school system.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) layoff.

DR. WARREN: I will answer that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

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

I would ask the hon. Minister please to draw his answer to a conclusion. The hon. the Minister.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, since 1971, we lost 35,000 students from the school system of this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, to get to the question about what proportions-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: - to get to the specific question he raises about the number of positions: approximately half, Mr. Speaker, approximately half the 133 persons will come from school board offices and the other half of course will be teachers from the classroom. This will soften the impact; the Government made that decision, Mr. Speaker, to reduce school board offices-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that ridiculous (inaudible).

DR. WARREN: -to reduce school board offices to lessen the impact on the classrooms of the Province.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. In the House yesterday, the Premier indicated that when the Government concluded as to what it would do about the financial situation of the Province, it called in the four major public sector unions. Can the Premier confirm that these meetings took place on the 20th and 24th February, and if so, Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us why, in good conscience, he would allow the President of Treasury Board on March 1st, to sign a collective agreement with CUPE providing for wage increases in all three years of that agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question, good question. (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can go to my diary and find out the exact dates. My recollection is it was a Thursday and a Sunday- I know one was a Sunday, but not exactly what date it was. No collective agreement was signed after the Government made a decision as to what it would do. As a matter of fact, my recollection, Mr. Speaker, is that the possibility of a wage scale freeze was not considered except in the last moments, and when I say the last moments, I am talking about the last two weeks or so. It might have been seventeen days or fifteen days or nineteen days, the last approximately two weeks or so was the first time the Government gave serious consideration to it at all. I do not know when the decision-

AN HON. MEMBER: It was the Budget week; it was the Monday (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is what I would say, probably a week or so before the Budget, about that, before the Budget was decided, so, Mr. Speaker, that is how it came about.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind hon. Members on both sides of the House: for the smooth flow of Question Period there are a couple of points and comments that ought to be made as a result of today's Question Period. I remind hon. Members from both sides of the House that in asking questions and in giving the answers that both must be brief. And I want to make sure that both sides of the House are aware and they are following these two requirements.

Secondly, there is another point that ought to be raised and brought to hon. Members' attention. Beauchesne, page 123, 420 - because whenever this happens, we do get some noises from the House: "The Speaker has stated, 'Of course, the Chair will allow a question to be put to a certain Minister; but it cannot insist that that Minister rather than another should answer it.'"

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as required it gives me great pleasure to table the annual report and financial statements of the Farm Development Loan Board, 1989 and 1990.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by Standing and Special Committees?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I want also to bring to the attention of hon. Members that when the Speaker is speaking, there ought to be silence. And I am not going to try and get my voice over that of other Members. I just want to advise hon. Members of that.

MR. SIMMS: On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order, the hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Is Your Honour saying when Your Honour is speaking there should not be any noise -

MR. SPEAKER: Precisely.

MR. SIMMS: - or when Your Honour is standing?

MR. SPEAKER: When Your Honour is speaking and standing both. Because when I am speaking I could be standing and I could be speaking and not standing.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just to ensure that we understand it, surely Your Honour would concede that there is the possibility that Members may not be able to hear Your Honour just from sitting and talking? That is quite frequent, and often what happens is the Speaker should stand and draw Members' attention to the fact that he is going -

MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. Member, I am not going to debate with the hon. Member, I am not permitted to. And I have simply stated what the rules are.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there is a question on the order paper today from the hon. Member for Green Bay. He wanted to know the number of respite workers laid off as a result of the recent Budget, broken down on a regional basis. Let me inform the hon. Member that there were twenty-seven respite workers laid off within the Department of Social Services. That is the total number of respite workers working within the Department. In other words, all respite workers from all regions of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. EFFORD: Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. Member, that there will be no services lost to the people who need it. We will now purchase the services from a community base or organizations within the Province. There will be absolutely no loss of service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

Petitions

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible.)

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. Member it does not concern him who I am supporting.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I know who is not supporting him, the Mayor of Dunville.

MR. TOBIN: I can tell the hon. the Member for Carbonear, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have to bankrupt a council to get elected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Member for Carbonear is taking offence to what I said.

MR. SIMMS: He's got the touchies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should know better than that by now.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition on behalf of the parents of students attending Harfitt Primary School in the District of Burin - Placentia West in the Town of Burin. Mr. Speaker, I did not get to count them, but I understand there are approximately 1,000 signatures objecting again. I have probably presented approximately 3,000 or 4,000 names on the petitions I have presented this week from parents in my District objecting to the harsh cutbacks, the incompetence of this Government, the cruelty, Mr. Speaker, that they are inflicting upon the people of this Province and particularly the people of rural Newfoundland.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that from time to time we have the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Education - even though the people from this particular school did not - and express their concerns, and he did listen to us. We also recognized that the amount of money that was necessary in the Budget was approximately a 12 per cent increase to maintain the status quo. Now the Minister while he did give a small increase -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. President of Treasury Board on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: I wonder would he read the prayer of the petition so we will know what we are talking about here. Read the prayer of the petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The President of Treasury Board. I do not know if the Member for Burin - Placentia West heard the point of order. The point of order was that he read the prayer of the petition. In this respect, though there are no firm rules laid down, it does help the Chair and help all hon. Members if the prayer of the petition is read right from the beginning then it helps hon. Members to know what the petition is all about.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Placentia should be more concerned with looking after the hospital closure in his District than (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. Member for Carbonear that the people for Burin - Placentia West sent me here to present petitions and not to listen to him telling me to sit down. It's time for Your Honour to deal with him.

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

I will ask hon. Members please to refrain from interrupting. The hon. Member only has five minutes and I would ask the hon. Member to proceed.

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

I can assure the hon. Members that I will not, Mr. Speaker, be stifled by anyone opposite when it comes to representing my constituents when presenting petitions, whether it be on educational cutbacks or whatever. I challenge the Member for Placentia to present his petition on hospital closures or the Member for Bell Island, Mr. Speaker, and others who have them. I will represent my constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Member to please keep to the prayer of the petition and not to introduce extraneous materials about other Members presenting petitions. I would ask the hon. Member to please abide by the rules of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we the undersigned

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. President of Treasury Board on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentlemen is not going to read the prayer of the petition. So under Standing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: He never got a chance to read it.

MR. BAKER: Well he has had five minutes. Under Standing Order 93 it says 'If required a petition may be sent to the table and read by the Clerk.' Mr. Speaker, we would simply like to know what is in the prayer of the petition that is all.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order. It is very clear what the President of Treasury Board is trying to do. They cannot take the heat, I guess. The Member has a responsibility to present a petition. Nowhere in the Standing Orders, nowhere in the rules does it say that the member must read the prayer of the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give a false impression here, I do not want to allow the Opposition House Leader to also give a false impression. We have been very co-operative in terms of the form of petitions and the intent of the petitions being carried out, whether it is in proper form or not, we have allowed it to be presented because we are very concerned that the intent of the people be made here in the House.

So, Mr. Speaker, we would still like to know what is in the prayer of the petition, and I referred Your Honour to Standing Order 93.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I just want to remind hon. Members that our rules are probably not as tight as they ought to be with petitions, but I read for hon. Members our own Standing Order 92, which says: "Every member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it, and the material allegations it contains." Now one assumes that the material allegations must be the prayer. If it is not, otherwise how do hon. Members know what the petition is?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Government wants to prevent me from presenting a petition. I do not know why they are trying to prevent me from presenting this petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I again ask hon. Members - I am not going to tolerate that kind of debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The time for the petition is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: What an abuse! What an abuse!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition. The prayer of the petition, if I may read it. It says: "We, the undersigned, representing 315 children at the Harfitt Primary School in Salt Pond, Burin, Newfoundland, Canada, support the PTA executive sub-committee for no educational cutbacks. Already our children suffer enough through lack of some vital necessities conducive to the quality of education. A further reduction in the level of education will only serve to reduce our children's hope to become strong and productive adults. We will back this statement with the words of our Minister of Education, Dr. Warren: `Newfoundlanders and Labradorians development depends on improving the quality of education, and our future economic success depends more on improvement in education than on any other single factor.'"

That is the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, every single letter I have here contains that same prayer. And if it is Your Honour's wish, this afternoon I will present them all individually and continue until they are finished. Your Honour, I will not get them finished this evening, but I will be prepared to continue tomorrow, if that is the wish of Your Honour and Members opposite. Because I shall not, Mr. Speaker, be stifled from representing my constituents. Neither the Premier, nor the President of Treasury Board, nor anyone else, Mr. Speaker, will be successful in doing that.

This petition, Mr. Speaker, is serious. It is serious because the people of the district have asked me to present it to the Legislature. They have asked me, Mr. Speaker, in good faith to present this to the Legislature, calling upon the Minister of Education to ensure that there is a future for their children in the educational system in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where they are coming from, and this Government, Mr. Speaker, has not been doing that. What have they been doing? They have been cutting the education budget in this Province like we have never seen before. We know there will be layoffs, we know there will be teachers unemployed, we know, Mr. Speaker, that there will be more children in classrooms next year than there are this year, and the Minister of Education gets up and he talks about 3,000 people less in the education system in Newfoundland next year. Why? Because this Government, Mr. Speaker, is driving their fathers and mothers to the mainland to look for work. That is why! That is the reason why there are going to be 3,000 less. Because instead of the Premier bringing home every mother's son, he is driving every mother's son and every son's mother and father to the mainland.

AN HON. MEMBER: And daughters.

MR. TOBIN: And daughters.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Even the dogs are leaving.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bell Island should be the last to speak in this House, after the gutting his constituents got in the Budget. You should be ashamed of yourself. Hang your head in shame. Hang your head in shame. Mr. Speaker, he lacks the courage -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. Members again for the maintenance of decorum in the House, if they would please follow the rules. The Chair can only ask for the co-operation. Certainly Members can insist on breaking them, but they do nothing for the decorum of the House. And in a petition, again I say to hon. Members that they are supposed to keep their remarks to the material allegations of the petition. If hon. Members insist on breaking rules, I am afraid that we are going to lower the decorum of the House considerably and nobody is going to be able to achieve anything in this House.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I am sure the Member for Mount Scio -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do not want anyone to comment on the rulings, please. Would the hon. Member proceed with his presentation?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would now like to continue with the petition on behalf of my constituents, and I call upon the Speaker to provide me with the protection of the Chair from Members opposite, in terms of their trying to prevent me from presenting this petition.

The Minister of Education has reduced the status quo from last year. There is nobody in this Province who believes there will be the same type of educational system in this Province as there was this year, nobody, not even the Minister of Education. As that petition says, the one of the 300 or 400 sheets I have that I will probably be presenting in due course, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians development depends on improving the quality of education, and the future economic success depends more on improving education than on any other single factor in our Province. Why is this Government trying to prevent a good education system for our children? Why have our children in Newfoundland not received the same type of quality education that is being received in other parts of the Country? We have good teachers. We have one of the best groups of teachers of anywhere in the country, yet the Minister of Finance, the Premier, and the Minister of Education are tying their hands and preventing them from delivering the appropriate educational system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It was obvious the Minister of Education was not going to rise, because you were about to recognize the Member for Bonavista South on another petition. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I want to rise and support my colleague in his presentation of this petition on behalf of parents and concerned citizens supporting students attending Harfitt Primary School, in Salt Pond. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, from the outset, being a Member representing one of the districts on the Burin Peninsula, that it has been many times during the past number of months when I wondered what else this Government was going to try to take away from the people of the Burin Peninsula. The last thing in the Budget they took away was an RCMP office in Burin. They have taken away the headquarters of Eastern Community College, they have closed down two cottage hospitals, and they concurred with the closure of the Grand Bank fish plant. There is not much more left, Mr. Speaker. Now, these parents and concerned citizens who have asked the Member to present this petition here in this Legislature, and particularly to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Education, the Minister of Finance, and the Premier of the Province, they are very, very concerned that this Government would cut back further on education. And, of course, their worst fears have been realized. Because this Minister and this Government have brought in a devastating Budget for education in this Province, a Budget that is going to impact negatively upon the educational opportunities for young residents of the Burin Peninsula, and, indeed, right throughout this Province. We are going to see layoffs, as the Minister has confirmed today, at the school board office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Did you say that is the right spot?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I thought you said it was the right spot. Because I do not know if there is a right spot when you get a layoff slip. I have not found one yet, where it is the right spot to get a layoff slip.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: That is no right spot to lay off anyone either, because that is where a lot of the curriculum consultation and other things go on between the program co-ordinators and the teachers in the schools. There are going to be staff members laid off. In some regions of this Province, Mr. Speaker, we are going to see two and three grades taught in one classroom as a result of this Budget. And I think it is absolutely disgusting to see this type of thing happening, especially from an administration that promised so much more, and from an administration that has two former presidents of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association sitting in their benches, one of them a Minister of the Crown. Now before concluding I want to go on record as supporting the prayer of this petition, to go on record as supporting those thousand-plus people from the Burin Peninsula, supporters of those children attending Harfitt Primary School, in Salt Pond, those 315 children who are there hoping to receive a decent education. It is very incumbent upon this Government to provide the financial resources so that the school board in question here can provide that kind of education for them. So I want to go on record as supporting my colleague in presenting the petition, I want to go on record as being supportive of the people whose names are on the petition, and most importantly, to support the 315 children, the future leaders of this Province who are attending school in that area of our Province and who want a decent education so that they will have a fighting chance to stay in this Province and not have to go to the Mainland in droves, as we are see happening, caused by the policies and the budgetary decisions of one Premier, Clyde Wells, and his administration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, this was a tough Budget for this Government. It was not an easy Budget to develop. And all departments shared their pain in this, Mr. Speaker. But I am pleased to say, having said that, that the education budget was increased. Despite the fact that we had a one year freeze on salaries, we have more money in the Budget this year than we had last year.

Most of the teachers who will be lost to the system, or administrators, are the result of declining enrollments. We have, Mr. Speaker, some good news as well. The pupil/teacher ratio in this Province has gone down dramatically over the past few years. In 1980 the pupil/teacher ratio was 18.8 students to one teacher. In 1990 it was 15.3. And I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that that is among the lowest in this country, because we have a lot of small schools. And we have in addition, as was pointed out last week, one of the most qualified work forces in this country. So we are pleased that the pupil/teacher ratio is now among the lowest in the country.

Mr. Speaker, there are no cuts in capital costs. There are no cuts in capital funding for education, there are no cuts in transportation this year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have increased the transportation grants by $2.5 million to $3 million. And do you know what, Mr. Speaker? There will be no fees charged for transportation in this Province as a result of this Budget. No fees!

Mr. Speaker, we have increased the funding for school transportation so that we will not have to increase fees or add fees to school boards. There will be no fees for rentals. Mr. Speaker, I met with the parents on the Burin Peninsula and they said, Mr. Minister, we cannot add more fees. Reconsider this idea of adding fees for textbook rentals. There are no fees for textbook rentals in this Budget. There is no increase! Mr. Speaker, there is no increase in the proportion of textbooks paid for by high school students. It stands at 50 per cent of the cost.

So, Mr. Speaker, it was a tough Budget. But elementary and secondary education in particular came off reasonably well in these rough times. And let me tell you one other thing, Mr. Speaker. The school boards of the Province know it, and I want to thank the school boards. I met with them on Friday. I have talked with them in the last few days. They will do everything possible to help us. Dr. Vokey and the trustees have said they will do everything to help this Government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: - in these difficult times. Mr. Speaker, they know it is difficult, but they are going to do everything possible so that the education of children in the classroom will not be negatively impacted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of 400 residents of the Bonavista Peninsula, residents of not only my District of Bonavista South, but the adjoining District of Trinity North. The prayer of the petition is: "Petition to the House of Assembly. To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative Session convened (inaudible) petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. That the residents of the Bonavista Peninsula involved in residential woodcutting are opposed to the present policy of the Department of Forestry with respect to the allocation of the areas granted for residential cutting; that new areas should be allocated to service the needs of the woodcutters involved; that present policy be changed so areas with mature product can be harvested."

As I indicated, the petition is signed by 400 residents of the two districts, primarily residents of Bonavista South, although there are some signatures from Port Rexton and Catalina, which happen to be in Trinity North. And the signatures extend right around the District of Bonavista South, from Little Catalina, Elliston, Bonavista, down as far as Duntara and Keels. We had a public meeting on this particular issue with the people concerned, and there were two concerns with respect to this particular issue.

As anyone is aware in rural Newfoundland, I suppose, the economy that keeps most families going is composed of three elements: the first one being employment income; the second one being some form of Federal transfer, be it CEIC money, unemployment insurance or some other form of Federal transfer; and the third factor being domestic production. And, of course, in Bonavista South the primary cash input is income from the inshore fishery, the primary transfer being unemployment insurance benefits. But a significant number of residents of Bonavista South, of course, burn wood for fuel to heat their homes in the winter months, and a significant number of people have to have access to the forest to harvest sawlogs so that they can construct their homes.

As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland has the highest percentage home ownership in Canada, and this is one of the factors, that people when they are not fishing and pursuing other employment, can go into the woods, cut sawlogs and construct their own homes.

So these concerns are very, very critical to the residents of Bonavista South and, I would say, to residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who live in rural Newfoundland in general. We had a meeting, and these concerns were expressed. And the concerns of the people at the meeting were that in the areas that had been allocated this particular year, there was, in the areas that were accessible, an insufficient quantity of sawlogs and firewood. And where there was a sufficient quantity of sawlogs and firewoods in the area, those areas within the area were inaccessible. So there was a dual problem there. Where the wood was you could not get to, and where it was not you were allowed to cut, but that was not much good.

This has been a process going on on the Bonavista Peninsula for a great number of years. Originally, there were over fifty traditional cutting areas around each community on the Peninsula, and in 1982 the Department set up, in addition to the fifty traditional areas, thirty-three domestic cutting blocks. Recently, the areas were surveyed to determine where the cutting was taking place, and the results of the survey indicated that 90 per cent of cutting was occurring in the fifty traditional areas and there was very little in the thirty-three cutting blocks that had been assigned by the Department. As a result of that activity and as a result of trying to balance the needs of domestic cutters and commercial operators on the Peninsula, the domestic cutting blocks in areas were refined this year, causing the problems which gave rise to the petition and the public meeting.

Since that particular time I have corresponded with the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture and had meetings with him, and the matters have been addressed in a large degree by the Minister. I thank him for his co-operation in this particular matter, as do the residents of the Bonavista Peninsula. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: I would just like to take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to have a few words on the petition presented by the hon. Member. From the outset I would like to say that I support the petition brought forward by the residents of the Member's district. Having said that, I find, especially in the last year or so, I have not seen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) first petition.

MR. WOODFORD: That is the first petition I have seen, I think, presented by Members opposite. The Member says right at the end of the petition that he is after consulting with the Minister and bringing the concerns of his constituents to the Minister and had them rectified so to speak, it has all been looked after, and then he brings the petition to the House of Assembly, when there are so many other petitions opposite pertaining to health, education and so on.

But to get back to what the hon. Member is saying with regard to domestic cutting and so on, the Bonavista area of the Province, as well as other areas in the Province I guess, will have to be addressed by the Minister of Forestry and his staff when it comes to domestic cutting. Times are hard in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are reverting back in droves to burning wood, because they have absolutely no choice, Mr. Speaker. And it is very important for the concerns raised in this petition, and in other districts in the Province, that the Minister and the officials in his Department make areas available in each and every district for domestic cutting.

It has been done but now they have been encroached on by other people, loggers and so on, with regards to strictly the domestic cutting of firewood, forgetting the saw logs in this instance. But with the increase in hydro rates, Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of years alone, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have no choice but to go back to the so-called old woodstove. And in order for that to happen and in order for them to have a supply and the resource available for their use, especially in the rural areas of this Province, we must have a good program in place, the Department of Forestry must have an excellent program in place to accommodate those people.

Pertaining to the sawlog part of it, it used to be traditional, pretty well everywhere in the Province, to be able to go get a permit to cut, I think it was 10,000 feet to build a house for your own use. That is what it was up until a couple of years ago. Then that was disallowed, both by the Crown and by Kruger. I think you could get up to, I think, 10,000 feet, if I am not mistaken, a permit to cut that. That was very beneficial in rural areas of the Province as well. The hon. Member mentioned that in his petition. That was taken away and especially by the paper companies in the Province as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that was wrong and it should not have been let by. It is something that should be addressed.

So I support the prayer of the petition and I would make reference to the Minister and his Department about other areas. He is aware, I think the Member for Placentia brought it up last year in the Estimates, out around his area of the Province, there was a problem as well. And I think that this should be addressed by the Minister and his Department over the next short while.

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

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to stand for a moment to support the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, and to commend the Member who so ably presented the petition. I want to also commend the Member for the role he played in helping to resolve this situation. Last fall, early winter, Mr. Speaker, we announced -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: No, no, these are my notes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, last fall or early winter the Department of Forestry and Agriculture announced our Forestry Management Plan for the area in question. When the users, the domestic wood cutters, the domestic sawmill cutters and even some commercial became aware of the plan they expressed some concerns, Mr. Speaker. As the Member said they were concerns relative to volume, to accessibility, to distances, they asked for a meeting with the officials of Forestry, Mr. Speaker. On the 21 of February I directed my staff to organize a meeting for the purpose of hearing the concerns of the people from the area. On February 27, at a subsequent meeting with five, I think, people representing the loggers and the users in that area, we met, Mr. Speaker, and there was no question that some of the concerns expressed by these users, the domestic firewood cutters, the domestic sawmillers, were well-founded and were legitimate. And I accepted that and my officials, Mr. Speaker, were instructed to review our management plans and to accommodate and address the concerns of the people in Bonavista, in the area that the hon. Member represents.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the problems have been solved to everyone's satisfaction. I want to hold that up, Mr. Speaker, as an example of the kind of atmosphere of understanding and co-operation that I try to promote with the industry and the Department. Mr. Speaker, I might point out - I cannot say this with certainty - but I suspect the reason for the petition was that the people in this area, people using the woods cutting firewood and domestic sawlogs felt, based on the experience that they had in the past from the previous Administration when the hon. Member for Grand Falls was Minister, and the hon. Member for Kilbride was Minister, based on their experience of no co-operation, Mr. Speaker, not being able to have their concerns addressed, felt the only way to have their concerns addressed was to present a petition in the House. They were pleasantly surprised and very appreciative, Mr. Speaker, of the very fast and efficient way that the Government and myself as Minister addressed their problems.

Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 7.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 7. The hon. the President of Treasury Board to ask leave to present a Bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province." (Bill No 16)

Motion, the hon. the President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province." (Bill No. 16)

On motion, Bill No. 16 read a first time, ordered read a second time tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2. The Budget Debate. The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl adjourned the Budget Debate.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, my good friend for Placentia reminds me of your comments earlier today that hon. gentlemen opposite had trouble hearing me yesterday so I will have to start at the beginning and go through all that again. I would hate for anybody to miss any of the comments I made yesterday, by popular request.

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke yesterday I talked at some length - but there is much more that can be said - on what I consider to be the main thrust, the main difficulty with this Budget. One is trust in the Government, confidence in their projections, confidence in their words as a result of their failure to negotiate in good faith with the public service collective bargaining unit, and their failure to deal in good faith in the matter of the Meech Lake Accord, and other examples I gave yesterday. I think it is very clear that this Government has lost the confidence of the people of this Province. All the comments we are hearing from so many union leaders and representatives from various organizations give us the same message, that there is no longer any trust in this particular Administration. That is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, because that affects more, I think, than the political popularity of this particular Government. That is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the confidence of the people in the programs and policies of this Government, and the mere confidence that they will indeed carry out the things they say they are going to carry out. When that is lacking then there is a serious, inherent, basic problem in society in this Province. It is unfortunate, I believe, that we are very much coming to that.

The second major component, Mr. Speaker, are the massive layoffs that this Government has introduced in this Budget. There is nothing as important in my view in this Budget document as the layoffs that have been announced, and the Government would try to make light of it. Do they not recognize that it has serious implication on those people that are being affected directly, those people that are being laid off and the families that depend on their income for their livelihood? What I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, is that this Government is failing to recognize the economic impact that all of this will have on the Province. I spoke at some length yesterday on the perception that now exists in this Province and that has existed for a number of months, as a result of statements made by Government and as a result of the fact that many people knew that these types of actions were being considered, particularly in the public service. There has been a shadow cast over the public service now for many months, a shadow which has caused these people to be very, very prudent in their expenditures, and why would they not be, because there was a very real possibility that they were facing a layoff at a time when unemployment is at 18.2 per cent, where the likelihood or the expectation of finding alternative employment at the same level of compensation within a short period of time is very dim.

So, Mr. Speaker, these people have been very conservative in their spending over the past number of months, and so they should be, they are very responsible. That has impacted extremely negatively on consumer confidence in the Province and on the retail sales tax that has been gained as a result of that. Not only individuals, Mr. Speaker, in the public service, but individuals right across the Province have been faced with this doom and gloom syndrome that this Government has been putting forward. That, coupled with the lack of confidence in their ability to accurately predict their Budget as evidenced, and as proven very clearly, in the performance of the last two budgets brought down by this Government.

Those two factors together certainly have not given the business and investment communities anything to feel secure about, anything to cause them to move forward with any investments, and that has a two-fold impact. First of all, you do not have the monetary impact of that amount of money being invested and circulating in the Province. And secondly, of course, that there is a large labour component involved in that. Job creation and component with any investments of the magnitudes of which we are talking.

And when you add to that, Mr. Speaker, the impact of these layoffs that we have seen announced by this Government, and I am not talking about just 2,000 or 2,500 public servants. The Minister would argue it is 2,000, I would argue that 500 vacant positions not filled are 500 jobs not available as well. And that is 2,500 jobs by any man's language.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthwhile looking through some of the other items in the Budget and considering the other areas where it would mean either layoffs or job opportunities that are lost. And these are significant, Mr. Speaker. As you look through this document these are inherent in pretty well every item that is here. And all we need to do is just use as a guideline even the summary of the expenditure details and of the revenue measures, revenues eliminated and items frozen, programmes and areas excluded from the freeze and these types of things. As we go through them we will see so many areas where job opportunities have been lost or people have in fact been laid off.

In the area of health care, Mr. Speaker - we have talked about the public service and the impact that will have - we are seeing budgets frozen in the area of dental services, hospital equipment funding and salaries under MCP physician services. Those items in themselves may or may not result in a minor number of layoffs, but nevertheless it is less funding now therefore circulating throughout the Province. When you freeze something, Mr. Speaker, a freeze is a rollback by any other name. It is a cutback. The Government would like to use the term 'freeze', they would like us to say, well, we have just held the line for this year. But if the Government's own figure of 5.7 per cent to 5.8 per cent inflation predicted for this year, a freeze means a 5.8 per cent cutback in the value of the money that is available to be spent in this Province and the economic impact of that, and what can be accomplished with that amount of money.

In the area of social services, the Minister of Social Services will tell us that there have been increases in funding available for social service, and there are, too, small programmes that are included. But the fact that the basic payments are frozen, Mr. Speaker. That represents a cutback to the average person on social assistance and that is unfortunate. Because these people are the people who are least able to bear increases in the cost of living. And we see them every day, we must all see them. We are all seeing the increase in the cost of living in this Province daily. In everything that we purchase and everything that we see going on around us, there is an increase in cost. And unfortunately I am not as optimistic as his Budget projection if that is going to decrease very quickly, although all economists across Canada tell us the economy is going to improve over the next three to four months, and hopefully they are right.

Freezes in school tax equalization grants, freezes in per pupil grants to school boards. Per pupil grants to school boards and the equalization grant, that is the amount of funding available to school boards to carry on their operations, fulfil their obligations to run the schools. Now, Mr. Speaker, if those are frozen surely their costs are increasing as well. It would certainly include such items as heating fuel. We know - we had a discussion yesterday with the Minister of Energy on what is happening in the cost of energy in this Province. And there is nothing there that would show any relief to school boards. A major portion of their expense would be heating and electrical costs, no doubt. Again, by freezing, Mr. Speaker, their grants at this year's level, with prices increasing, that is in effect a cutback to all boards, a major cutback to those boards.

And it is not too difficult to see, Mr. Speaker, if you cut the boards' funding level by 5.8 per cent, which is what inflation is doing, you cut by 5.8 per cent - unless we are going to turn down the heat enough to save 5.8 per cent - but we are not going to do any maintenance whatsoever in the school buildings. Barring that, Mr. Speaker, and some of that is possible, a great deal of it would not be, then it is inevitable that those cutbacks to school boards will mean layoffs. And we have figures of a couple of hundred people. The Minister of Education I am sure would like to argue with me. But I have evidence given to me, and estimates given to me by others, that simply by holding the line on the grants to school boards could mean a couple of hundred people laid off throughout this Province.

MR. MATTHEWS: You're going to see it too, it has already started, it's already started today.

DR. WARREN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Those are numbers that are given. Well, the hon. Minister may argue. I would say that I had those numbers given to me by people who are knowledgeable in that area - far more knowledgeable than I - I have no particular expertise.

DR. WARREN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Beg pardon?

DR. WARREN: I talked to them on Friday about this.

MR. WINDSOR: You talked to them on Friday.

DR. WARREN: They are going to get increases in school tax (Inaudible) school tax money themselves, it won't be that (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Equalization grants are frozen. They are going to get increases from school taxes?

MS. VERGE: What the Liberals were going to abolish.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, the one that they were going to abolish.

MR. HEARN: People are not going to pay their school taxes because they were promising to abolish them - in the Budget even.

MR. WINDSOR: My friend from Ferryland makes a good point, that many people are refusing to pay the school tax because the Premier personally promised school taxes would be abolished.

MR. HEARN: It's in the Budget again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Would be abolished.

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: There is another good point my friend from Fogo makes. With all these people now unemployed there will be more exemptions from school tax. People will not have to pay. So I am afraid the Minister of Education is looking at this through his rose-coloured glasses again.

MR. HEARN: Heckyll and Jeckyll.

MR. WINDSOR: He is overly optimistic as to the impact this will have on education, and I say to the Minister -

MR. HEARN: It is his fault, his fault.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: He has been a dismal failure.

MR. WINDSOR: What was that?

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Another intelligent comment from the Minister of Finance I am sure, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: First one he made today.

MR. WINDSOR: No problem that I missed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: First comment for the day.

MR. HEARN: Did they consult the Member for (Inaudible)?

MR. WINDSOR: Allocation of student assistant units to school boards. Now, would the Minister of Education tell me that? When he is finished listening to the Minister of Finance's jokes, would the Minister of Education tell me, if the elimination of student assistant units to school boards - does that not mean layoffs?

AN HON. MEMBER: No elimination.

MR. WINDSOR: No elimination of student assistants.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. WINDSOR: Oh!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, would he permit a comment on that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Allocation of student assistant units to school boards have been frozen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, will he permit a comment? For clarification?

MR. WINDSOR: Sure.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, there are some things that I have been proud of since I became Minister, and one this year, Mr. Speaker, is that we have maintained the student assistants numbers at last year's level. Mr. Speaker, last year in the budget we had $2.5 million for student assistants. We increased it to $3 million, and we granted increases. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are providing this year precisely the same number of student assistants as last year, despite what the hon. Member of St. Mary's - The Capes is trying to tell - maybe he is not listening - I should wait until he is listening.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am listening for him.

DR. WARREN: You are listening for him? I will wait until he is listening, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Carry on, I'm listening.

DR. WARREN: There is no decrease in the number of student assistants assigned to school boards for 1991-1992, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, when you freeze the per pupil grants to school boards, and note that-

AN HON. MEMBER: You changed it now.

MR. WINDSOR: I said the per pupil grant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Student assistant (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, I heard what the Minister said about student assistants. I heard that quite clearly. But when you freeze the per pupil grants to school boards - and recognizing that there are, I think, some 3,000 less students next year - the grants are allocated on a per pupil basis. There is not a lump sum to the school board, it depends on the number of pupils. I touched on it briefly yesterday.

So when a school has even 100 students less -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a lot. That is a lot.

MR. WINDSOR: Maybe not many. Maybe fifty in a particular school. I am talking about one of the larger schools in the St. John's area, with 800 or 900 students in it. They might well lose fifty students this year. That has a serious negative impact on the grant that that school will receive from Government. But the costs, Mr. Speaker, are not going down. In fact, most of the costs are going up by 5.7 per cent or 5.8 per cent. So you have the combination. You have less funding because the grant is based on a per pupil allocation instead of a total block allocation, and you have the cost of inflation. So that school could well be losing 10 per cent of their operating.

MR. WINSOR: The Terra Nova School Board is getting $200,000 less in operating expenses.

MR. WINDSOR: Terra Nova School Board, my friend from Fogo tells me, will receive $200,000 less this year. Would the Minister of Education like to tell us now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: See, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education does not like to hear the bad news. He does not like to hear it. Again, he is looking through rose-coloured glasses. He does not like to admit the fact that this Budget is going to have an extremely negative impact on education in this Province: It is going to have an extremely negative impact on the number of teachers employed; on the range of programmes that can be offered in some school boards; the level of service that can be provided; and the level of education that our young people will gain from school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: He can make light of it, Mr. Speaker, all he chooses to. But he can not change the facts. A 10 per cent cutback in the amount of funding to any school board will have a very negative impact and it will mean layoffs. Not only teachers. The Budget makes it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that because of declining enrolment, there will be less teachers. So we will be eliminating positions there. But because of this cutback in funding to school boards there will be layoffs there as well. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that overall we are looking at 500 positions in the education system.

MR. HEARN: At least.

MR. WINDSOR: At least 500 positions in the education system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the Minister hear that?

MR. WINDSOR: Either teachers, or school board staff, employees of the board, or what have you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five hundred.

MR. WINDSOR: Five hundred positions. Plus Memorial University. I am not talking about Memorial University. We will be coming to that. Or community colleges. I am talking about in the primary, secondary and elementary school system in our Province. Five hundred positions will be lost. So we will add that to the positions lost in the public service.

MR. WARREN: Ask about the Janeway!

MR. WINDSOR: School construction grants, Mr. Speaker, have been frozen. That is fine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: But I could make the point as well that by freezing construction grants again there is an inflationary factor, so that is slightly less money than last year, and there will be slightly less jobs created in the construction sector as a result of that. We have frozen grants to the Atlantic Provinces' Special Education Authority Grant and the Atlantic Veterinary College.

Funding for the DEC's has been reduced, Mr. Speaker - reduced, not just frozen. Maybe the Minister of Finance, since he has finally opened his mouth today, would like to tell us what his view on the denominational education system is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: No, I suspect he would not like to tell us. Maybe he would not like to tell us.

DR. KITCHEN: I was for it.

MR. WINDSOR: You are for it? The Minister is totally in favour of the denominational education system.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about you?

MR. WINDSOR: Do not worry. My position is well known to the boards in my district, and that is all that matters.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister's position on denominational education is like it is with everything else, he is for it and against it.

MR. HEARN: What about the Minister's? What about the Minister's position?

MR. WINDSOR: For and against. He is like a ping-pong ball over there. Operating grants to community colleges and institutes will be reduced. Now, I do not know if we have a number on that. It is probably there in the back. I could probably find it. Will that not mean layoffs, I ask the Minister of Education? Can we have that kind of a reduction added to the inflation factor without layoffs? Can that be accomplished with no -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No reduction, he says, and it is in the book.

AN HON. MEMBER: He does not know what is in the estimates.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: He does not know what is in the Budget, boy!

MR. WINDSOR: I had better put on my glasses, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, and read it for him.

MR. WINDSOR: I will try to read it again. Page A2 under Education. `Operating grants to community colleges and institutes will be reduced.'

MR. MURPHY: Frozen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Reduced!

MR. RIDEOUT: I mean, is there any truth in the Budget?

MR. MURPHY: You are using the salary figures.

MR. MATTHEWS: No way! No way! It is $3 million less.

MR. RIDEOUT: This says grants.

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, I will yield. I would like to yield to the Minister of Finance. Would he please clarify this? It is his Budget. Which one of them over there is lying to us?

MR. WARREN: One.

MR. WINDSOR: I cannot make it any clearer than that. One of them, Mr. Speaker, has to be lying to us. Now the Budget says reduced.

MR. HEARN: They do not know the difference.

MR. WINDSOR: Is that accurate? I ask the Minister of Finance, is that accurate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister of Finance says, reduced. I ask the Minister of Education, will he now confirm reduced?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it reduced or (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: He has lost his tongue now.

MR. MATTHEWS: Operations: Last year seventy, this year sixty-seven - three million bucks.

MR. WINDSOR: Now, that is on page A2. I refer now to page 177 of the Estimate document - Institutes and community colleges operations. Grants and subsidies last year, $70,020,000. This year, $67,791,000. I am only an engineer, Mr. Speaker, but my mathematical training tells me $67 million is less than $70 million.

MR. MATTHEWS: If you are paying them the same salaries as last year, why would the freeze decrease it by $3 million, boy! How stunned are you at all?

MR. RIDEOUT: They are as stunned as they come over there.

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you going to layoff that many that you are going to save $3 million? Is that what you are saying?

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the Premier make the Minister of Education Minister of Finance. If he can stretch $67 million into $70 million, we should make him the Minister of Finance and we will not have a deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: What would you do with the Minister of Finance then?

MR. MATTHEWS: What would you do with the Minister of Finance? That is the question.

MR. WINDSOR: Overall on community colleges, when you take in Federal revenues and all the rest of it on current account -

MR. HEARN: Bring in some loaves and fishes.

MR. WINDSOR: And there is a half million less for furnishing and equipment, too.

MR. MATTHEWS: Did you hear the reason he was giving? The wages are frozen.

MR. WINDSOR: The wages are frozen.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the reason for it being down. (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The wages are frozen. Mr. Speaker, I mean how -

DR. WARREN: Did the hon. Member read what we increased and put into the record (inaudible) increases in the education budget?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is your job, not his.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: You do not have too many to read. There are not too many there to read.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of sitting here listening to the Minister of Education read through his whole budget. It is probably the first time he has read it, I do not know. Of course, there are some items that are increased. I am talking about the decreases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister does not like to talk about the decreases. You know, the Budget tries to hide those as much as possible.

MR. HEARN: What about the layoff slips?

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister, no doubt, when he gets up, will talk about the increases that are in there. They are up front and centre anyway. Everybody knows them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Both the increases and decreases.

MR. WINDSOR: You are talking about increases and decreases? Will the Minister tell me how community colleges will not lay off people with $3 million less.

DR. WARREN: One hundred people in the community colleges.

MR. WINDSOR: One hundred people will be laid off.

DR. WARREN: If necessary.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, okay. there is a number. A few minutes ago the Minister was trying to tell me there was no reduction. Now we are talking about 100 people. Where have I gone?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) give the hon. Member the exact figures.

MR. WINDSOR: I welcome the exact figure. There are 100 people.

Funding for institutional school services will be reduced. Where are the Estimates gone there?

MR. HEARN: The School for the Deaf, a place he never goes.

MR. WINDSOR: There is another set of Estimates here somewhere. Funding for institutional school services, find that under Education. How many layoffs will that mean? I ask the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, if he wants the breakdown of the 350 people, I will give them the 350 estimated layoffs in Education.

MR. WINDSOR: Okay.

DR. WARREN: We can be more precise in the elementary and secondary systems. Because we have the 2 per cent and we know that we are laying off mostly in the elementary and secondary systems persons as a result of declining enrolments, 133. Approximately 100 in the colleges and institutes, and we are meeting with them. We met with them on Friday, and we are meeting with them this week to get the details. That is approximately 100. Approximately 100 at Memorial University.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh! 100?

DR. WARREN: Approximately 100 at Memorial University. I have told the public this and I want to tell the hon. Member this. The rest will come from the Department of Education and other Services, adding up to approximately an estimated 350 people in the education sector, at all levels.

MR. RIDEOUT: Has Memorial University a declining enrolment?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. RIDEOUT: No?

MR. WINDSOR: I say to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that-

AN HON. MEMBER: You know, Mr. Speaker, I am not laying off (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The Member is on his feet. You cannot (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: I am not laying off, I am (inaudible).

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

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister we may be looking at 100 layoffs at Memorial University, but that means, therefore, that we are also looking at huge increases in tuition fees.

MR. HEARN: And cut programs.

MR. WINDSOR: There are only two alternatives. The amount of funding lost will cost more than 100 jobs, Mr. Speaker, so, obviously therefore, the University is being forced by this Budget to increase tuition fees or cut back enrollment, I suppose. They may be able to cut some programs, eliminate some programs at the University. That has been talked about. But there is a fear there of losing accreditation in certain areas. I think the Minister is aware of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not true.

MR. WINDSOR: That is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the day care centre. We approved that.

MR. WINDSOR: I realize you approved that, but there are other areas, apparently, where I am told they are in some danger of losing their accreditation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I have a critic in Education who is only just sitting back biding his time waiting for his chance. My colleague, no doubt, will go into these sorts of things in much greater detail than I am doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a little bit too complicated for you.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, maybe the Minister will tell me about the electrical subsidy to the denominational education centres at the university. Is it not true that at least one of those has already indicated they may well have to close down because of the loss of that electrical subsidy? I have reason to believe that the President of that college said, we cannot remain open if we lose that electrical subsidy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be the co-operative member I am, I will tell you what happened. Last year, the Government decided to (inaudible).

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

If the hon. Minister wishes to speak and answer to the questions from the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, then I have to have leave of the House to permit the hon. Member to do that. With the hon. Minister just speaking in the House as he is now it is not being recorded by Hansard, his mike is not on. So we will wait until the hon. Member here has asked a number of questions and if he wants to give leave to the hon. Minister to answer them, then we can do that. I remind hon. Members that we are not in Committee of the whole at this point in time. Thank you. The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are quite right. We were taking quite a bit of leave of Your Honour and acting as if we were in Committee of the Whole and enjoying the exchange. The Minister was giving us some information and, you know, we welcome accurate information; we were given certain figures which we were led to believe were true and if the Minister wishes to correct any false impressions we have, I would be happy to give him that opportunity; I have no desire to be dealing with false information. So if Your Honour would permit, I would yield to the Minister now for a minute and let him answer the couple of questions I put to him.

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I abide by your ruling. We were interacting quite freely, and I apologize to you, Sir, and to the House for that.

On the subsidy, Mr. Speaker, in last year's Budget - I want to clarify this because it is an important point for the denominational colleges. We announced in last year's Budget that the subsidy, totalling about $250,000 a year, would be terminated this year. Mr. Speaker, we did indicate last year that this year would be the last year for the subsidy. We met with the boards from the various institutions and we agreed, Mr. Speaker, to, instead of terminating it in 1990-91, downsize it over a three year period so that the colleges could find other revenues to supplement for the downsizing. So really there was a change in the Government's position, Mr. Speaker, on the subsidy; instead of terminating it this year, we decided to phase it out over a three year period to give the colleges some extra time to find alternate revenues. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that information. And as you have said, we should be asking these questions in supplementary supply. We will have an opportunity to go through it again, but I do welcome the information.

The teaching positions eliminated by declining enrolment will not be re-instated, Mr. Speaker. We already know that. But those positions are going to be eliminated. It is unfortunate that those teaching units are not available to improve and upgrade the ancillary services necessary in schools, but there we are. Mr. Speaker, so much for education. See how many jobs are lost there. The Minister says an estimated 350. I would say to him that boards will lose others, as well. School boards, themselves, will lose positions because of the lesser amount of funding that is available to them this year. So, I will predict, Mr. Speaker, that there are at least 500 positions overall in the education sector that will be lost this year.

Mr. Speaker, other services here and expenditures frozen: Funding for the following organizations: the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. There is a curious one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. WINDSOR: The Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. Funding is being frozen for that board in the year in which the great Hibernia development is beginning. It would certainly have seemed to me that the Petroleum Board would need to be upgraded this year, that they would need additional resources to protect our interests in the development of Hibernia. And there have been some concerns expressed as to whether or not the Government is adequately protecting provisions in the Atlantic Accord and in the Hibernia Development Agreement dealing with local preference, job opportunities, ensuring that 50 per cent, for example, of the engineering work is carried out in Newfoundland, ensuring that Newfoundland companies are given every opportunity to enter into joint ventures.

We have had some expressions of concern from the private sector that perhaps that is not being properly controlled. I understand that the oil companies, or the developer, has staff who are designated to look at all contracts that are awarded to ensure that these provisions are required, but I understand that it is a very junior position and that the person is probably not in a position to adequately protect the Province's rights and interests in that regard. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is indeed the Government's responsibility to protect the Province's interest, it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that every opportunity is given to Newfoundland companies and Newfoundland individuals to take advantage of that great development. After all, that was the reason we fought so hard and so long to get a reasonable deal in the development of our offshore, and it is the reason for which Governments are putting billions of dollars investment into that development to help the companies move forward. And if we do not now gain the employment opportunities and business opportunities and the industrial offsets that were promised as a result of that, then we are, indeed, being sold short; we are not gaining the full value, the full benefit of that resource development.

Other organizations frozen, Mr. Speaker, are the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Foundation and the Newfoundland and Labrador Science and Technology Council. These are two organizations that are good organizations, that create a certain amount of employment and freezing their budget certainly would not allow them any growth and may well, in fact, cause a small measure of cutback.

Labrador Legal Services, Regional Pastures, the Stocks Savings Plan, the Venture Capital - there is one. At least it is still there. The Stocks Savings Plan and Venture Capital Tax Credit Programs, those two excellent programs that we introduced a number of years ago, at least they are still there; they were not eliminated.

Police protection, Mr. Speaker. This is an interesting one. We are told that there are forty positions being eliminated - forty positions - twenty-five in the RCMP and fifteen in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. And we now know that the constabulary apparently, over the weekend, made some concessions. They agreed, rather than lose those fifteen positions, that they would agree to do night shift with one man in a vehicle, or one man cruise on the night shift at some risk themselves. In fact, there is an article in today's Telegram, which is here by me, Mr. Speaker, I just referred to, 'Police agree to one-man patrols to avert fifteen Budgetary layoffs.' I know I am not suppose to read the newspapers, Your Honour - Your Honour has been lenient with me. Mr. Speaker, there must be some concern that police are now on one-man patrols. There has been some debate on that for a number of years, in that it was assured that there would be two-man patrols in the evenings for the police officers, which makes a tremendous amount of sense, particularly in the evening time. You can get away with a one-man patrol in the daytime but when you are patrolling around at three or four o'clock in the morning it is very, very risky to be travelling alone. The police have had to make major concessions, I would suggest, at risk to themselves, in order to avoid those fifteen layoffs in the constabulary. I am not sure if negotiations are being carried out with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in that regard as well, whether or not there may be some concessions made there, in order to keep those positions. I suspect not, I suspect you will not find it because they have national standards as to what they do. I doubt very much that any kind of a concession in that regard could be reached. But there are twenty-five RCMP jobs across this Province, fairly high paying jobs for rural Newfoundland, which will have a negative impact on the economy of those areas. Of course we know that the detachment in Burin is being closed down altogether and being transferred to Marystown, but I am led to believe that only one person is being transferred and the other three, four or five are disappearing altogether.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Three.

MR. WINDSOR: Three are disappearing. We know not where. So, it is a little bit of an exaggeration to say that the Burin detachment is being transferred to Marystown. It would be more honest to say that the detachment is being closed down but one additional position is being made available to Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, in the transportation sector: the Bell Island ferry service, and my friend no doubt is concerned about that, is being reduced to one vessel for a six month period.

MR. WALSH: A bitter pill to swallow.

MR. WINDSOR: A bitter pill to swallow. I am sure my hon. colleague for Mount Scio - Bell Island does not support that move. It is not something he welcomes. I am sure also that he will confirm that is going to mean some loss of employment on that run.

MR. WALSH: I said so publicly on Friday.

MR. WINDSOR: He said so publicly on Friday. I congratulate him for standing up and having the courage of his convictions.

MR. WALSH: A possible loss of employment and a bitter pill to swallow.

MR. WINDSOR: No doubt there is a loss of employment. You do not shut down one ferry for six months without losing some employment for that six month period.

MR. WALSH: I met with some concerned citizens on Friday afternoon.

MR. WINDSOR: No doubt they are concerned, and so they should be. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, ferry service to Little Bay Islands and Long Islands will be combined for Spring and Fall periods. My friend for Green Bay is not here and no doubt that is not going down very well in Green Bay. No doubt there is a loss of jobs for that period of time as well. We are also told that the Fogo ferry is not going to be built this year. Well, that does two things, Mr. Speaker, that creates problems in Fogo Island, a transportation problem that we know has been a problem for many, many, years. I was personally involved in building the one ferry that we built for down there which did not work out as well as we would have liked, a good ferry it just did not work out well for that run. On top of that, we are losing the employment at Marystown Shipyard; we are losing employment at Marystown Shipyard, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the shipyard sorely needs, sorely needs that contract. They are down, I am told now, to about 200 persons employed in that yard from a peak of about 500, the Marystown Shipyard being the major employer on the Burin Peninsula, down now to 200 people. It must be a time of depression on the Burin Peninsula; it has to be a time of depression on the Burin Peninsula, more people, at the time when we need that expertise. Mr. Speaker, I was responsible for that shipyard for five and a half years at least; five and a half years at least, and we put many contracts, many Government contracts into that shipyard to build ferries for us and other vessels, we put a lot of money into fishing vessels but mostly in latter years in building ferries because we needed those ferries for the Newfoundland service.

We probably could have purchased them, used vessels, more cheaply elsewhere but we chose as a Government, to keep Marystown Shipyard alive; to spend our money here in this Province, even though it costs us a bit more - and that is local preference at its finest, Mr. Speaker. As a result Marystown Shipyard has been kept alive for the last ten or twelve years at a reasonable operating level. It had its ups and its down; private contracts have been hard to get, the fishing industry has not been strong, even though we did over the last couple of years built half a dozen, I think, fishing vessels down there, if I am not mistaken.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is right and he gave away the (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is right, that happened just about the time when some sort of an election took place, as I recall. It just happened to get frozen- it just happened to get frozen right after the election. Now, Mr. Speaker, we kept Marystown Shipyard alive not just as a make work program for the Burin Peninsula but because there is a high level of expertise at Marystown Shipyard. A high level of expertise that is going to be needed to develop the offshore industry and here, in the year when it is just beginning, when so many contracts are looming on the horizon for Marystown Shipyard, it is being allowed to die, and I think that is going to go down in history as one of the biggest crimes that this Government has committed, particularly to the people of the Burin Peninsula. I think it is a crime, Mr. Speaker.

We made some difficult decisions over the years, it was not always easy to find the money to keep that enterprise going on the Burin Peninsula, but we did it and I think we did it for the right reasons, and it is a sad day indeed for the Burin Peninsula that this is allowed to take place this year. Mr. Speaker, there are many other areas that we can and we should talk about, other areas where funding is being frozen, as in the Arts and Culture Centres, Renewable Energy Development programs, Youth Advisory Council; funding has been discontinued altogether for the Youth Advisory Council, it is a paltry amount, I think $50,000 or $100,000, but it went a long way to allow the youth of this Province to organize and to help themselves with various programs.

They are going to close the Grand Falls and Goose Bay Consumer Affairs Offices. They are not big employers: I believe one officer in each location, but where now, do consumers in those areas go when they feel that they have not been well done by the private sector? These were our Ombudsmen, Mr. Speaker, the Ombudsman for consumers; we know where the Ombudsman went last year, he went the way of the Dodo Bird in last year's Budget. Now we are seeing consumer advocates, consumer officers in two communities, a Labrador officer and a Central Newfoundland officer being eliminated; only two jobs, Mr. Speaker, perhaps with some secretarial help you might say three or four jobs, but significant in the fact that we have lost that capability in those areas and that consumers now do not have anybody at the local level to which to appeal.

Reducing hunter capability testing from five to three months had some impact, I guess. Closing an animal health inspection unit in North Sydney, I find that one curious. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture, why are we closing the animal health inspection centre at North Sydney? Would the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture like to tell us that? I mean it is curious, Mr. Speaker. I mean are we now giving up? Do we not know that we had the only disease free hogs in Canada, I think, if not in the world or North America? And now we are going to eliminate some of the protection.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will not say why. The Minister of Social Services (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The Minister of Social Services looks after that every year.

MR. WINDSOR: They were sadly threatened a couple of years ago when, I am told, a pig escaped. There is an awful temptation to be unkind, but I will resist. But I do have to wonder why we are eliminating that position because it does provide some measure of protection. How effective that office in North Sydney would be I am not entirely sure, but surely God we must have some protection to see what standards of animals are being brought into this Province. I mean we could be bringing in rabid animals or anything else. For the price of one person who has been there many, many years one would have to wonder why that sort of thing is being allowed to take place.

The swine breeding station on the west coast of the Province is being closed. I am not sure how many jobs are there. Could the Minister of Agriculture tell me that? How many jobs are being lost in the west coast swine breeding station?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: How many? One or two jobs. And are those being included in the 1,300 public service jobs that we talked about?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They will be included in it. Nevertheless, that was a service being provided to swine breeders.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: So is the reduction in services, but there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, it will be a very negative thing for the west coast of the Province. Maybe not a major number of jobs lost, but for swine breeders on the West Coast of the Province that will have some negative impact.

We are reducing funding and merging the Junior Forest Warden program and the Four H program. Good programs for young people in rural Newfoundland that have worked well, and there may well be some merit in combining the two programs, but not in reducing the funding - not in reducing the small amount of funding that they had anyway. And we are merging the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador with the Advisory Board for the Economic Recovery Commission. That is an interesting one. People are really going to get excited about that in this Province. And then we are saying that we are increasing funding for the activities of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Minister of Development is not here today, but if he were I would ask him how come twenty-two people in the Department of Development have been given their layoff notices? Twenty-two people in the Department of Development, Mr. Speaker, were yesterday given their layoff notices, some people who have been there a long, long time. And the Budget also says, Mr. Speaker, and this is interesting, 'increased funding for tourism related activities.' I am told that a photographer who has been with this Government for twenty-five or more years in the Tourism Division was given his layoff notice yesterday, yet the Budget says there is increased funding for tourism related activities. Indeed there is, Mr. Speaker, and I had a look at the Budget for the details. Can anybody guess where the increased funding for tourism related activities is contained in the Budget? Contained, Mr. Speaker, in tourism marketing and promotion, purchased services, not items that are undertaken by Government staff - contracts awarded. And, who, Mr. Speaker, has the tourism marketing contract, I wonder? We wondered how we got it. We spoke about that at some length last year. It could not be a company by the name of Appa? Mr. Speaker, a company by the name of Appa has that contract and that is where all the increase is, $500,000 extra in tourism marketing this year, yet there are twenty-two people being laid off in the Department of Development. Now, Mr. Speaker, how can this Government justify that? How can we justify at this time in our history, when we need the expertise contained in the Department of Development more than any other time, we are laying off twenty-two people and at the same time giving another half a million dollars to our political friends in Appa?. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no justice in that nor is there any common sense contained in that kind of a policy, none whatsoever. The Minister of Transportation shakes his head. I do not know whether he has water in his ears or if he has a problem. We will get to transportation very shortly. Increased funding under the Offshore Development fund for Hibernia related projects: We have an increase there. It is good, a Federal-Provincial agreement signed a number of years ago. Increased funding for various other cost- shared agreements. Increased funding activities for Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, $4 million more for Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador.

Lay off twenty-two people in the Department of Development and give Dr. House and his merry men another $4 million. Now, how do you justify that? How do you justify laying off twenty-two people with all kinds of experience and knowledge on how to help develop this Province, overworked as they are over there? I do not think anybody can deny me that the people of the Department of Development have a heavy work load, unless it has been all taken out of their hands by Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. But, how do you justify it, Mr. Speaker? I could see transferring staff to Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. We have already done that. Most of the Department of Development has already gone to Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a clear move here by this Government, Mr. Speaker, to totally destroy the Department of Development. As it is now the Chairman of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, or the Chairman of the Economic Recovery Commission, has more power than the Minister of Development. The Chairman of the Economic Recovery Commission now has the mandate to carry out many of the responsibilities of the Minister of Development but he does not answer to the Minister of Development. He answers directly to the Premier. Perhaps, that, Mr. Speaker, sheds some light on it. It is the Premier alone who is directing the Economic Recovery Commission, who is dictating the approach that will be taken and the direction in which we will go in developing this Province. It is not the Minister of Development nor the professional staff in the Department of Development. We are eliminating twenty-two of them now, and it is not Cabinet as a whole, Mr. Speaker. There is a certain amount of protection inherent in the Cabinet system, and having the professional staff members with the resources available to them, consultants available to them, and reporting through the Minister to Cabinet, to Cabinet as a whole running the Province, but when you get a Premier running a Province with an Economic Recovery Commission answerable to him directly, bypassing the Minister of Development who should be and is under his Act responsible for these things, then we are into a very, very strange situation indeed, and a very dangerous situation, Mr. Speaker. You lose all of the inherent safeguards built in to the Cabinet structure. They even went, I am assuming -maybe I am being overly generous in assuming that this Government uses the Cabinet policy system. Would anybody like to tell me, do we still have a Resource Policy Committee and a Social Policy Committee? Do we still have one? Nobody wants to answer. I suspect -

MS COWAN: Yes, we do.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, we do.

MS COWAN: Alive and well.

MR. WINDSOR: Alive and well. I hope so. I really hope so because those committees worked well, and they had secretariats attached to them so that there is -

AN HON. MEMBER: If the Ministers only had some say.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, if the Ministers have some say, which they don't have.

Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet system has a number of safeguards built into it, and for the right reasons. The Ministers officials make recommendations to the Minister, the Minister considers those and debates them with his officials and he prepares a Cabinet Paper, a submission to Cabinet for the consideration of the whole Cabinet, the Government. But before it gets on the Cabinet table it goes to the committee system. In the case of the Department of Development, it would go to the Resource Policy Committee of Cabinet who have further officials who look at it from a different perspective, who look at it from an overall Government perspective and set priorities on it. And it would go through the Resource Policy Committee, perhaps also to Treasury Board if there are heavy financial implications in it. So, the Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet and their secretariat and their officials, would look at it from a financial point of view. And the Planning and Priorities Committee may be involved if it is a major, major decision, a major new thrust for Government. And the secretariat from the Planning and Priorities Committee would look at it so that when it comes on the Cabinet table, Mr. Speaker, you have a recommendation from Treasury Board. Well, first of all you have a recommendation from the Minister, his Cabinet submission, his Cabinet Paper. That is a recommendation for the Minister and his officials, and there is a recommendation from Treasury Board and a recommendation from Resource Policy and a recommendation from Planning and Priorities. So, it has been looked at from four or five different points of view, perhaps with different objectives in mind. Not unusual for the Minister of Forestry to sit on a Resource Policy Committee and say, 'this is a good program and I really think we should do this. This is something that we want to do.'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Whatever program. If the Minister had been listening he would know what I am talking about. I am talking in generalities.

It is not unusual for the Minister of Forestry or any other Minister to put forward a submission or see a submission in a Resource Policy Committee and support it from a resource point of view. But if that same Minister is also a Member of Treasury Board, he may take a different point of view as a Member of Treasury Board.

The President of Treasury Board confirms that, and I think he is right. I have been in the position myself many times. I was in a position once where I wrote myself a letter and said, 'thank you for your submission, but I am sorry, we cannot approve it' when I was President of Treasury Board and also Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is still talked about down there where my staff at Treasury Board had drafted a negative response to my submission as Minister of Municipal Affairs. For the purposes of keeping the record straight I signed it and sent the letter to myself. I was not very happy with myself either, but that is the way it happens, Mr. Speaker. And the point I am making is there are safeguards built into every one of those procedures. That is not just a bureaucratic nightmare, those are for good and valid reasons that that committee system is in place and that all of those secretariats are given the expertise to study the proposals from different points of view, and it all comes together on the Cabinet table. It all comes together on the Cabinet table when the Ministers of the Crown, fourteen of them or whatever it is, and the Premier sit around the Cabinet table with the best advice from all of the different points of view from each of the secretariats and various groups of officials. Cabinet, as a whole, makes the decision. When we have an outside group who are not part of Government per se, they are a Government agencies, such as the Economic Recovery Commission who bypasses all the Government Committees and Cabinet and goes directly to the Premier for direction. That, Mr. Speaker, is an extremely dangerous situation. An extremely dangerous situation, particularly when they are given the responsibility to give direction on such an important aspect of Government, that being the development of the resources of the Province. Mr. Speaker, let us have a look at the expenditures reduced. With regard to Memorial University: funding for the Faculty of Medicine will be reduced; the grant to the Faculty of Medicine is reduced, Mr. Speaker, that has to mean some layoffs or a reduction in the program being offered or both; MCP coverage of routine dental surgery in hospitals is eliminated, that will have an impact on many people in this Province.

Routine dental surgery is fairly common, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what the dollar impact of that is overall for Government but it will have a negative impact on some people of this Province who are unfortunate enough to require surgery in hospitals. Fluoride treatment for children age three and under is eliminated. I do not know that that is a major dental problem; we are talking children's teeth at any rate from you know the first teeth, there has been no major outcry about that.

Basic business assessments under the Optometry and Medicare program will be eliminated; now there, Mr. Speaker, that is a problem, particularly, I would say for our senior citizens, who, obviously need this type of care more so than younger people do. I look around and many of us, most of us I suspect now have glasses, we are getting to the stage in life where we need glasses and we need our eyes checked every year or two perhaps, to have our glasses changed, and our senior citizens, Mr. Speaker, perhaps even more so. They are the people most likely to need that type of service, so here is a problem being created for our senior citizens, many of whom are least able to afford to pay for that type of service.

Coverage of narcotic cough preparations under the Indigent and Seniors Drug Subsidy Programs. Now I am sure that is the major saviour, that is really a great item; I know Government is saving a lot of money by eliminating that service for Indigents and Seniors, narcotic cough preparations. The word narcotic there does that indicate that that is being abused because it is a narcotic, my friend from Lewisporte being a pharmacist, maybe he can give me some light on that, is that an abuse?

MR. PENNEY: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It is abuse.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the question again.

MR. WINDSOR: My question was, that we are eliminating the preparation of narcotic cough syrups - coverage of narcotic cough preparations under the Indigent and Seniors Drug Subsidy Program will be eliminated. Is there an abuse in the use of narcotic cough preparations? He tells me there is not, so we are not doing it to remove an abuse, I thank him for that. So it is simply a cost saving measure aimed at indigents and senior citizens; why are we again attacking our senior citizens, we have hit them on the optometry care, we are hitting them on cough preparations, we are hitting them on Provincial Parks -

AN HON. MEMBER: With no increase in pensions.

MR. WINDSOR: - no increase in pensions for our senior citizens this year, provincial pensioners; normally we give them 4 per cent even though the cost of living has gone up by 5.8 this year, so that is effectively a roll back, we are now going to charge them for cough syrup and to have their eyes checked, Mr. Speaker. Now that is really going to save a lot of money.

A grant to Dalhousie Dental School would be eliminated. Do we have a surplus of dentists in this Province now? I am led to believe that there are many rural communities in this Province which are still unable to attract a full-time dentist.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: What has that got to do with what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I cannot quite hear. What does it have to do with the grant to the dental school?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming we made that grant so that they would accept a certain number of students from Newfoundland. And I assume that there is a contract with those students, that they will serve the Province for a couple of years after graduating because the grant is made on their behalf. That is what it has to do with it. The Minister of Finance did not know, we have been doing that sort of thing for many years. It used to be, when I was an engineering student, we provided grants directly to engineering students to go to Nova Scotia Technical College so that we could attract engineers back to the Department of Transportation. I was not one of them, by the way. But many of my friends who were in University at Nova Scotia Technical College with me were receiving subsidies of, I think, $2,000 a year, which was a fine chunk of change in those days - a fine chunk of change. Two thousand dollars a year for a student made a big impact.

I did not receive it from the Government of Newfoundland, but I did get it from the Government of Nova Scotia, believe it or not, in my second year, because I was there for a two year term. After one year I was considered a resident, and in my second year at Nova Scotia I am not sure whether it was $1,000 or $2,000 grant that I received from the Government of Nova Scotia. I was offered an opportunity to stay up there, and I was offered an opportunity to go to New Jersey with one of the largest engineering companies in the world, Foster Wheeler Corporation, one of the biggest engineering companies in the world. I would probably be heading back this way now, because they are very much involved in the petroleum industry. In fact, that is their speciality. They may well be involved in the Hibernia development. But I chose to come back to Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: I missed that. It is probably just as well. I heard enough of it to know that I did not want to particularly respond to it. But it was interesting that the Government of Nova Scotia, in fact, did provide me with some subsidy in my second year. It was very welcome at that point in time, as well.

Various hospital services throughout the entire delivery system will be rationalized, including the closure of 360 acute care beds, and another 78 being converted to chronic care beds. Four hundred and thirty-eight acute care beds being eliminated; 900 positions we are being told in the health care system. Well, that is the number we were given by Government, 900 positions in the health care system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could there be more?

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I could guess 1,800, I suppose, and the Minister would argue with me.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Minister of Health said there would not be no less than 800 and no more than 1,000.

MR. WINDSOR: Right. No less than 800 and no more than 1,000. That is pretty close to 900 on the average. A good number I think. Not in great dispute. But the Minister of Health tries to tell us that we will have an improved health care system because of it.

MR. POWER: That is if we do not die waiting for it.

MR. WINDSOR: Now! I think maybe we should make the Minister of Health the Minister of Finance, and he will drop taxes by 20 per cent and raise more money using that principle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: How can the Minister of Health stand in his place and tell us he is going to eliminate 900 positions in the health care system and provide a better service? How stunned does he think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are? How green does he think we are?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: And the audacity of the Minister to make such a statement. I have had more people in the last few days relate to me their experiences in hospital and how the young people in the hospital who are serving patients, the young nurses, and nurses aids, how busy they are, how overworked they are at this point in time, and the Minister of Health says, ah, we can eliminate 900 of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I have seen it. I have had a few reasons to take family members to hospital over the past year. That reminds me. I just want to take an opportunity now, by the way, to relate an experience I had last summer, and my friend for Bellevue District is losing his health clinic in Come By Chance. But I had reason to visit the health clinic in Whitbourne that was built a number of years ago on two occasions, two different children I had to take to that clinic last summer when I was in that area on vacation, and the service was absolutely superb. The facility in Whitbourne is a first-class facility - very attractive, very well laid out, very functional. There were staff on duty. I think there were six doctors who operate out of the Whitbourne clinic, and there was a doctor on call on both occasions I went. One was on a Saturday afternoon, and one was in a nighttime, about 10:00 p.m., I think, on a Wednesday night or something. In both cases there was a doctor there. The doctor was extremely busy in both cases, but very, very professional in the approach. There was a good staff there and we were given excellent care. And I wanted to take this opportunity to throw a bouquet to the people who operate that facility. Because they are operating a first-class facility and a very worthwhile facility. And because of my experience there, I would hate to see too many of our health clinics closing down around the Province, because I am so aware of the service they are providing to our people in rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Hark! What is happening down here? She's come abroad in the south end of her, Mr. Speaker.

MR. POWER: Yes. It's the Burin Peninsula connection again. It is very (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, in the area of social services we see payment of municipal taxes for recipients of short-term social assistance will be eliminated. That is another $400,000 that Government will be taking from municipalities. Because if Government is not paying for their municipal taxes, you may rest assured these people are not going to be able to. I think we heard the Mayor of the City of St. John's, in fact, object to this particular move, saying that it will be a burden. It will be a burden moreso on smaller rural communities which have a higher level of social assistance. And if I am not mistaken, the social assistance component, was that not eliminated with the new grants system?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It was. And I think that was a raw move. I introduced that component in the Municipal Grants Act in 1979, Mr. Speaker, when I was the Minister, at the request of numerous municipalities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't go bringing up Moncton.

MR. WINDSOR: Hotel rooms?

AN HON. MEMBER: In Moncton.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh! I heard something about that, yes. That is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Social Services, is it? Yes. Assistant Deputy Minister. The former Liberal Member from Fogo. The Assistant Deputy Minister of Social Services has racked up $2,200 in hotel bills.

MR. EFFORD: How much?

MR. WINDSOR: Twenty-two hundred dollars.

MR. EFFORD: That was only one night for Premier Peckford!

MR. WINDSOR: In Moncton?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: When the former Member from Fogo is the Premier and he is acting on official Government business and needs a suite to entertain people, or to have meetings with his staff, then he can spend $2,200 a night. But as the Assistant Deputy Minister of Social Services, there are guidelines laid down as to what he can spend.

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

The hon. the Minister of Social Services on a point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: A point of order?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very interested in the hon. Member's speech. He may go on until Christmas and we are prepared to listen to him as long as he makes some points. But my point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that he is misleading the House in the information he is giving. Because the information he is giving was reported in the paper the other day as $1,100, not $2,200, and it extended over a four day conference, hosted on behalf of the Minister of Social Services.

MR. SIMMS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To speak to the point of order?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister of Social Services is very sensitive over this particular issue, and one can understand why he would feel so guilty. Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Minister has not raised a legitimate point of order. The question being asked in everybody's minds is if the Assistant Deputy Minister of Social Services can provide hors d'oeuvres at a time when the Budget back home was being cut? What about the hors d'oeuvres for the food banks? Is he going to provide those, as well?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is about to rule on the point raised by the hon. the Minister of Social Services. He has raised no point of order. It is a difference of opinion, I guess, between the two hon. gentlemen and there is no point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, you are quite right. There was no point of order, just a point of interference. It is a sore point. That is what it is, just a sore point. It is a sore point for the Minister of Social Services. He has to admit that he has lost control of his Department. He has Assistant Deputies flicking all around the world spending money willy-nilly buying hors d'oeuvres, I am told. The former Member thought he was the Minister. That is what happened. Mr. Speaker, I would stand here and defend the Minister of Development if the Minister of Development said his Assistant Deputy was at an oil show in Houston and paid $100 or $200 to entertain some oil executives to attract development here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, I spent a few dollars on hors d'oeuvres, and well spent they were. And when I get back over there again I am going to spend some more, because I am going to create some jobs, something that this Government is totally incapable of doing. If I thought the Minister of Social Services had created some jobs -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: He called you the Minister of Development.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your promotion, Sir, but I am no longer the Minister of Development. I realize that many Newfoundlanders wish I were, and they are looking forward to the time when I will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: And I have to tell them, Mr. Speaker, it will not be long now. We will soon be there. This document is the beginning of the slippery slope.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am proud of Sprung. We created 400 jobs for five years for one-sixth the amount of money the Minister of Finance made a mistake in his Budget this year, one sixth the amount of money that he lost. No problem, Mr. Speaker, no problem whatsoever. I will congratulate the Assistant Deputy Minister of Social Services if he can tell me he created even one job for the price of the hors d'oeuvres he bought in Moncton. How many jobs did he create in Moncton? Not a one. Who was he entertaining in Moncton, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Who was he entertaining in Moncton, Mr. Speaker? What rationale does the Assistant Deputy Minister of Social Services have for entertaining, for buying hors d'oeuvres for people in Moncton?

MR. POWER: He paid $300 a night for a room.

MR. WINDSOR: For what? He paid $300 a night for a room. Where was he sleeping, in the ballroom? Now, Mr. Speaker, this is serious business, because there are guidelines as to how much Deputies and Assistant Deputies can spend for accommodations. (equipment trouble) those are we losing? I will find out before the day is out, you may rest assured. I will find out.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget says we are going to increase funding for hospitals by a certain amount. Increased overall funding for hospitals it says, and so it is, by l.6 per cent. My friend for Ferryland, when he speaks to health care in this Province, I have no doubt (inaudible). There are standards that are set for travel allowances.

MR. TOBIN: Treasury Board approves that!

MR. WINDSOR: Treasury Board approved it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: After the fact!

MR. WINDSOR: Oh! Oh! And after the fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Borderline, he said. Yes. So he called the day before to the President of Treasury Board and said, if I bring this in next week, will you have it approved? Is that what happened?:

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Maybe the President of Treasury Board would like to tell us on what basis was this approved? And did it meet the guidelines that Treasury Board has laid down for such travel and such expenditures? Now they are not so quick to get on their feet, Mr. Speaker. They could not stay quiet a minute ago. They had all kinds of information to give us a few minutes ago.

MR. EFFORD: Why don't you ask the question in Question Period tomorrow?

MR. WINDSOR: I might ask it in Question Period tomorrow. I might ask the President of Treasury Board tomorrow in Question Period if it met Treasury Board guidelines!

MR. EFFORD: I can assure you it did.

MR. WINDSOR: Or has Treasury Board broken their own guidelines?

MS. VERGE: Beaton is the exception.

MR. WINDSOR: Ah! Beaton is the exception.

MR. EFFORD: Why don't you ask me tomorrow?

MR. WINDSOR: So now we have a new set of guidelines, guidelines that apply to all public servants except former Liberal Members!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I ask hon. Members if they would restrain themselves and help keep a level of decorum in the Chamber while the hon. Member is speaking.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. POWER: (Inaudible) speak louder.

MR. WINDSOR: Speak louder? They are having trouble hearing me still. Well, I am going to have to start again. I will go back to page 1, where I started yesterday. No? You do not want me to start where I started yesterday? You heard some of it. I find it incredible, Mr. Speaker, that they are not so anxious now to offer the detailed information on that.

MR. EFFORD: Ask tomorrow in Question Period.

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister of Education was quick as a rabbit a few minutes ago to try to contradict anything that I said related to education. Now, all of a sudden, that we are getting into the core of the problem, now that we are starting to hurt them a little bit, they are a little bit sensitive on that, Mr. Speaker. Well, we will let that go for the time being. Maybe we will talk about how come the funding for the Orange home has been discontinued.

MR. EFFORD: Ask me in Question Period!

MR. WINDSOR: Ah, yes, we will ask you in Question Period.

MR. MATTHEWS: You don't know what's cut and what's not! You said your budget was not cut and you(Inaudible)!

MR. WINDSOR: If the Minister ever gets up and speaks in the debate he can answer the questions. We have lots of time. We are going to be here for months yet debating this Budget, the Minister will have lots of time to answer the question. I am only in my preamble yet. Wait until I get to my remarks on the Budget. I am only on the preamble yet.

And why is the construction of the Corner Brook Youth Centre deferred? There is a good one. The Corner Brook Youth Centre. Why is that one being deferred? Again we are attacking the youth. Everything seems to be youth and senior citizens. Education and health. Youth services has been cut. Youth Centre has been frozen. Eye care has been taken from senior citizens. Drugs from senior citizens. Educational funding has been cut. No pension increases. Youth advisory council, gone!

The young people in our society who are struggling to get themselves in a position where they can be self-sufficient, where they can support themselves and contribute to the economy of this Province, and the senior citizens who have already made their contribution to the economy, those are the ones who are being penalized.

But the Assistant Deputy Minister of Social Services is okay. He is okay. He can go spend what he wants, and Treasury Board will approve it afterwards.

MS. VERGE: They are laying off qualified social workers right, left and centre!

MR. WINDSOR: Social workers are being laid off, while the Assistant Deputy Minister is eating hors d'oeuvres and caviar in Moncton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Oh! None being laid off.

MR. EFFORD: None! Not one! (Inaudible) going to tell the truth now.

MR. WINDSOR: We will see.

MR. EFFORD: No social workers!

MR. WINDSOR: No social workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any ADMs being laid off?

MR. EFFORD: Not in my area. I can only speak for my Department.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. Maybe somebody could tell me which one of the four ADMs, or which two of the four ADMs in the Department of Development have been laid off. The Premier said that each Department will have one Deputy Minister and two Assistant Deputy Ministers. There are four Assistant Deputy Ministers in the Department of Development, as there should be, because that Department is broad enough. So are we losing the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance? I doubt that. Or is it the Assistant Deputy Minister of Tourism? No?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister is laid off, sure.

MR. WINDSOR: There are two others, I do not remember the title. One of Development, and one of Industry Services, I think.

MR. EFFORD: Dismal failure as a Government and a dismal failure as an Opposition. What a mess!

MR. WINDSOR: Four Assistant Deputy Ministers, four of the most capable individuals in the public service, I might add. We will have a great time dealing with that -

MR. MATTHEWS: I have been a leader all my life.

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, when my colleagues are finished sorting out what they are going to eat for dinner tonight, I will carry on here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Budget says, Mr. Speaker, that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: - additional funding will be available for the vocational component of the Employment Opportunities Program. $3.5 million has been made available for that, the Minister said in his speech, he did not say $3.5 million, the number was quite evident in the back, but he did say there was additional funding provided for that and he is right. He told us about the $3.5 million additional but he did not tell us about the $6 million being cut from the Community Development Program, the job Creation Program-

MR. EFFORD: Can't you read? You never (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, I can read.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, I can read, but I am wondering why the Minister would announce $3.5 million more for the vocational component -

MR. EFFORD: My God, he cannot read.

MR. WINDSOR: - but he forgets to tell us -

MR. EFFORD: Look page 264.

MR. WINDSOR: - page 264.

MR. EFFORD: $6 million. I will even add them up for you. 264, 2103.

MR. WINDSOR: 264? oh no, no, no, you are wrong again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no, he wants to read it. That is back here, that is what he is talking about, I dare say.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, there it is, that is last year's and this is this year's.

MR. WINDSOR: Maybe the Minister would like to have a look at page 272.

MR. EFFORD: You want me to explain it to you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: No, thank you. I will explain it to the Minister.

MR. EFFORD: Oh you can.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Community Development Programs on page 272. $14.8 million last year, $9 million this year, $5.8 million less; $5.8 million less overall in Employment Opportunities, Mr. Speaker. The simple terminology, Employment Opportunities, Job Creation, in any man's language. Last year, $20.1 million, now that by the way was $3 million more than was budgeted. When we get into the Estimates, we would like to find out what happened to that $3 million.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister ran into the moose that is why that $3 million was spent.

MR. WINDSOR: But $20 million was spent last year, $16 million this year; $4 million less in the overall Budget -

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the total Budget (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - the total Budget of the Department, this could be frightening. $144 million this year for the Department, last year, $148 million, $4 million less for Social Services this year, $4 million less for Social Services. Cutbacks in the education sector, cutbacks in the health care sector; twenty-two people laid off today in the Department of Development, this from a Government who last year in the Budget Speech said our priority are social programs, educational programs, health programs, education and we are going to bring in a payroll tax called the Health and Education Tax to raise more money.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what they said.

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, all of these are their priorities, they are bringing in a special tax to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The tax brought them in more money - they did not even know - the Minister of Finance did not even know how much money the tax was going to bring him, $15 million, he said. Fifteen million this year because it only came in the 1 August and $25 million on an annualized basis. What did he get, $28.5 million last year. Almost twice what he told us it would bring in, almost twice as much. And $42 million this year instead of $25 million, almost twice as much again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: So the Minister of Finance last year grossly underestimated the revenue impact, but he also grossly underestimated the impact on business and industry. Forty-two million, Mr. Speaker, is half of what is gained through corporate taxation by the Province. Yet the Minister brought in this tax, he said it is only a minimal amount, only hitting the big fellows, anybody with over $300,000 payroll, the first $300,000 is exempt, so if there is anything over that it will be taxed, oh, it is only 1.5 per cent of the payroll. There is nothing to it. It made up 53 per cent I think it is of all the taxes collected from corporations last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did it really?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, it did.

The Minister tried to make us believe during the Budget debate last year that this would not have a great impact on employers in this Province. And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is a penalty to anybody who employs people in this Province. That is what that payroll tax is. And rather than bringing in massive layoffs in the public service, I have just gone down through them, I will not add them up, some we have backward numbers, some we do not. We know there is over 3,000 people in the public service directly listed here, and then when you look at all those other agencies where their funding is frozen or cut back, when you see institutes that are closed, police officers that are being laid off, nurses who are being laid off, there will not be any less than 4,000 people directly affected by the Budget, directly affected in the public sector. And you can call it 10,000 people across the Province, 10,000 jobs lost because of this Budget, Mr. Speaker, at a time when our economy is as weak as it has ever been. And if hon. gentlemen over there do not realize it go out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: I suggest to them in all sincerity get out there, go talk to private enterprise. Go talk to the companies. Go into the industrial park and see what is happening there. Go into the retail sector. My daughter told me she was in the Avalon Mall on Saturday night at 7:00 o'clock, she did not see six people. She parked right next to the door.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the sidewalk.

MR. WINDSOR: Right next to the door. Businesses are closing down right, left and centre.

MR. WINDSOR: They are. It is a serious problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The last two years have been worse than the seventeen before them. The pathetic Minister of Forestry, Mr. Speaker, now wants to blame that on the previous administration. We passed them a surplus and they whipped that into a $120 million deficit in less than a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, your buddies in Ottawa did that.

MR. WINDSOR: In less than a year. Unemployment has gone to 18.2 per cent. They have done absolutely nothing to create jobs. This Government, Mr. Speaker, cannot stand here in honesty. They will stand here and say, 'Oh, the Economic Recovery Commission created 1,500 jobs.' Utter garbage. Absolute, utter garbage, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to you that there are not ten incremental jobs outside of the ones created in the directorate themselves. Another $4 million gone into it. Not ten jobs incremental to what would have been created by Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation or by the Department of Development, not one. And the Premier had the audacity to produce a list of all other companies that have been funded. I looked through and I checked a couple of them, Mr. Speaker. Most of it was ACOA money, and what was not ACOA money were simply loan guarantees or equity investments from NLDC, working capital.

There is one company there that is right high on the priority list. I won't mention any names, although I have authority to use them. High on the priority list is a company that was funded. This Government is very proud of the fact that they were funded by that agency, indeed they were. A little bit of working capital. In short term the company was already up and running and doing very well, thank you, but it is a cyclical business where this company needed to build up inventory. Rather than have 50 people working in the summertime and nobody working in the wintertime they wanted to work all year (inaudible) and build up inventory. So, they needed working capital for that, and that is what they got from this Government. Big deal. Top priority job created. No job created.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No job created, Mr. Speaker.

I know of another company worth about $3 million in private investment, at about half a million dollars of ACOA funds, have received $100,000 working capital from this Government. Listed high on the priority list as a company that is up and running because of the Economic Recovery Commission.

MR. WINDSOR: What foolishness, Mr. Speaker! Nothing that would not have been done by Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation. No great new ideas. No great new thrust. No policy coming out of the Economic Recovery Commission, any new things that have come forward they dusted off from the Senior Advisory Committee Report that was done prior to the election. I have a copy of it right here in my briefcase. I was going over it over the weekend just to review it, just for old times sake, to sort of remind me of the sorts of ideas that had come from that great exercise, some of our top senior civil servants were assigned to do a review of all the things that could be done.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: And it was great. I enjoyed it. Reading through the recommendations and remembering all the suggestions that had come forward and then looking at a half a dozen that have been taken by this Government moved forward a little bit as if they were great new initiatives of the Economic Recovery Commission. There has not been one new idea come out of that Commission yet. Not one. Not one new initiative, not one new program, and this Budget does not contain one new funding mechanism to help business and industry in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: We have spent tens of millions of dollars on Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador opening up luxurious offices across the Province, buying new cars for their political appointees, we have as head of the various regional offices. Former leadership campaign managers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: But, Mr. Speaker, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador is not a bad concept. I do not have a major problem with it. I have a problem with the fact that too much authority is being taken from the hands of the Minister of Development, and now we are taking his staff as well, twenty-two of them got the axe today or yesterday rather. Twenty-two people in the Department of Development, while we are going to add $3 million or $4 million more for the Economic Recovery Commission and Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-four million this year.

MR. WINDSOR: Forty-four million to do what?

AN HON. MEMBER: To do what, that is right?

MR. WINDSOR: Forty-four million dollars for what?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Anyone who wants money, they go to ACOA. That is quite right. This Government, the Premier, does not like ACOA. And I am led to believe, I am told now - this is something the Government is not going to like - that there are companies out there which have been funded by ACOA and which are having trouble getting business with Government because they got funds from ACOA. And they are asking the question, am I being discriminated against because I got funding from ACOA? The Premier does not like ACOA.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them! Name them!

MR. WINDSOR: That question is out there. I can name them, but I will not. They are having a hard enough time now dealing with this Government. That would be to put the kiss of death on them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. Name the ones who got it. Mr. Speaker, there are no initiatives in this Budget to deal with the economic situation we are faced with today. The Government's solution to the economic problem is to lay off thousands of people - lay off thousands of people. There is nothing in this Budget to give anybody any incentive to invest, no encouragement to move ahead with a development, to take any risk, to invest in the future of our Province. At a time when Hibernia is bringing to us so many opportunities to invest, this Government is squashing any possibility of any investment.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, you could almost live with it if they were neutralizing the job creation component of Hibernia development to date. We have 300 or 400 jobs created out at Come By Chance so far - 300 or 400 jobs. There will probably be about 1,500 people out there some time this summer. In Government service alone we have laid off more than 3,000 people, more than double, and the multiplier. More than the multiplier. When you look at all the items I talked about this afternoon as I went down through the Budget, I concluded that there is probably 8,000 people being laid off, or 8,000 jobs being lost in the public and private sector. Whether hon. people opposite like those numbers or not, those are real. Government payroll this year will be $100 million less because of these layoffs. I doubt that there will be $100 million invested in Newfoundland directly this year by the Hibernia development. I doubt that very much. But $100 million less all across the Province, Mr. Speaker. Not just in the St. John's area, but in any area of rural Newfoundland. All across the Province in schools and hospitals and Government offices and agencies and in private enterprise. We are running out of time, are we?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are still his boss, Loyola.

MR. HEARN: I bet he will draft your response.

MR. WINDSOR: All across this Province, Mr. Speaker, those losses of jobs are going to have serious impacts on every community in this Province. There will not be a community not touched by those layoffs. There will not be a community untouched by the weakening in the economic situation in this Province. And Government itself, Mr. Speaker, Government itself will feel it. Government itself will feel the impact of what they are doing to the economy, and that is what really concerns me about this Budget, Mr. Speaker. I can put aside all the small political things that I have been talking about this afternoon. We know that those are going to go on, particularly as long as this Government is in power. But what really bothers me is the approach this Government is taking towards a very serious problem that we are facing in this Province; they do not seem to appreciate just how bad it is out there; they do not seem to appreciate how hard it is to survive in business.

This morning I was told of two fairly large companies that have gone bankrupt in the last 24 hours. Two more this morning. I would say you are talking in the order of 100 jobs between those two companies, and a lot of spin-off activity. In two days, or one day - just today. I was told this morning of those two companies. And there is hardly a day that goes by that there is not another company which has a problem. And that is what is sad, Mr. Speaker, about this Budget, that it admits the Government's inability to budget properly, to predict their expenditures and their revenues; it admits that they no longer have control of the finances of the Province; it admits that they let collective bargaining get out of control and that they have lost control of the purse strings of this Province. It admits that they have no economic plan, and it admits, Mr. Speaker, that they have no intention of dealing in the short term with the economic problems we have here, and that they see the solution to serious unemployment has been, create more unemployment in the public sector. Mr. Speaker, I will adjourn the debate until next day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he can give us something a little more clearly, some answers at least, clear answers with respect to legislation that he has indicated - could we stop the clock? Agreed?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: - with respect to legislation he has given notice of in the last day or two. Our understanding is, for example, that he intends to call Supplementary Supply on Thursday, which is the day after tomorrow, and the Bill is not yet here. So it does not give those who wish to look at it and scrutinize it and all the rest of it much time. Secondly, we will call it the Labour Bill for want of another name, the restraint Bill, which I also understand the Government House Leader wants to debate very soon, in the the next few days, what is the status of that bill? I do not believe that bill has even gone to the printers yet, let alone not ready, not quite printed. Can he give us some indication, or does he know?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The universe will unfold. The bill to which he refers, as hon. Members know who have been in the House for some time, the Supplementary Supply bill, is a very normal type of occurrence; it involves some overruns in Social Services, in Health and so on. So there is really no necessity for a great deal of research on it. As soon as it is printed, and it should be in the process of happening now, it will be distributed. I am hoping, actually, to be able to distribute both these bills in the House tomorrow. However, we have run into some minor problems in the last couple of days in terms of one of the bills, and I cannot absolutely guarantee the exact minute that it will be tabled in the House. What I can guarantee, however, is that as soon as it is physically possible, the bills will be tabled in the House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Government House Leader can advise whether the legislation which he gave notice of today concerning amendments to The Labour Act, or amendments to The Collective Bargaining Act, would be referred to a Committee of the House for study?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, that particular bill will be introduced into the House and will immediately go to second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

AN HON. MEMBER: A cover-up. A cover-up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 13, 1990 at 2:00 p.m.