March 28, 1991                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLI  No. 18


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before calling the routine business of the day, I want to inform hon. Members of the death of a long time servant of this House, Mr. Bert Hemmens, who was the Sergeant-at-Arms here serving for, I think, approximately nineteen years. I think the person who served the longest in that position, up to this present time. He certainly served with honour and distinction and pursued his duties in an exemplary fashion, dedicated, committed and devoted. I am sure hon. Members would want me to send the appropriate condolences to his family.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to endorse the remarks of Your Honour. Mr. Hemmens was the Sergeant-at-Arms when I first came into the House in 1966. I remember his very military bearing and the very proper way in which he carried out his duties as Sergeant-at-Arms with a great sense of pride in what he was doing and a great sense of the importance of the task that he undertook.

I join with Your Honour in extending the condolences of all Members of the House to the Hemmens family.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of sadness that I stand too to endorse the comments made by yourself and the Premier. I had the rare privilege, I guess, of working very closely with Mr. Hemmens when I was Speaker from 1979 to 1982. And all of the words that you have used to describe him are accurate and there are some others as well. He was a brilliant veteran, I believe, and he showed that in his performance in the House of Assembly. I will never forget the moustache. And I say to Members, perhaps who are new and did not know Burt, that they might want to take a dart out into the Sergeant-at-Arms Office some time, because there is a wonderful photograph there on the wall that will give you some idea of what he looked like. He also, I believe, perhaps had a fair bit to do with the training of our present Sergeant-at-Arms, and as a gentleman that I know, our present Sergeant-at-Arms looked up to with great admiration. We are quite sad to hear of his passing and we wish to be associated with the condolences expressed and hope the family accepts our sympathy.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too would share the views of the Speaker in wanting to send condolences to the family of Mr. Hemmens. While I did not know him personally, I was aware of him as Sergeant-at-Arms from my visits to the Legislature over the last number of years, particularly in the late 1960s and early 1970s. As officers of this House, we all share in the sorrow of his passing, and I would concur in the condolences to be offered by the House.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on another note with reference to a former servant of this House, if you wish, I have heard over the last day or so of the impending retirement of a gentleman whose well known down on Prescott Street and Duckworth Street, Newfoundland's best known conductor, is probably a good way to put it. Anybody who has ever been down there and seen him perform his responsibilities know he has done it in an admirable fashion, and always with a smile. But what a lot of hon. Members may not be aware of, is that at one time he was the duty constable in our House of Assembly upstairs. I remember him being there again during my tenure as Speaker, so I think its appropriate if we offer him the very best in his retirement, he and his family, and acknowledge as well the contribution he made as a servant of this House while being duty constable.

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

MR. DICKS: On the last point briefly, I think we all know the gentleman in question and as Minister responsible for the constabulary I think it has often been mentioned to me by the public the efficiency with which the constable executed his duties, and I shared the pleasure of the interview this morning. My wife has been a big fan of his as she comes through that intersection several times a day, as she works downtown. I would like to add my sentiments to those expressed so well by the hon. Opposition House Leader.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to also join in the sentiments expressed by the hon. Opposition House Leader and the Minister of Justice. Constable Miller has not only performed a duty to this House but also to the people who use the intersection at Duckworth and Prescott Street. I think he has also performed a great service to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary by presenting a very positive public image to the Constabulary, and I think brought about a great deal of recognition to them for the work they do in a very positive way. I think his work in that field as a public relations officer almost of the Constabulary in the Province ought to be recognized.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. Members of the House of Assembly that my Department has approved a grant of $100,000 to the Canadian Sealers Association. This is part of a joint program with the Department of Fisheries, as was previously announced by my colleague, the hon. Walter Carter, Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, this grant will indirectly provide support to the fur industry in this Province, by allowing them to utilize a local fisheries product. Seal meat will be available in the form of ground meat, silage and meal for fur farmers to use as part of their feeding program.

In addition, it will allow current research work on utilization of seal meat as a viable alternative for fur feed to continue and be broadened in scope.

This initiative has been brought together through the efforts of my Department, the Department of Fisheries, the Newfoundland and Labrador Fur Breeders Association, and Mr. Harold Small, President of the Northeast Coast Sealers Cooperative Society, Ltd.

I am very pleased to announce this support to the local fur industry. While there is a current down turn in pelt prices it is noteworthy that at a recent auction in New York there was a small improvement in prices and a significant improvement in inventory levels.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this venture supports two local industries and the initiative of the Department of Fisheries which is to completely utilize all parts of the seals that are harvested.

Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very positive statement, one of the more positive things that we have heard as of late. I would like to just say to the Minister that especially - it is not only the sealers in this case, and he made reference to it with regards to the fur farmers and the total fur industry in the Province. To those people it is a very positive statement, and they were looking forward to some funds this year. Especially now where the fur industry is in such a down turn, and especially the fox industry in the Province, and the sealers as well. But more specifically in this case now, pertaining to the meal part of it, the fox farmers. They are in very hard times and everything that comes along to help them would be appreciated.

I do not know if this would be sort of the start of setting up a food kitchen that they were talking about for years. The fox farmers themselves. Maybe it is tied in with some other areas they were talking about over the years, such as road kill and stuff like that, with the Department of Wildlife.

Pertaining to the seal meat part of it, Mr. Speaker, I just last fall attended a meeting of the Sealers Association in Deer Lake where they, in conjunction with the Marine Institute, have come up with some excellent recipes pertaining to seal. Seal stews, even seal meat done in a sweet and sour sauce, and it was all ready for microwaving and hopefully within the next few months they would probably have something like that on the market.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that it is a very positive thing. The other question I would ask, is that maybe there are other things we could be doing for the sealing industry in the Province. And if it is, and they are identified, I hope the Minister and his officials will take that into consideration, because, if nothing else, Mr. Speaker, of the strong part it plays in our ecology.

Thank you.

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I and my party are often heckled from one side about the sealing industry, I wonder if leave could be granted to me to speak, in response to this Canadian Sealers Association announcement, so that they may hear my views on that subject?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. From personal experience I know the Minister of Education and the Cabinet are involved in Memorial University spending choices. When I was Minister from 1979 to 1985, the University Regents and administrators discussed with me and the Cabinet, the decisions they would have to make if there were a shortfall in the Government's grant in aid. I put it to the Minister that this year, when he and the Premier set the University's budget, not only did they know full well, Memorial University Extension Service would be extinguished, but they actively advocated that. Would the Minister admit that the university is following the Wells Administration script?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. SIMMS: The shortest answer he has ever given, there must be people in the audience.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary is to the Premier. Has the Premier been moved by the out-pouring of support for Memorial University Extension Service and will he respond to the calls for reinstatement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to inform the people in the gallery that they are not supposed to participate, show their reaction in any way by applauding, or in any other way in the House of Assembly.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for Humber East has done today what she has done in the past, set up a fabricated position designed to get the particular answer she wants and has staged this performance for the benefit of the people in the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education stated the Government's position very clearly. The Government gave no such direction, none whatsoever to the university. Now what the hon. Member did when she was a Minister, I don't know. I am not answerable for her and I don't intend to attempt to answer. The Minister has spoken clearly for the Government. The Government's position is as the Minister has indicated.

MR. SIMMS: We don't believe you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supplementary is to the Premier. Why has the Premier chosen to create an empire under his personal thumb presided over by Doug House and Wayne Humphries to which he gave a multi-million dollar budget increase this year while cutting the budget of the university and extinguishing Memorial University extension services? Was it because he wants to consolidate more power onto himself? Is it because he wants to silence community workers? Is it because he wants to return to the days of Smallwood?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. SIMMS: Good question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The fact is the Budget this year is less than it was last year, but apart from that misrepresentation, the ERC budget is less this year than it was last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

PREMIER WELLS: The purpose of the Economic Recovery Commission is indeed to return to the times of Mr. Smallwood, the last five years of which saw us with an unemployment rate 2.3 per cent higher than the national average. That is all. That is what we want to turn to, job opportunities for the people of our Province, and that is why it is created.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I am going to have to ask the people in the galleries - it is quite unusual for any response to come from the people in the galleries, and I have to warn you that I have to carry out the rules of the House. I ask the people in the galleries to please refrain from responding by gestures in any way.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: I would like the Premier to tell the House whether he agrees with the end of Memorial University Extension Service. If he does not agree, what is he going to do about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the tremendous contribution the Extension Service made to the people of this Province. I also acknowledge that they are capable of making a further tremendous contribution to the people of this Province. I acknowledge that. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to run this Province within our means. The former Government did not realize that or did not recognize it, and certainly did not behave as though they recognized it, and put the Province into a God awful financial mess that we are trying to correct.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for Mount Pearl to please restrain himself. The Premier is trying to answer the question and I am sure the Member wants the question answered.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to live within the financial means of the Province and within the limits of our ability. We are not prepared to make life miserable for our children and our grandchildren coming in the next ten, fifteen, or twenty years to have to pay off the inordinate amounts that have been borrowed in the past by continuing to do exactly the same thing. We do not want to make former Premier Peckford's prediction come true when he stood in this House and said, 'Another few years and it will be 1934 all over again.' Well, Mr. Speaker, we came along in time to head that off and we intend to head that off.

Mr. Speaker, we made decisions as to the funds that were available. We gave no direction to the University. The University made its decision, as it must make its decision within its discretion. I would like to see the Extension Service continued from a matter of personal choice but I will not tell the University how to run the University.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier give the University another $1 million so they can reinstate MUN Extension Service?

PREMIER WELLS: If the former administration had not blown $22 million on Sprung we would not have had to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Treasury Board, concerning all the announcements in the budgets pertaining to layoffs within the Government structure itself, directly and indirectly, through hospital administrations and so on. I wonder if the Minister could tell me now approximately how many people were laid off, in total?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we have announced that the results of the Budget will be the elimination of approximately, in the vicinity of, 2000 of these jobs which are currently in the system. That is all I can say to the hon. gentleman. When the effects of the Budget finally work their way through the systems, the various systems that have to deal with the limits of the amounts they have been given, when that finally works itself out it will be around that number.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations. Could the Minister tell the House if she received written notice from the Minister responsible for Treasury Board pertaining to the approximately 2000 people, in other words mass layoffs, and is she aware that under the Labour Standards Act, Section 51, that this is required?

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

MS. COWAN: The Minister, Mr. Speaker, is well aware of what is required under that legislation, as is the President of Treasury Board and the officials of his Department. The legislation does not bind the Crown, however it was looked at very carefully, as we do not wish to set a precedent for other employers in the Province. All collective agreements and arrangements with various employees were examined and it was found that they were all covered by their collective agreements or by other arrangements made when they were employed, and either fell within the Act or actually made for better severance arrangements than the Act itself did.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

How can the Minister and the Government bring in regulations on how and when to terminate employment in the private sector in this Province, and at the same time treat their own employees in a discriminatory way, in other words, The Labour Standards Act for the private sector in this Province and double standards for this Administration?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. COWAN: My answer again would only be repetitive, Mr. Speaker, but I suppose I should repeat it because the hon. gentleman seems to have trouble hearing. First of all, the Act is not by the Crown. However, we did not -

AN HON. MEMBER: You said it.

MS. COWAN: That is right, I said it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. COWAN: We looked very carefully, Mr. Speaker, at The Labour Standards Act and at the collective agreements of the individuals involved, and they were not in any way violated. The Act was not in any way violated. In some ways what we have been able to award to employees is even better than the Act would provide.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, ever since Budget Day we have been trying to prove to the people of this Province that the Budget document is neither fair nor balanced. We have certainly made many efforts to say that the Government has put the whole responsibility for the fiscal solutions of this Province on to the backs of our public sector workers.

Mr. Speaker, one of the methods used by our hospital boards to save money, to be more efficient is to use contract services, to hire contractors to supply some services to hospitals. On Monday, April 1, the workers, several hundred workers in the hospital health care system are scheduled to receive a 3 per cent wage increase, and another increase, I believe, later on in October or November. Could the Minister please confirm if this scheduled wage increase for the employees of contracted workers, contractors in hospitals, if this wage increase is indeed going to go ahead on Monday, April 1?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I know the answer to that question, but it would be better to direct it to the President of Treasury Board, that comes under his jurisdiction not mine.

MR. BAKER: The wage increase for contracted services?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The legislation that has been presented to the House, as the hon. Member knows, is the legislation that we will be considering. There are a couple of amendments to be made by Government to ensure that, first of all, people who must get the minimum wage will still receive minimum wage, and secondly, that the pay equity agreements can be implemented if they are reached during the year. Contractors are, Mr. Speaker, not covered by that legislation.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, let it be understood that the Minister of Health in his own very cynical and subversive way tries to reduce the legitimacy of my question by saying I have a brother who happens to manage the food service contract for Nova Services, which is one contract of eight or ten or twelve or whatever is in the food service business. That does not reduce the legitimacy of the question, the workers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POWER: - are scheduled to receive a 3 per cent increase on Monday. I understand from the President of Treasury Board's response that they will receive their 3 per cent increase on Monday. The question I would like to ask, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. POWER: I mean is that the Minister's answer? That there is going to be a 3 per cent increase on Monday or there is not going to be a 3 per cent increase on Monday? Could he tell me?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not purport to control the private sectors of the Province.

MR. DECKER: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: So I have no idea what increases are due in the private sector of the Province. If there are increases due in a private sector contract then they will be due.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, no idea is the operative answer. In effect, there are health care workers who are employed by contractors in hospitals in this Province who are going to receive a 3 per cent increase on Monday. There are other health care workers who perform exactly the same functions in other hospitals in this Province who are being penalized from their legitimate, negotiated increases by this Government. Now will the Minister confirm that the health boards, the hospital boards, are going to need additional funding to pay this increase which is scheduled to begin on Monday?

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

MR. BAKER: The answer to his last question is no, Mr. Speaker. The answer to the first part of his question is, I will answer it with a question. Am I to understand the Opposition is now asking us to extend the wage freeze to the private sector of this Province?

MR. POWER: A final supplementary?

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is asking for no such thing. The Opposition is asking, as we have done in our discussion on Bill 16, for you to give back to the workers of this Province their legitimate, negotiated contract settlement. That is all we are asking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POWER: And I can ask this question to either the Minister of Health or the President of Treasury Board. If the Government is not going to make additional funds available to Hospital Boards to pay for a wage increase to their contracted employees, then are there going to be more layoffs in the health care systems than were announced in order for hospital boards to find the money to pay for this increase?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, that will be worked out in due course. It is a private sector arrangement. I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the choice with which we were faced was another 2,000 or 2,500 layoffs or institute a wage freeze in the public sector; we chose the wage freeze, we do not want to throw another 2,000 people out of work.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Can the Minister advise this House what plans the Government has for student jobs and student employment this summer, particularly in view of the increased tuition fees and residence fees they face next fall?

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are two programs available to the students in this Province for the summer. One is put out by the Federal Government, the second one by my Department. I will be making an announcement about that, Mr. Speaker, very shortly. It is a press release actually, ready to go out and I have asked my office, in fact I handed in a memo yesterday to my secretary, to make sure that the information will be circulated to all MHAs, on both sides of the House, because it is a very, very important thing that we have our students meaningfully employed and employed over the summer.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister tell us how much of the pathetic $1.5 million Employment Generation Program will be dedicated to student employment only?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, the Employment Generation Program, as the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House well knows, is not a program designed for students as is the summer program for students, or the graduate employment program, or the Canada-Newfoundland Youth strategy. It is a long-term arrangement, trying to encourage employers and employees to have a long-time work attachment to the labour force. So no money from that particular program is going into student employment, it is going into employment for individuals who have much longer than the two or three months a student might have to give.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister tell us so that the students of this Province who will be getting out of the university within a couple of weeks will know, how much money her Government is going to put into student employment programs so that they can make some plans as to whether they can perhaps hope to get a job in this Province for the summer, or whether they will all have to go to the mainland, where their parents have gone over the past year or so?

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

MS. COWAN: The student program will be released shortly, Mr. Speaker, as I said, and the funds available will also be made known at that time. But let me assure the students of this Province that with the Federal Government's monies and what the Provincial Government is going to put into the summer program, most students in the Province should have an opportunity to be employed. If they do not, I would implore any MHAs, either on my side of the House, Mr. Speaker, or on the Opposition side of the House, to come to our Department and bring it to our attention. This Government is extremely concerned about youth, not only their summer employment, but their long-term employment opportunities.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education concerning the decision about MUN Extension. Despite the formal relationship between the University and the Government, the Minister will know that there are many meetings with Cabinet and with the Minister of Education over the course of a year in determining priorities and decisions about Memorial. Can the Minister confirm, or is he prepared to have us believe, that the Government has absolutely no influence of any kind over the decisions and the priorities at MUN? Can he seriously ask us to believe that he can credibly wash his hands of this whole decision?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member must know that universities throughout the world have an arm's length relationship with government. He must be aware of that. The Government was not involved in decisions which expanded the Extension Service over the years, and it was not involved in this decision, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Is the Minister telling this House that during the course of discussions between Memorial and the Government over the past year there were no discussions about the consequences of the Budget on MUN Extension? Is he telling the House that?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. Member is suggesting. But as the Premier said, we have respected the legislative rights of the University to make decisions in this area. We hold discussions with the University, certainly. We held discussions with them, for example, on this Government's plan - if I might use an example - to decentralize first year programmes in Labrador City and in Burin, and to expand in other areas of this Province. Sure we hold discussions on these matters, but we are not going to tell Memorial University which physics programme to offer, which Physics Faculty member to fire, or other such issues. Mr. Speaker, traditionally universities have had an arm's length relationship with governments and we are going to respect that tradition.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Premier. Given the response and the concern that he has expressed about MUN Extension personally, and the fact that people and communities all over this Province share that view, can he tell the House whether or not he would be prepared to listen and respond to the call of the people to have this Government do what has to be done to restore MUN Extension?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have listened and responded to the call of the people to restore financial stability and competence of this Province, and that is what we are doing. Now nobody wants to cut out MUN Extension. We made a block of funds available to the University within the maximum of our ability and the University made its decision. I could only wish that MUN Extension was not cut out.

But I cannot tell the University that they have the responsibility to run the University but they can only run it the way I dictate to them. That is wrong. If I was doing that, the people on the other side of the House would be standing in this House saying I am an absolute dictator. So, Mr. Speaker, we did not do it. We have responded to the people of the Province to -

[Loud coughing in galleries]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: We have responded to the wishes of the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, to restore financial competence and viability to this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: And no amount of coughing is going to alter that.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Last night during debate on Interim Supply, I made reference to the new municipal operating grants system and the new formula pertaining to water and sewer subsidies.

The Minister stood on a point of order and said, Mr. Speaker, and I quote: "The hon. Member has been repeating the same point over and over again, and it is an error so I want to correct it. The three year period is the grants. The phase-in of the new grants program is over a three year period, but the actual repayment of existing debt, which is separate entirely from the grants, you are quite right, is 40 per cent of the first $750 per household. That is not capped at three years. Only the grant is capped." Does the Minister still stand by this statement?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. I was going to clarify that point under Answers to Questions, under item (e), a little later on, but I am glad he raised it right now.

Last evening I think there was a slight misunderstanding in that I thought the Member was implying that the amount of repayment on the debt asked from the municipalities would stop after the three year period. But, in fact, the three year period is indeed a phase in. In the first year the Government will be covering 86.66 per cent of the amount of the debt, then phasing down to 73.33 per cent, and finally to 60 per cent of the debt, with the difference of course being paid by the municipalities.

So it is just a slight misunderstanding. I realize what you meant, that in fact it is being phased in. After three years the municipalities will continue to pay 40 per cent of the debt that is on the books right now, capped at $750 per household, and that is all will be expected of them.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Because of the obvious confusion, Mr. Speaker, and it is evident from the Minister down and his officials in his Department, in Municipal Affairs, pertaining to the new system and more so to the hardships put on municipalities in this Province, would the Minister consider deferring the new formula until his department and the councils have a clear understanding of what it means?

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

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker. The municipalities have a very clear understanding of what it means. In fact it is very reasonable, in the sense that we are only asking in the current year 13.33 per cent of the debt, up to $300 per household. I think that is very reasonable. So it is not an unreasonable program; it is being phased in over three years; it is not being implemented all at once, and municipalities understand quite clearly what it is all about. It has been explained to them, some of them several times. It is a new program, and as with any change, it does take explanation and discussion over a period of time. That has been carried out, the system is in place, it is very fair, and it is working well.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Well, if the councils understand it and his officials understand it, could the Minister explain why certain councils in the District of Humber Valley have had their budgets sent back to them five times, so far? Could the Minister explain that to me?

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

MR. GULLAGE: I don't know, Mr. Speaker, why certain councils are having difficulty and why they are all concentrated in one particular district. The hon. Member could probably speak to that better than I could. But certainly we have had ongoing discussion now over the last few months. We have given extra time. I have not insisted as the Minister that budgets be finalized at year end. In fact, I even said that we would not insist on March 31st. Normally we give them three months anyway beyond the calendar year, but we are not even insisting on that. So there has been lots of dialogue, lots of time, and we have been very understanding. The amount that you are speaking of, the repayment of the debt, the portion that we are asking for is a very, very small portion of their budget and has not impacted to the extent the hon. Member seems to imply.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. The Minister is well aware that last year's salmon management plan caused tremendous difficulties for commercial salmon fishermen both in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, the management program, I think, wasn't announced until hours before the fishery was due to start. Can the Minister tell us what if any representation his department has made to DFO with respect to this year's management plan?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am not able at this time to outline in the most minute detail what representations we have made, I can only tell you that officials in my department are constantly in touch with Fisheries and Oceans. If he wishes, I can probably provide a more definitive answer to his question tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo on a supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Has the Minister invited or accepted submissions from the interest groups concerned about the salmon fishery as part of this Government's submission to DFO?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, we are in constant touch and dialogue with the Fishermen's Union and other user groups. It is an ongoing thing, pretty well, within my department. But, again, if he wishes, tomorrow I can give him an update as to where it stands right now.

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

MR. WINSOR: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware of the fact that a committee of fishermen in the Gander Bay area have made representation to DFO for a buy-out of salmon licences because they fear that under the present DFO guidelines and the ones being lobbied for, they will eventually be forced out of the fishery, and does the Minister support such a proposal?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that a number of fishermen in the Gander Bay area have petitioned the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans to enter into some kind of a buy-back arrangement. Again, these are discussions that are ongoing. There has been no decision made yet as to what will happen to the fishery. I can only say that we would have to be very cautious and watch very closely what happens to the commercial salmon fishery, because a lot of people in the Province depend on the commercial salmon fishery to a considerable extent for their incomes.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the week the Member for Torngat Mountains asked me to table any correspondence I had had with the Federal Government regarding Marine Atlantic and their rate increases in Labrador. At this time, I would like to table a letter that was written by the Premier on December 29, 1989 concerning Marine Atlantic intended rate increases. This was written to Terry Ivany, Chief Executive officer, and it outlines the concerns we had, that Labrador is an isolated area and is not serviced by anything other than Marine Atlantic and we feel that any increases should not be beyond the cost of living.

I also table at this time a letter I wrote to the Hon. Doug Lewis. What I did was send a copy of the Premier's letter of the previous year - this was written in November of last year - and I told him that this was still our policy and I asked him to take this into consideration when he was deliberating any further Marine Atlantic increases in the Labrador area. I would like at this time to table this for the hon. Member's attention.

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

MS. COWAN: I would like to table information that was requested from me by one of the hon. Members two days ago, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present a petition of 200 or 300 friends of MUN Extension who had lunch with Phil today. They mounted the latest wave in their waves of protest against Government's decision in complicity with the University to extinguish MUN Extension. I fully support this petition, Mr. Speaker. The prayer is as follows: The friends of MUN Extension state that whereas MUN Extension has provided -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The noise level is a little high and I cannot hear the petition. I ask hon. Members to please try and keep the noise level down.

The hon. Member may continue.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The friends of MUN Extension state, Whereas MUN Extension has provided and continues to provide an essential service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and whereas no other agency is capable of providing that service, MUN Extension should be re-instated. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House take such action as may be necessary to ensure that Memorial University re-instates its Extension Service and that it be funded and equipped to provide the services it has traditionally provided.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Education Minister's defence to the loss of Extension Service has varied. At first he indicated agreement with the loss, saying other agencies would be able to replace it. He cited the community colleges, but when we in the Opposition reminded him that he cut the budgets of the community colleges and the institutes by $1.5 million, and when the education critic got him to admit yesterday that he is going to be closing five community college campuses, he denied he had ever made that suggestion. He said Doug House's empire would be able to replace Extension. Today he is denying that.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Education and this Premier agreed with the decision of the University to eliminate MUN Extension. The University Regents and administration would have held extensive discussions with them about the choices they faced with the shortfall in the Government's grant in aid. And I submit they fully supported that choice because the Premier is trying to stifle free speech and criticism, he is trying to intimidate the way his original political mentor, Joey Smallwood, stifled descension in the 1960s and the 1950s. He is replacing Mun Extension with his pet project, under his personal direction, the Economic Recovery Commission and Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. He has his golden boy, Doug House, building an empire. He and the Government are giving that empire a multimillion dollar budget increase this year, the empire comprising both the Recovery Team and Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. They have hired some of their political allies and defeated Liberal candidates to that empire. The Liberal candidate at Humber East in 1985 election, who has sold insurance, is now working as an economic development consultant with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador in and Corner Brook, in their swank, posh new offices. So there is a burgeoning empire, controlled by the Premier, at the same time as he is eliminating the successful Mun Extension Service which operated at arm's length, which operated independently.

That service, Mr. Speaker, comprised a rural component. It had field workers regionally based who provided invaluable catalyst support resources to individuals, groups, municipalities in the rural regions of the Province. They have given a voice to rural Newfoundland. And that service is needed more now than at any time since the notorious Smallwood resettlement days. Because now there is a Wells resettlement program that involves closing rural hospitals, such as the hospital in Placentia, I say to the Member for Placentia, the hospital in Port aux Basques, the hospital in Burgeo, the hospital in Springdale, the hospital in Baie Verte.

Now the community college campuses at Bell Island and Bonavista, Springdale and Baie Verte and St. Anthony. The Memorial Extension Service has an arts component -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the petition presented so ably by my colleague, the hon. the Member for Humber East. The decision to wipe out and to eliminate Mun Extension is one, I think, that is a very negative decision for the Province and for the future of people all across this Province. We have heard from the hon. Member about some of the facts of work of Mun Extension. I want to tell the House about another group that is lamenting this decision, and that is the Youth for Social Justice Network.

Mr. Speaker, The Evening Telegram reported the other day that the Youth for Social Justice Network, which is a Provincewide organization of youth working on issues such as environment, development and other social justice issues, is one of two groups nominated by the Canadian Government for the 1991 Commonwealth Award. Now this group, Mr. Speaker, is nominated for an international award of all Commonwealth nations for groups working on social justice issues. This group was formed in 1987 with the support of organizations such as Mun Extension, the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Organization, and Oxfam.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a group which has, on a provincewide basis for the last three years, run what they have called social justice camps for youth. The idea is that young people from all over this Province come together for a period of, I think, two or three weeks and they discuss social issues; they discuss issues such as the environment, international development, and how they can participate in those issues, how they can raise their own consciousness and that of their fellow students and, in fact, the community at large, about issues of social justice. These are now being recognized, Mr. Speaker, as young people who have a positive attitude. Not the negative ones the Minister of Education was talking about the other day, young people who do have a positive attitude, who are trying to bring about change for the good in this Province. And not only in this Province, in this country and throughout the world. These young people are there. They want to do something to help their fellow human beings. They want to organize together and work on that, and they give credit, Mr. Speaker, to Mun Extension for helping them do that.

They are saying, however, that they are concerned about what is going to happen to them when Mun Extension goes. One of the Members said they are delighted to be nominated for the award, but they are worried about their own future, whether they will be able to continue to exist without the support of Mun Extension.

People say that MUN Extension is an essential guiding force to the development of youth and their awareness of local and global issues. These kinds of comments, Mr. Speaker, are - hopefully the Government will listen if more of them come forth and say to this Government we need MUN Extension. In order to be able to express our ideas about the environment, about justice issues, about development, about our Province, about what we can do, we need organizations such as MUN Extension to do that.

Hopefully, with more petitions presented to the House, more groups advising this Government that they rely on MUN Extension, perhaps their hearts will change, they will not express the kind of comments we have heard in the House today about: it is not our fault, we wash our hands, there is nothing we can do about it.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I want to repeat something I said at the rally today. I did say that I have continued to pay tribute to the work of MUN Extension in the development of this Province. In fact, as the petition was being presented, the Minister of Finance and I recalled our work with MUN Extension on a number of occasions over the years, and I continue to pay tribute to them.

I understand their disappointment. I understand, certainly, the feelings and disappointment of those MUN Extension workers who are being replaced or whose jobs are being lost. I understand the anger of some of the leaders of the movement. But, Mr. Speaker, what I do not understand: I do not understand the hypocrisy of the official Opposition knowing what I know about what they tried to do to MUN Extension when I was a Member of that faculty. The truth will come out eventually, Mr. Speaker. There are people who have it on record. I do not have it on record, but there are people who have it on record that if the University were not at arm's length, MUN Extension would have been gone years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

DR. WARREN: MUN Extension, Mr. Speaker, would have been gone years ago if it had not been at arm's length from the official Opposition, when they were in government. I do not understand the hypocrisy of their position! Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The evidence is out. The evidence is out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Prove it! Prove it!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in the House and don't be hiding behind (inaudible).

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to correct the Speaker, but I represent St. John's East.

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

MR. HARRIS: For the record of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, no doubt at some point in time we will represent St. John's East Extern as well as St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: One seat at a time.

MR. HARRIS: One at a time.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to rise and present to the House a petition of 436 students of Memorial University. These students also pray to the House: Whereas MUN Extension has provided and continues to provide an essential service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; and whereas no other agency is capable of providing that service, MUN Extension should be re-instated. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House take such action as may be necessary to ensure that Memorial University re-instates its Extension Service and that it be funded and equipped to provide the services it has traditionally provided. That petition is signed by students from all over this Province.

And just to give hon. Members an idea of how widespread the support for MUN Extension is, I will read you some of the names of the communities these students are from: St. John's, Paradise, Flat Bay, Marystown, Appleton, Corner Brook, Burnt Islands, Portugal Cove, Botwood, Clarenville, Gander, Coley's Point, Boyd's Cove, Harbour Main, Port de Grave, Old Perlican, Logy Bay, Wabush, Avondale, Carbonear, Mount Pearl, Harbour Grace, Upper Gullies, Grand Falls, St. Lawrence, Ferryland, Stephenville, Badger's Quay, Bay of Islands, Cape Broyle, Georgetown Conception Bay, and Lewisporte.

The students from all these communities recognize the value of Extension Service to all parts of Newfoundland. There are quite a few from St. John's and there are quite a few who have not indicated what community they are from, but, Mr. Speaker, the support for MUN Extension is very widespread throughout this Province. And it is interesting that these are coming from students of Memorial University, the ones Dr. May has said he wants to give priority to; that he is going to give priority to the students and the academic programme, and for that reason is getting rid of MUN Extension. But the students at Memorial University, they recognize the priority of MUN Extension.

To my earlier comments about Youth for Social Justice I will add a couple more, because my petition I present today from these students is that of young people who are concerned about the future of this Province and concerned about the kind of work MUN Extension has done. Another member of the Youth for Social Justice Network said as part of the lamentation on the closing of MUN Extension; one of the students says that MUN Extension has been heavily involved in the formation stages of Youth for Social Justice and I know of no other organization that could fill their role, a role they filled with commitment and dedication.

Another young person said, `MUN Extension helps us with everything, from the production of a news letter to learning video skills and teaching us to be community leaders and organizers. We are angry that such a valuable resource would be cut.' These, Mr. Speaker, are the kinds of sentiments being expressed around this Province.

And I want to make one reflection on what the Minister of Education has just said about the previous Government and the threat to Extension. I, too, have heard from very, very reliable sources that one of the things that every year would come up, and this is why I was so confident in asking the Minister today - every year it would come up in discussions with the Government, that they were constantly trying to justify decisions and actions of MUN Extension to the Government when this party was in office. And I am suggesting to this House and to the Government that the same thing applies, and that they do have an influence over MUN Extension. Unfortunately, the university has acceded to the kind of pressure it has been getting over the years and have dropedp MUN Extension.

But it re-inforces the kinds of things I have been saying in these speeches, Mr. Speaker, that MUN Extension is a thorn in the side of the Government. But it is designed to be a thorn in the side of the Government; it is designed to be the democratic expression of people throughout this community. People who are fighting for social justice have to fight against Governments, because Governments often act to repress those urges amongst people.

Mr. Speaker, this petition and the petitioners ought to be supported. If the House can do something by legislation we would certainly gladly do it. But this Government has control of that. So I ask, along with those petitioners, that MUN Extension be re-instated, and be funded and equipped to provide the service it has provided to the people of this Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the petition put forward by the Member for St. John's East, because of the vital role MUN Extension has played in the development of rural Newfoundland.

I also have to make comment on remarks made by the Minister of Education about the former Government intending to get rid of MUN Extension. What is important in this is that the former Government did not do it. It was this Government that got rid of MUN Extension. And the Minister can stand there in his place all day and talk about arm's length and everything else, but everyone knows the reality, that MUN was supported by the former Government and if it had wanted, MUN Extension would still be there.

It is interesting to note that MUN Extension cost, I think, something in the range of $1.4 million, and last year, through its bungling, this same administration lost $1.5 or $1.6 million on a bridge contract in Labrador. That amount of money could have saved MUN Extension, the kinds of blunders this Administration makes, not to mention the protocol and other things that are in this year's Budget.

But I want to get on to the role MUN Extension has played in rural Newfoundland. I was intrigued by the remarks made by a Wilf Bartlett of the Newfoundland Fishermen's Inshore Association today about the vital role MUN Extension had played in helping their fishermen's committee go on to get a marine centre; when they had given up, it was MUN Extension who was constantly there providing them with the leadership, the drive and the initiative to go on and get that facility.

Just last year, at a major forum in Gander I think, which the Minister of Fisheries attended, Elaine Condon and her group put together a fisheries forum out there where people were brought in from all over Newfoundland. The Fishermen's Association could not find the money themselves to do it, it was too costly. Where did they turn? They turned to MUN Extension and MUN Extension brought in the expertise to be co-ordinators; they gave them a measure of financing so that this forum could take place where fishermen, the people who live outside the overpass, had a chance to express their views, their opinions and their ideas on the developing of their resource. So MUN Extension has played a very important role and the fishermen of this Province, the rural Newfoundlanders, need the direction that MUN Extension can give.

They reflect back to the early 60s, when a former Liberal Government decided that rural Newfoundland did not have the right to be. One of the places they slated for closedown was Fogo Island. The people of Fogo Island, with the help of MUN Extension, were able to save their community, and develop a major industry through the Fogo Island Co-op. And to this day MUN Extension still plays a vital and pivotal role in the Fogo Island Co-op being the viable, economic base that is provided for Fogo Island. So, Mr. Speaker, MUN Extension does have a role to play. It continues to play a vital role in Newfoundland, and this administration should direct Memorial University: forget this arm's length and everything else, find $1 million, give it to MUN Extension so it can get on with doing the job it was intended to do.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, there is not much else I can add to the comments I made earlier, other than the fact that I was pleased yesterday to announce to this House and to the Province that we were going to revitalize a number of campuses in the post-secondary system so that they can become adult learning centres for rural Newfoundland. It would have been easy in these tough times to close some of these campuses, but we believe, and this is another reflection of this Government's commitment to rural Newfoundland, that these campuses can become viable, very vibrant adult learning centres. That is a reflection of our commitment to rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker.

I would say there is some confusion in the mind of the Opposition about this arm's length. The purpose of having the University at Arm's length is to give them the freedom to criticize, to be critics. Once the Government starts to interfere with the operation of the University, you eliminate that freedom of the University to be a social critic. I see some of my friends nodding. This is the very reason why we have this arm's length relationship. We have it so that universities are free to criticize. And this Government, no Government, will interfere in the ability of Memorial to be a critic of Government, of industry, of business, of anything in this Province. That is why we did not intervene and do not intend to intervene and tell the University what to do in deciding on its programs - we have a Board of Regents.

There is one final point, Mr. Speaker. The Board of Regents of Memorial University represents the whole Province. We have people on it from all over the Province. Surely all these persons are not going to turn their backs on rural Newfoundland. I will someday find out how many there are from all parts of this Province. The Board of Regents makes these decisions with the President, and that Board represents the whole of the Province. I have confidence that they are doing what they had to do in the current financial context, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

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

Committee of Supply

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, a few days ago the Minister of Development, I believe it was speaking in this debate, spoke about the history of the financial position of the Province, the borrowing power of the Province and the impact that has on the bond markets. He talked a little bit about the debt of the Province and he took trouble to list out the overall debt burden of the Province going back to the Smallwood era. He pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that there has been a growth in the overall debt from the first figure he quoted back in the Smallwood era of a little under a billion dollars and at the end of the Frank Moores era of about $2.2 billion, starting out at $2.5 billion in 1979 and growing to about $5.5 billion or $5.3 billion today. All those figures he used were accurate, Mr. Chairman, not to be denied. He did not point out that the past two years this Government has borrowed a billion dollars, $1.1 billion almost $1.2 billion has been the total borrowing program in the last two years for this Government. The largest two years of borrowing in the history of this Province. This year it's 573, last year was 605 or 615, a record borrowing.

So, Mr. Chairman, he did not point out that from 1982 to 1985 over a four year period, a period of the worst recession that this nation has seen and that this Province has seen since the Great Depression, a total over those four years of $1.1 billion was borrowed. Now this Government has borrowed $1.2 billion in two years verses $1.1 billion growth in the total debt over that four year period. So we can all play with numbers, Mr. Chairman, if we would like to pull those numbers out.

In the Budget, Mr. Chairman, and I should say it is interesting that I am responding to the Minister of Development on these issues, it really should have been the Minister of Finance who should be debating the issues as it relates to the bond market and the public debt. It is incredible that we have now been debating for seven or eight days and nights in this House on Interim Supply on Budget, and I don't believe the Minister of Finance has rose in his place once, not to my recollection. I don't believe the Minister of Finance has once entered into this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: He has been up once.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: He did the Budget Speech. He introduced Supplementary Supply in 60 seconds or less. He managed to read the headings. He didn't even read the whole Bill, thank goodness, he spared us that, but he read the headings. I was not here when he introduced this Bill, but I am told he was a minute or two. I was two or three minutes late getting into the House that day, and it was all done by the time I got here. I was afraid I was going to miss some great words of wisdom from the Minister of Finance, the Minister who we now know as Dr. No. We ask him questions in Question Period and all we get is no, no, no, no, so we now know him as Dr. No.

Anyway, it is incredible that it was the Minister of Development who had to try to defend the Government's position and the Government's claim that they had such a terrible financial situation. They are having a great difficulty explaining how a $4 million surplus in their first year, that Budget being, in fact, a Tory Budget because of very, very few changes, if any, from the Budget document that was all but finalized when the election was called, and so they can take no credit for that particular Budget. They did not have time to do very much with it or could they have done much about it. So we passed them a $4 million surplus and in two years they have turned that into a $117 million deficit - in two years, yet they tried to blame the Province's financial position on the Tory Government, talk about the public debt being escalated so many times since the PC Party came to power, during the period of the PC government. On page 7, Mr. Chairman, of the Budget document, the Minister produced a graph - a bar chart - entitled Net Public Sector Debt Per Capita. And one would not be surprised to see that the bar chart is growing steadily. It levelled off a little bit in fact over the last few years, grew fairly steadily from - it starts about 1982 - grew rather quickly from 1982 to 1985, the years of the previous national recession, levelled off a little bit in the last few years, from 1986 to 1989, but in the last two years it started to jump up again.

So there are no great surprises there and there is no great surprise that even from 1982 to 1991 it has increased by about 50 per cent. That is the Net Public Sector Debt Per Capita. Well, of course, if you look at straight numbers the debt is going to grow per capita - in real dollars. But what has happened, Mr. Speaker, in constant dollars - there is the question? So I am suggesting to this House that this graph is very very misleading. It is nothing more, nothing short, of being political propaganda. That is all it is. Anybody who would not think that the per capita debt is growing steadily would be being less than honest with themselves.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is curious, when you look at the Province's prospectus. A prospectus, for all those who are not familiar with it, a prospectus is basically a statement of the financial position of the Province which is produced each year by the Minister of Finance, and it is given to the credit rating agencies and to the bond market to potential investors in government bonds. I refer to a prospectus produced by the present Government, November 15 of 1990, it is a relatively current prospectus.

Now this is the Government's own document and it is no different from prospectuses that have been produced for a number of years. If you look at Table 15, dealing with the public sector debt, the information that is provided to the bond markets would list all of the actual figures of the Provincial direct debt, total debt, Crown Corporation debt, all of these numbers of what the debts are. But when you start comparing this debt with previous years' debt to see how you are doing, you do not look at the per capita debt. You look at two factors. Two factors alone that are expressed in terms of percentages in a prospectus. Two things that the bond market agencies want to see.

The total public sector debt as a percentage of personal income. In other words, how has the debt grown in relation to the income of the people of the Province? Not what is the actual debt. What is the debt in relation to your ability to pay? That's one item. And the other one is a total public sector debt as a percentage of gross domestic product. In other words, what is your total debt burden in relation to the amount that you are producing as a Province? Those are the two factors. Much more significant than simply comparing each year per capita debt, because you are not talking constant dollars.

Very interesting, Mr. Chairman, so I did some research. And I produced a couple of graphs which I will table, because I am sure the Minister of Finance has never seen anything like it. Not that he could read them if I passed them to him, but the Newfoundland Public Sector Debt Per Capita as a proportion of personal income per capita. Very interesting numbers. And I find that in 1970, the Smallwood era, the debt to income ratio was 70.4 per cent. In other words the per capita debt was 70.4 per cent of the average per capita income, an interesting figure, and that was the Smallwood era. This was the so-called stable financial situation that was passed to the first PC Administration. So it averaged around 70 to 71 per cent in the early 1970s.

The next figure I have is 1975, and it had basically moved slightly up to 71 per cent by 1975. Thereafter it starts coming down, relatively slowly from 1975 to about 1979, an interesting figure, 1975 to 1979, a gradual decline in the percentage. So in 1979, we were actually down to about 70 per cent. It came down a couple of per cent. Then from 1979 to 1982, in 1982 we dropped off to 67 per cent, in fact, 66 3/4 per cent. So our per capita debt is really starting to come down in the first couple of years of the Peckford Administration.

Then, of course, we hit the recession - when hon. gentlemen get the graph they will see a few little ripples here where we hit the recession from 1982 to 1986, where we actually came back up to about 68 per cent again, almost 68, 67.89 per cent. Then, Mr. Chairman, in 1985-86, we came in with the five year plan, my colleague, the Opposition House Leader will recall, and my colleague for Ferryland, St. Mary's - The Capes -

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no leave over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No leave?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, oh, oh the House Leader is cracking the whip.

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

Does the hon. Member have leave or not?

MR. FUREY: Agreed.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the hon. Minister for Development for overruling the House Leader.

MR. HEARN: And the Premier.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I will not abuse that. But I thank the hon. gentleman, because I am into a serious presentation here, and I will not take ten minutes. The Minister of Finance may not think it serious, but he is soon going to find out the difference.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in 1985 the previous Government announced publicly a five year plan to deal with the financial situation of the Province, a five year plan to reduce the deficit because we, at that time, if I recall, I stand to be corrected, I believe we introduced a deficit in our Budget that year of about $80 million or $82 million, the highest deficit that we had ever introduced as a Government, $82 million. That was unacceptable to us, it was unacceptable to the Province, it was unacceptable to the people it was unacceptable to the credit rating agencies. We said, we do not have any choice, we have just come through a depression, we do not have the resources. We could have massive public service layoffs of $100 million, and come in with a $20 million surplus. We choose not to do that. We said we will borrow.

We went to New York and sat down with the credit rating agencies. We planned to bring in an $80 million deficit, but we have a plan that we are committed to, that we are announcing publicly, a plan for capital construction, a plan for current account deficits, and a borrowing program, and we intend to stand by it and by 1989 we will produce a balanced Budget.

Well, Mr. Chairman, what happened over that period of time? The graph tells us very clearly the bottom falls right out of it, Mr. Chairman. It comes right down. This is a graph of the public sector debt per capita as a percentage of personal income per capita. In other words it is comparing the debt burden per capita with the earning power per capita, and it just falls right off, Mr. Chairman, falls right down. So from 71 per cent back in 1970, we come down to 56 per cent by the end of 1989. A very, very significant difference. In fact, Mr. Chairman, over the period 1970 to 1986 we had dropped only 3 or 4 per cent. But from 1986 to 1989 we dropped 12 per cent. Because we had a five year plan it was difficult. It made collective bargaining very difficult. We all remember that and that is why collective bargaining was so difficult, because we had a plan that we were committed to and that we had to comply with if we were to reach our goal, and our goal, Mr. Chairman, at the end of 1989 was a balanced Budget and we had in this Government a $4 million surplus. There is the financial record of the Province, Mr. Chairman, up till 1989.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Actually, yes. The budgeted figure was $4 million. We actually ended up, I think, with a $37 million surplus which in fact was a $60 million surplus because there was a special payment of $20 million that went into the pension fund and a special payment of $4 million which was given the Marystown Shipyard to pay their interest in advance. I still have not gotten an answer from the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Development as to why the Supplementary Supply Bill that we passed last week had that $4 million back in it again. Some day I will get the answer, but it is not there yet. Why did we make a special payment in 1989 and yet have to approve Supplementary Supply of $4 million to pay the interest for the Marystown Shipyard debt again for last year? Why twice? Neither the Minister of Development nor the Minister of Finance has stood in his place yet and given us the answer for that. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is where we were in 1989 at 56 per cent, dropping almost a straight line in the last three or four years, coming straight down the page. Well, Mr. Chairman, we bottomed out. We have levelled off and started to come back up again. The public sector debt is now growing more rapidly than the per capita income and we are going to find, Mr. Chairman, that unless this Government takes immediate action we are going to see it go back up again to the sad condition we were in at the end of the Smallwood era. Now, Mr. Chairman, I could go through the same exercise exactly in comparing the total public sector debt as a proportion of gross domestic product. It is very, very similar, I will table both graphs, and I invite the Minister of Finance to respond to these figures. He will see a similar thing with gross domestic product, although we do not have the data, we do not have as many numbers from 1970 to 1981, we only have a couple of numbers, so the graph is not as informative, but from 1980 onward we can see what happens with gross domestic product. So, I think that indicates very clearly that we handed to this Government a financial situation which was stable, which was headed in the right direction, and which was drastically reducing the deficit. In fact we had come to a surplus position and were greatly reducing the debt burden as a percentage of personal income, and as a percentage of gross domestic product to the Province, in both cases the two indicators that Government is asked to provide in its prospectus when it goes to the bond market. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this Government this year found itself, when it went speaking to the bond market, they found that last year things had started to turn around and the projections for this year were going to show an even more drastic negative change. You are heading for disaster again and that is why this Government was told by the bond market, you had better watch your borrowing, you had better start reducing, and where is your plan? Mr. Chairman, where is this Government's plan? They have told us all about the thousands of public servants that will be laid off, the hospital beds that will be closed, the cutbacks in education and social programs, the restraint in expenditure and capital works, and maintenance programs of various departments, but where is the plan, Mr. Chairman? We see no financial plan. We see no economic development plan. We are asked to believe that an Economic Recovery Commission and Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador will be the saviour of this Province. Well, Mr. Chairman, after two years the Economic Recovery Commission is seen as an absolute dismal failure by the people of this Province, an absolute dismal failure, having produced absolutely nothing.

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador is no more than reshuffling the deck chairs. Reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic, I say to the Minister of Development, will not save his skin. He had better steer a course for economic development that will create jobs in this Province, and will create employment and economic activity, and will provide to the Government the financial resources to continue with the social programmes that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians demand and deserve.

But I do not see it coming from the hon. gentleman. I do not see an economic plan. I do not see a financial plan from the Minister of Finance. I do not see a plan for deficit reduction. I see a stab in the dark for one year, saying we have to dismiss 3,500 public servants to save $100 million, and we are still going to borrow in order to satisfy a $57 million deficit. But I have no idea how I am going to reduce that deficit next year. In fact, the President of Treasury Board told me two days ago in this House that we were probably looking at a $400 million deficit next year, if action was not taken. Well, the action taken was a $100 million savings on salaries for public servants, so one would assume that we are looking at $300 million next year now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: By leave again, if hon. Members are (Inaudible)?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. WINDSOR: I am waiting for the answers, I have the questions. It is the answers that we are waiting to hear. We are waiting to hear the Premier, and the Minister of Finance and Development tell us what they are going to do about the financial mess that this Province is now in!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: My colleague from Kilbride may give me some answers. So, Mr. Chairman, where is the plan?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I ask the Premier to rise in his place and tell me. Because his Ministers of Finance and Development refuse to do so, the Minister of Finance will not even answer the questions. When we showed to him that the information that we have been given - I have the copy of Hansards here, the words of the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance - indicating that we are now to believe that this Government is faced with a $300 million deficit next year unless further action is taken. And the Premier was not here yesterday, but when I asked the Minister of Finance what action does he propose: does he propose thousands of more Public Service layoffs, or does he propose another massive borrowing programme to increase our debt more, or does he propose increased taxation? He stood in his place and he said: no, no, no. The famous "Dr. No." We will get no information from the Minister of Finance.

So I ask the Premier - since the Minister of Finance is either unwilling or incapable of giving us the information - perhaps the Premier would stand in his place and tell us what is the plan of this Government. Because we do not see it in the Throne Speech and we do not see it in the Budget documents. Somebody said to me yesterday - my colleague from Menihek, I believe it was - related a statement somebody made, and I recall now what it was. It was a statement that somebody made in reference to the Premier's position on Meech Lake. He said the Premier responded to a snapshot in time but he was not capable of looking at the moving picture. Very, very astute observation. The Premier responded to a snapshot but was not capable of looking at the whole moving picture.

And that is exactly what this Budget is, Mr. Chairman. It is a snapshot in time without any reference to the moving picture. Without any plan, goal, objectives, or answers, as to how the financial situation that this Province is now in is going to be resolved.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I will take a little break, Mr. Chairman. I can go on for hours and hours and hours, and I am delighted to sit down. I thank hon. gentlemen for leaving. I look forward to the comments of my colleague, the Minister of Development.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, just to carry on with the hon. Member's metaphor, the previous government went to the movies for seventeen years and never came back. That was the real problem. It was not a question of a snapshot in time and looking at the larger picture. This Government has seen the larger picture. In fact, when the Premier took over as Leader of the Opposition, one of the things that he did was commission all Members and the whole research staff to take a good look at some of the problems and some of the positions that the Province had found itself in because of the previous tenures. I think it was the previous tenures that the Premier wanted to have a good look at.

Now, some of us went back the seventeen years, but the preceding ten years, the Peckford years. And from 1979 onward it was not a happy picture, it was not a very good picture, and if you wanted to make it a movie it was a pretty poor movie, a Grade-B movie.

Well, we can challenge each other politically back and forth all day long, but that does not resolve why we are here and what bill we are discussing. We are talking about Interim Supply, and we have been talking about it day and night for the last week and a half or two weeks. The speeches have been political, the rhetoric has been flying, but I have not heard any questions that dealt with the Interim Supply bill. I am asking hon. Members as the Minister of Development for $52.8 million - not one question.

MR. WINDSOR: That is not true.

MR. FUREY: Now, the hon. Members want to filibuster and play games with the Treasury of the Province and possibly delay payment to people who are good, hard-working people in this Province. If they want to stymie our ability to pay out monies, let me tell them what they want to stymie.

From my Department, Marystown Shipyard enhancement fabrication yard, $31.5 million. I need $8 million in Interim Supply. Why can't I have it? Why can't I have that $8 million to carry forward with calling the tenders to build this fabrication yard to put those people on the Burin Peninsula to work? Why can't I have it? That is a legitimate question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I am asking for $950,000 under Ocean Industry Development. This amount is required as a result of current commitments and anticipated takeup as a result of the Hibernia project establishments. I do not want all of it. But I need $450,000 of it real quick. Is it wrong for me to ask, after we have identified in the Budget process, in our estimate documents, laid out for everybody to see, why can't I have that for the people who need it to carry forward the Hibernia project? Is it wrong to ask for that $400,000? I do not think it is wrong. I have not heard anybody over there ask me: Minister of Development, why do you want that $400,000? I will give a full, comprehensive explanation if they want it.

Mr. Chairman, under the Hibernia project which this Government signed, we put the boxing gloves away eighteen months ago. We sat down and dealt with people rationally and reasonably, we signed that agreement, and we gave full credit for the spadework of the past to people who were motivated properly and wanted to do this deal. We gave full credit. Well, in this Interim Supply bill, we need $53.8 million for the whole thing, but I am asking for $14 million, so that we can carry on under that Federal-Provincial agreement with the site development work at Bull Arm and Great Mosquito Cove, so that the gravity based system can carry forward. Is it wrong to ask for $14 million to put Newfoundlanders to work at Bull Arm? I do not think it is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, under this bill we have set aside $24 million for Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, our new flagship corporation, which is delivering in the five regions out there. I am asking for $6 million. Now that is not $24 million for grants. That is not $24 million to pass out to your buddies. It is $24 million of pooled capital to sit there for loans. Reduced rates, venture capital programme, investment in small businesses, equity in small businesses, reduced loans, loans for Members' districts. And I need $6 million of it to create jobs in rural Newfoundland. Is it wrong to ask for that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

MR. FUREY: That is what we have been asking for as they filibustered and philosophized and got on with their highfalutin rhetoric, and did not ask one single, solitary, sensible, intelligent question. Now, my hon. friend from Mount Pearl is the brightest one over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: No doubt about it.

MR. FUREY: Make no

Make no mistake about that. Make no mistake about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: If you took all the intelligence of all the Opposition and stacked it up, they still would not reach the intelligence of my good friend from Mount Pearl. And even with all his intelligence, stack all that intelligence up, he still has not asked me one single question about development and why I need that money to create jobs in Newfoundland. Not one.

Mr. Chairman, I need $740,000 under the Tourism Facilities Capital Expenditure Program. Why do I need it? I need it so that I can make the renovations in Deer Lake, to fix that chalet in the hon. Member for Humber Valley's District. I would not ask for it, but I need it. And I need it, I am proud to say, to put a brand new chalet in Argentia, the gateway to the east coast of Newfoundland, for the hon. the Member for Placentia. That is why I need it.

Mr. Speaker, I need it in the event - in the event, pray to God - that I can get a third generation tourism agreement. And I think I can get one. They did not think it was possible, but I am that close, Mr. Chairman. I am inches away. And I need money in there, in the Interim Supply, that if I ink that deal and the Premier signs it with Mr. Crosbie, we can flow that money into the tourism industry right away. That is why I need it, Mr. Chairman.

And, Mr. Chairman, I can deal with the details of every single cent I require. I require $52.8 million for what? For me? Not for me, for the Hibernia site, to put hundreds of Newfoundlanders to work, for the tourism agreement which is inches away, for the fabrication yard down in Marystown. The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West jumps up and says, `What are you doing for Marystown?' Well, I am trying to build a fabrication yard in Marystown to put hundreds of people to work. That is what I am trying to do.

So, Mr. Chairman, I will gladly take my place and let that tower of intellect from Mount Pearl stand up, or whomever on the other side, and ask specific question and, more to the point, tell us why in the last two weeks, afternoon after afternoon, night after night, they did not ask one single, solitary question of one single Minister on this side about their particular estimates and why we need the money. We need the money to create jobs. That is why we need the money. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. gentleman can say there were no questions asked, but he can't make it truthful. Because he knows what he is saying is not true. He knows it is absolutely untrue. Why are we here filibustering? We are not filibustering, Mr. Chairman, we are here seeking some answers. And if we ever get some answers from this Government, then they will, indeed, get their Interim Supply.

The Minister of Development has no concept of what we are doing, I suspect. Interim Supply is a portion of the Budget Debate. The Budget debate, Mr. Chairman, is a very general debate in which Members address two things: they address the specific policies and principles espoused by the Minister of Finance in his Budget Address and as reflected estimates in the Province; it is also a very general and wide-ranging debate because financial implications of the Budget really impact on every aspect of day-to-day life in this Province, so that there is absolutely nothing that is irrelevant to the debate. And so hon. Members on both sides, Mr. Chairman, take the opportunity to discuss their district problems or any particular problems of any aspect of society. And, I say to the hon. the Minister of Development, we have heard exactly the same type of thing coming from the opposite side of the House as has come from this side with one exception, the questions have come from here, but no answers have come from over there, none what so ever. And, Mr. Chairman, Question Period in this House is not much different. We are continually asking questions and not getting any answers.

The Minister of Development says, `Why can't I have $8 million to proceed with the development of Cowhead and Marystown?' I say to the Minister of Development, why can't I have the answer to where that $4 million went last year in interest for Marystown shipyard? The Minister of Finance stood in this House a year ago and said, here is the situation at the end of the year. It would have been even better, but we made a special $4 million payment toward the interest of Marystown shipyard. Yet last week we put through in co-operation with this Government, to be co-operative, a Supplementary Supply Bill that gave the Minister another $4 million for last year. I asked the question very clearly, why did the Minister need that $4 million? I did not get the answer. I had to leave the House that afternoon, and when I came back the bill was passed. Had I been here I would have asked the question again, and we would still be here. And I would like the answer now. And if the Minister of Development is not prepared to give it to me, let the Minister of Finance or the Premier or the President of Treasury Board give it to me. But this Interim Supply Bill will not pass until I get that answer, I can assure you of that. So you can decide when this bill goes through on that point.

I say to the Minister of Development, yes he will have his $8 million. Why has he not requested $24 million to build the Fogo Island ferry that had been announced in Marystown, if he wants to create jobs? We would have given him that, too, and gladly. Because it would be a wise expenditure: A ferry that is badly needed by the people of Fogo, $24 million dollars of employment at Marystown which is sorely needed, which would ensure that the expertise we have built up in Marystown over the years would be retained on the eve of the Hibernia development. The Minister wants to spend $8 million building facilities while the expertise disappears. That is what will happen. That is called being penny-wise and pound-foolish, Mr. Chairman. Put $800 million to expand the Cow Head facility that we started a number of years ago, a good project, federal/provincial money under the Offshore Development fund, but there will be nobody left to work if you do not put that money into that ferry. I think there are less than one hundred men working in a yard that has had up to 700 at peak time - less than one hundred now employed at Marystown shipyard, or thereabouts. And if some work is not given to that yard in the next number of months, there will be nobody left, their expertise will be gone.

And the Minister tells us his tourism agreement is only inches away. What has that got to do with Interim Supply? I read an article yesterday, August of 1990, where the Minister said, I will soon be signing a tourism agreement. And he is still inches away. What has that got to do with Interim Supply? I have asked many questions during this Budget Debate. The Minister of Development is not being truthful.

We asked what the $20,000 Allowance and Assistance was in the Premier's Office? Have we gotten an answer on that, Mr. Chairman? Of course not. Oh, I got the Premier's attention for once - $20,000 Allowance and Assistance, Premier's Office. The 1990 Budget, zero; 1990 Budget revised, $20,000. Unexplained.

PREMIER WELLS: I will find (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you. I hope the Premier will find it. We have asked the question before.

PREMIER WELLS: I will tell you what it is, it is the housing allowance I announced about a month or so ago.

MR. WINDSOR: I suspect it is the Premier's housing allowance.

PREMIER WELLS: That is what I believe, but I (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We have been asking this question, I say to the Premier, for three weeks and have not gotten an answer.

PREMIER WELLS: You did not ask it of me.

MR. WINDSOR: Well I asked whomever was here. I say to the Premier, if we could get the Minister of Finance on his feet, maybe he would answer something. Or maybe he is not allowed to get on his feet because he is going to make a fool of himself again. He opens his mouth to change feet.

PREMIER WELLS: Unless I confirm it for you, then it is not that. But I assume that is what it is.

MR. WINDSOR: I thank the Premier for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We asked a number of questions. I asked the Minister of Development, what is the additional $500,000 in Purchased Services under Tourism Promotion? I asked the Minister of Development if that was another $500,000 for his buddies in APPA, and I have not gotten an answer for that either. It is interesting. There are 3500 public servants being laid off, but another $500,000 on top of what was there last year for the boys in APPA. Then the Minister says we are not asking any questions. We are not getting any answers. I asked two days ago why the Liquor Licencing Board and the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation are being joined together, and on whose advice. I am not getting any answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the paper (inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: Today's paper? We would like to get some answers, and there are more questions we will ask before that one is over.

Mr. Chairman, I went through this Budget over the last number of days and I will give another couple of examples. But having said all that, I say to the Minister of Development - he is not here anymore but I will say to him anyway - that this is the Budget Debate. This is not the Estimates Committee. We have Standing Committees of this House that will sit down with the Minister and his officials, because he is entitled to bring his advisors in, and we will sit there for however long it takes and ask questions of the Minister, detailed questions about his Estimates. This is not the place for going through the Estimates in detail, this is the place for trying to find out what direction this Government proposes to take and how it proposes to get us out of the economic mess they have gotten us into in two years. That is what Interim Supply is all about. The Minister of Development may be a little testy because he wanted to get out of here for Easter vacation a bit early.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not have far to go, anyway.

MR. WINDSOR: I do not have far to go. I am not going very far at all. I am going home to spend the weekend with my family.

AN HON. MEMBER: All the rest of the boys are gone.

MR. WINDSOR: A few of the boys are gone. Some of the boys over there were scheduled to go to Florida and had to cancel it, because we were told by the House Leader that we were going to take a two week Easter recess. He changed his mind on that after Members over there had bought and paid for tickets to Florida. I have a close friend of mine who has gone to Florida on one of your tickets. He picked up the tickets that were returned and he got a good price on them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the Opposition Leader? Where is the Member for Harbour Main? Where is the Member for St. John's East Extern?

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister of Development is testy now because he wants to get out of here today. But, I say to the President of Treasury Board, he will not get this bill this day. I do not care if we are here all night. Maybe he would like to call us back tomorrow, Good Friday. We do not call the House together. The Government House Leader decides which days we sit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. Member's time is up.

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

MR. NOEL: Now do not create too great a buildup, because the letdown will be all the worst.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to a few of the comments that were made yesterday - expand on a few of my own, and respond to a few that were made in response to some of the things I was saying. The Member for St. John's South wants me to make clear to the House that in perhaps not everything, but a number of the things I was saying yesterday, at any rate, I spoke on his behalf as well. I might have been wrong in some people's minds on some things, and that is why I will try to expand a bit today in order to clarify what I mean.

What I started speaking about primarily yesterday was the need to amalgamate municipalities in this Province so that we can create a more cost effective municipal system, so that we will minimize expenses and maximize the services that we can deliver, and so that we will equalize the price paid for services in so far as possible.

Now unfortunately some Members took that opportunity to try and drive a wedge between myself as a representative of one of the urban districts and some of the representatives of rural districts in this House. That was not my intention. What I am trying to do is persuade this House to support Government measures to create a more efficient and effective system, and we have to make some serious changes in order to do that. That way, we will be able to deliver the maximum services. Now we cannot provide whatever kind of services people want wherever they want them in the Province. We cannot mislead people into believing that. As the Minister for Municipal Affairs said last night, if you are going to provide municipal services to every household in the Province, it would cost $1,000 per year per household - another $2.5 billion. So we cannot do that. But if we say that people have a right to municipal services, then those people who do not have it now have as much right as the people who have it now. So if you are going to say that people have a right, then you have to provide that. But we cannot provide that. All we can do is provide what we have the financial capacity to provide. And that is the point I was making.

I think the previous Government really mislead this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. NOEL: When? In an effort to retain office and buy votes, they went throughout the Province installing municipal services and leading people to believe that they could have whatever municipal services they wanted without ensuring that the proper financing capacity was there. Now a lot of municipalities have services that they cannot afford to maintain, and it is going to get worse in years to come. We have to realize that that was a very serious albatross the previous Government tied around the neck of this Province, and now we have to try to deal with it. And we are only going to deal with it as effectively as possible by being as businesslike as we can. In order to do that we have to organize the delivery of municipal services so that it is done in the most cost effective manner, and that means consolidation of municipalities. Everybody agrees it is the thing to do, but we are having trouble getting people on the other side of the House to agree on specific things to do.

One specific thing we have to do, and I think we should take the leadership in doing, is reorganize the northeast Avalon. How can we persuade other parts of the Province that we have to rationalize municipal affairs if we are to leave Wedgewood Park as an independent community, if we are to leave Mount Pearl as an independent community, as a community that has access to tremendous resources to look after its own needs but does not want to share those resources with surrounding communities. And this is what I am talking about. The St. John's region: We have to ensure that all of the revenues available in the St. John's region are collected within the St. John's region, so that Provincial monies do not have to go out to these St. John's region communities but instead go out to communities in more rural parts of the Province. And that is what is going to happen.

Mount Pearl is talking about a cost of $58 million in order to amalgamate the super city concept. Now I do not happen to support the super city concept. I think you should put Mount Pearl, Wedgewood Park, St. John's and perhaps Paradise and Elizabeth Park, some of these that are really the core, together. I do not agree with putting Conception Bay South, for instance, in with St. John's. But the cost of dealing with the service problems in Conception Bay South has to be met. Now we have to try to meet it through the revenue capacities of the St. John's region, or else people from other parts of the Province are going to have to contribute to it.

So, this so called cost of amalgamation is not money that the Province would be giving to St. John's. It is going to cost something like $30 million, I think it is, to provide services for Conception Bay South. Now we have to get the maximum revenues we can out of the St. John's region in order to finance that. We are not getting maximum possible revenues out of Mount Pearl because they are not charging as much commercial taxation as they should charge, and they are not charging as much residential taxation as they should charge. Two million dollars less per year they are paying this year than they should be paying in order to help pay their fair share of the cost of running this region.

Wedgewood Park, for instance; householders are paying half of what they should pay. My constituent who has a $100,000 house is paying $1,100 a year in municipal taxes, and a person who has the same house over in Wedgewood Park is paying $650 a year, and he is enjoying the same services as the resident in my district. The problem is that St. John's City is having to pick up a lot of the regional costs and we have to equalize them within this region. I am not looking to get money from other parts of the Province to help pay the cost of St. John's and the St. John's region, but we have to get those revenues equitably out of the St. John's area.

Now I have been making the case about how little Mount Pearl has been contributing, and the Member for Mount Pearl last night -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Yes, where is he? I guess he saw I was getting up to speak this time. But he mislead the House last night, and I think he may have deliberately mislead the House last night, and we will wait until I can see Hansard to know if that was the case. But he said that St. John's receives a grant in lieu of taxes of $4.5 million a year. Now that is certainly not the case because I have a copy of the St. John's budget for this year right here. He said that we received a grant in lieu of taxes, and the implication was from the Province. Now the fact is that we will receive a grant in lieu of taxes of about $4.5 million from the Province and the Federal Government, $4 million it is this year actually, $2,400,000 from the Government of Canada, $1,200,000 from Government of Canada agencies, and $374,000 from the Province of Newfoundland, not the $4.5 million that he led us to believe last year. I think he was quoting from the brief put out by the City of Mount Pearl yesterday -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Dead Sea scrolls.

MR. NOEL: - which is another exercise in the kind of misleading case that Mount Pearl keeps making. They talk about things that are not real. I remember councillor Simms from Mount Pearl wrote to the Evening Telegram on December 5th and he was criticizing our efforts to get Mount Pearl to pay a greater share of taxes in this region, and one of the points he made was that hospitals, provincial buildings, and Federal Government buildings are not city property: the city did not build them and the city does not pay for them. This constant whine about how much it takes to keep them all up and running is ridiculous and your editorial position should be to state it. But we are not looking for the cost of keeping these buildings up and running, we are are not looking for operating cost to finance these buildings, we are looking for costs to service them, and that is where Mount Pearl is not paying its fair share. You have the person who lives in Mount Pearl, comes out to work at the Confederation Building, he is paying a fair share for the municipal services he is getting in Mount Pearl, but he is not paying his fair share for the services of St. John's he uses to come and go back to work; he is not paying a fair share for the cost of maintaining the Confederation Building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! Order please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Do you want a couple of minutes to finish?

AN HON. MEMBER: Alright, you go ahead.

MR. HEWLETT: Longer than that. Ten minutes?

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following on from -

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

I wonder if, before the hon. Member speaks, I could announce the questions for the Late Show.

Question No.1. I am not satisfied with the answer from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations concerning student jobs - the hon. Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Member for Humber Valley would like the first question as he has to leave early, I do not mind getting mine second or third, if that is acceptable?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I do not have a question here from the hon. Member for Humber Valley.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not satisfied with the answer that I received today from the Minister responsible for Treasury Board, re the health care workers - the hon. Member for Ferryland.

Question No. 3. I am dissatisfied with the answer given by the President of Treasury Board in reference to the elimination of the Liquor Licensing Board - the hon. Member for Mount Pearl.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If one followed on from the logic of what the hon. Member for Pleasantville said a few moments ago, then the residents of Green Bay should be connected in with Grand Falls or Gander or other service centres that they have to deal with, it would be very impossible I would say to properly - you would need an entire bureaucracy to police the brown baggers of the world as the former Mayor of St. John's referred to these people, but, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a couple comments.

The hon. Minister responsible for Tourism mentioned a few minutes ago that the Tourism Agreement is inches away; I wish him well in that regard and I certainly hope it is so. I happened to receive in my mail today a letter from the Beothic Trail Tourism Committee, a committee which has been trying fruitlessly for the last number of years to promote tourism on the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: No, I am afraid they are not Liberal, Sir, some of them are, but there was a Provincial Park started in the area of Robert's Arm. The Tourism Committee is centred around the Robert's Arm area, south shore, Green Bay; a Provincial Park was started under the previous Administration, playing on the tourist potential of the fact that the lake that the Park was on, is renowned to have a lake monster and knowing full well that North American tourists really get into this sort of thing, they have been really trying to make a tourism go of that particular situation, but unfortunately the Park was abandoned by the new Liberal Administration and the roads are growing in with all - there are camp sites overgrown, etcetera. They even took down the signs on the side of the road which are normal for a Provincial Park; Provincial Park - No cutting - that sort of thing. They basically extinguished a Park before it really had a chance to get off the ground.

We have our own equivalent of a Loch Ness Monster in that particular area and unfortunately the Government has seen fit to stifle tourism development rather than encourage it in that particular area, however, the local committee continues to soldier on, they have asked me to attend one of their meetings in April, which I hope to do, and I shall of course continue to bring their concerns before the floor of the House. I sincerely hope that, like the hon. Minister's Tourism Agreement, some progress with regard to tourism developments on the Beothic Trail is literally inches away.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to something that has been in the news and in the papers and what not, being inches or minutes or weeks or whatever away relating to the field which I have shadow responsibility and that is Energy, one wonders when the turbines are going to start turning on the Lower Churchill River. For a while there, when the news was coming out strong and certain that we are in a recession and that this Provincial Government was going to have a very heavy Budget, there was, I would say, very dutiful and continuous chatter from the hon. Minister of Energy with regard to imminent possibilities of the Lower Churchill development.

Mr. Chairman, if my memory serves me correctly, from paper traffic I saw over my desk in my years in the Premier's office, one of the presuppositions for such a development was a significant federal contribution to such a project, and here we have the Federal Government now into the Hibernia project to the tune of $2.7 billion. The Federal Government stated on a number of occasions of not being overly keen on multi-billion dollar investments in mega projects in the energy field of late. One wonders how such a project can actually get going without federal assistance, and considerable federal assistance. My sources tell me that this administration has explored this matter with the federal administration but to date the required billions from the federal side of things have not been forthcoming, and based on a recent newspaper article in one of last weekend's papers, I think, Mr. Crosbie, the Federal Minister, indicated that billions to assist development of such a project probably would not be forthcoming in the near or immediate future, which sort of contradicted the continuous positive chatter that was coming from my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy for quite some time. So, one wonders if he was trying to put up a positive smoke screen, in light of the negativity abounding in this Province because of this Provincial Budget. Mr. Chairman, what is inches away, what is miles away, minutes away or hours away, or years away, one wonders. Indeed a major energy project of this sort in Labrador now has the entire complicating factor of native land claims and the environmental process, things which are not taken lightly any more in this day and age, and in order to bring a transmission line down to the Island, which the Minister has told me will cost in excess of $1 billion, one cannot possible see such a project going ahead without the backing of the Federal Government, either through equity investment, and/or loan guarantees, significant loan guarantees. Mr. Chairman, the phraseology of the Minister responsible for Tourism about an agreement being inches away, I hope he is right, because the numbers of dollars would probably be in the tens of millions with regard to such an agreement and that may well be within the realm of possibility. Once we start getting into agreements that require monies in the order of billions I do believe that there would probably be a degree of reluctance, if not inability on the part of Ottawa these days to pay. The other problem coming from this, of course, is that the stand that the hon. Premier took during the Constitutional talks some time ago has done absolutely nothing to sweeten, I should say, the relationship between St. John's and Ottawa, or for that matter St. John's and Quebec City. We see, for the first time ever on national television a major constitutional debate and the only player not really on the stage, and really strangely so striking by his absence, is the hon. the Premier of this Province. It would appear that having broken his word with regard to a vote in this Assembly on the earlier Constitutional arrangement, even the Maritime Premiers, it would appear, do not wish to see him at the Constitutional table any more. Certainly his behaviour in the Constitutional area has done nothing to help this Province in getting cost shared arrangements with the Federal Government and certainly nothing to help get some cash from the Federal Government of the magnitude that would be required to finance a project like the Lower Churchill River.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you doing now, making a (inaudible)

MR. HEWLETT: I am saying, Mr. Chairman, that out where I come from in my district the one thing that this Government is not giving people, apart from taking away the obvious jobs of civil servants and so on, this Government is providing no vision, this Government is providing no hope. People out my way have nothing to do but leave. Unfortunately, we have had tremendous numbers of enquiries. It is amazing once the word gets out, Kuwait, I mentioned it a couple of times in the House and I have had a number of calls to my office from constituents: if you know of a company that has a contact in Kuwait let me know and I will have my bags packed tomorrow. Tell me where to go to get my passport, etc. People are desperate for work. On the northeast coast of Newfoundland the forest industry is in decline, we have not opened a mine since I was a teenager, people are desperate and this Government is offering absolutely nothing in the way of hope. It is not even producing any short-term job creation measures. The only program they have on the go requires a commitment for a businessman of sixty weeks which in a seasonal economy is utterly and totally useless, a program that for the most part is not even drawn down upon fully by the business community because they know they cannot use it. A businessman in Springdale a while ago, said he was approved for such a programme and had to back out of it, because given the state of the economy there was no way on earth he could commit to a sixty week programme.

There is absolutely nothing in the Budget for northeast Newfoundland whatsoever. No hope for the future. If I was in the moving business maybe I would set up a sub-office or a regional office out there because I think in due course I would have a lot of clients. Because unfortunately I think my district is about to be continuously depopulated over the next few years, because of inaction on the part of this Government. As I said, we have a tourism committee trying to get something going to diversify the local economy, this Government has been doing absolutely nothing to help and actually is really stifling their efforts.

We have no more trees, we have run out of trees. We do not seem to be able to open any more mines. We have a secondary wood processing plant in Springdale which is really, I guess, a diversification of the economy. It is hanging on by its fingernails. We have got a fish plant at Triton that is hanging on by its fingernails. A fish plant in Little Bay Islands is hanging on by its fingernails, its viability is jeopardized even further lately by a change in the ferry schedule in the area. So this particular Government, for the residents of Green Bay, is offering absolutely nothing. And I do not know - I mean, the hon. gentleman from Pleasantville can get up and talk about the St. John's region and I am sure he has legitimate concerns with regard to his regions, but with regard to my region, Mr. Chairman, there is no hope -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. HEWLETT: This Government offers no hope.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would first of all like to make a few brief comments on what is transpiring in the House.

We are into a debate on Interim Supply which is a normal routine process of government getting money to carry on the business of the Province after the end of the fiscal year so that the full debate on the Budget can take place. This is the normal thing that happens in every Legislature. Budgets normally are not brought in in January or early February. Therefore budgets do not get through by the end of March. So budgets are brought in sometime later than that, hopefully - in most provinces sometime early in March, the end of February, early in March, in other provinces it is not until May or June or whatever. But Interim Supply always has to be obtained before the end of the fiscal year. So it is a normal process to allow a certain amount of money to be provided to government to carry it through the process where there is a complete and full Budget debate.

Mr. Chairman, normally Interim Supply does not take a lot of time. Not a lot of debate time is used up on Interim Supply. It is a normal process. The full Budget debate takes place through the Budget debate itself, and we have already had a couple of days of that. It takes place in the estimates committees where the details of each Department are examined.

Headings that are voted for each department are examined in detail and each department is assigned to three hours of examination where the Minister and the department officials are available to answer the detailed questions, that is where most of the work in terms of the Budget information is done because of the nature of the occasion, with the officials there ready to provide information as well as the Minister. So most of the information about the Budget is obtained during these committees.

Mr. Chairman, we have indicated that we need this bill before the end of the month. Government has to have money to pay its bills. The Opposition has been using up time, an awful lot of time on this routine motion forcing us to the limit. Forcing us to the very last day when they feel that we will then have to take some drastic measures. So, Mr. Chairman, what has been going on is a game, as you are well aware. It has been a game of Opposition Members killing time, saying nothing, with the exception of two or three ten minute segments in the last two weeks, there has been very little said about the Budget, about the Interim Supply and Headings under Interim Supply, very little has been said. And, Mr. Chairman, it is a process of killing time.

So, Mr. Chairman, we are at the point in time where money has to be obtained, in spite of the silly little games that are being played, killing time, saying nothing, wasting the time of the taxpayers of the Province, wasting the money of the taxpayers of the Province and simply killing time. In spite of all of that -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: - and, Mr. Chairman, I should add in response to interjections by the Member for Kilbride that when they were in Government normally they would bring in Interim Supply with maybe two or three days left before the end of the year. It was such a routine procedure. They would bring it in right at the end, well you give Interim Supply anyway because your real Budget debate happens in the Budget debate. It happens in the committees.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Now the Member for Mount Pearl can protest all he wants, but he is just now part of the little game that is being played, part of the play that is being put on the stage at the House of Assembly, and I cannot understand how in all seriousness he can sit there and pretend there is something more than a game going on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: We all understand. The place to get answers is in the Estimates Committees where everybody is available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: If you are interested in the answers: you have spent twenty-two hours now and asked maybe a half dozen questions in total, what a colossal waste of the time of money in terms of the people of this Province, and what a colossal waste of time in this people's House.

So, Mr. Chairman, I give notice that I will on tomorrow pursuant to Standing Order 50 move that the debate on Bill 12 shall not be further adjourned or that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles shall be the first order of business of the Committee and shall not be further postponed.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this procedure that the Government House Leader is following at this point in time is totally out of order. The appropriate time to give notices of Government Motions is during the routine proceedings under Notices of Motions. I think if Your Honour checks with the Table he will find that that is the appropriate time to move such a motion. We went through that today under Notice of Motion. There was no such notice given. Therefore, I would submit that the procedure that is now being used by the Government House Leader is totally out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order. Our Standing Order 50 indicates that any Minister of the Crown, who is standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention to do so. So the motion is in order.

MR. SIMMS: If I might, I am not challenging Your Honor's ruling but I think if he reads it it will be: having given notice.

Standing Order 50 deals with the moving of the closure motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. If the House be in Committee of the Whole or of Supply then a Minister of the Crown can stand in this House and propose this particular motion.

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Chairman, he cannot. He cannot, Mr. Chairman. It says: having given notice. Standing Order 50 deals with one having given notice. I think if you read it again you would want to reflect on that decision.

MR. BAKER: To that second point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not a point of order. The hon. the -

MR. BAKER: Well, there is a second point of order by the Opposition House Leader, that is the one I am responding to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has already ruled that the motion is in order (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) referring to Standing Order 50 -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: -which says that: "Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in Committee of the Whole, or of Supply, or of Ways and Means, any Minister -"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Or if the House has been in Committee of the Whole.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. "Any Minister of the Crown, who, standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention to do so, may move" the closure motion.

Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is what he doing.

MR. SIMMS: - he has not given notice, he is not moving the closure motion, he is trying to give notice of closure which he should have done under Notices. So this is totally -

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is what he doing.

MR. SIMMS: - totally inappropriate -

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we will recess the House so I can confer -

MR. SIMMS: Fine, that is fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: - but the motion is in order.

MR. SIMMS: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But I would like to confer with the Speaker. We will recess the House for five minutes.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

Our Standing Orders are not very clear on that, and when our Standing Orders are not clear we normally go to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. I quote from Standing Order 57 of the House of Commons. The Standing Order is not specific on when an oral notice has to be given, and consequently it has been given, for example, both when there has been a question before the House and when there has not. So I rule that the motion is in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Mr. Chairman! This is a farce!

A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SIMMS: My understanding is that if our own Standing Orders are unclear, the next route you would take would be our own precedents and practices in this House, and very, very clearly the practice is that notices of motion are given under the routine proceedings of the House under that Head. Now what Your Honour is ruling here to now is a startling precedent, and I don't think it is correct. Unfortunately and regrettably, if Your Honour is still not prepared to reconsider this matter then we will have no choice but to challenge the ruling, which we have not done since this Assembly started. I mean, I just think this is an absolute travesty.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't do what you like. I mean, the rules are there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: To that point of order. That was a point of order that was raised by the hon. Member. Should we stop the clock at 4:30? We are supposed to go into the Late Show now, can we stop the clock at 4:30?

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop thed clock.

MR. BAKER: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, the problem is quite simply solved. I know that in the four years that I have been in the House, notices of motion have been given during the time in the Order Paper that indicate Notices of Motion. That does not mean that it is not possible to do it at other times. I have not checked back over the years of the existence of this House, but one thing I do know, Mr. Chairman, is that it is common practice in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and it is accepted -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Relax bye.

MR. BAKER: - and it is acceptable in terms of Beauchesne and the explanation of parliamentary procedure. The mere fact that it has not been done in the last couple of years does not mean that it cannot be done. There are many kinds of notices of motion, we normally give them under Notices of Motion. The point is made in the explanation in Beachesne that ordinarily you would have to be dealing with the matter that you are giving notice on in order to give notice during the Committee stage, but quite obviously it is an acceptable practice in the House of Commons, and if our Standing Orders are silent on it, we go to our custom. If there is no incident previously ruled upon by Speakers, and as far as I know there has been no incident of this nature ruled upon by Speakers in this House of Assembly, then we go to Beauchesne and the House of Commons.

Mr. Chairman, in following that order, I would suggest to you that your ruling is perfectly in order as with the practice in the House of Commons.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am flabbergasted by the argument put forth by the Government House Leader. I mean it just does not wash. The reality is that he said himself, since he has been in the House notices have been given under the routine proceedings. Those are our practices. Now surely our practices in this House come before referring to or reverting to the House of Commons Standing Orders when we make rulings dealing with our own legislature.

Mr. Chairman, I also have to say that I have checked this matter myself with the clerks at the Table and the advice I was given was that notice has to be given beforehand, and the time for giving notices is under the routine proceedings.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, there is no need for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, it is not at anytime. Mr. Chairman, as I say, this matter will not end here, I can assure you. I really want you to rule on this point of order first before we move any further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl on the same point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this standing Order is in no way ambiguous or unclear. It very clearly states that a Minister who is standing in his place shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention to do so may move a motion. Now, that clearly states that the Minister must have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention to make the motion. Mr. Chairman, it is very, very clear. I also submit to Your Honour that in the sixteen years that I have been in this House there has never been such a motion made except at the time in Standing Orders for doing so, and if a motion could be made at any time why therefore would we want something in the Standing Orders saying this is the time to do it. Very clearly the precedent of this House is established by the Standing Orders and by the Orders of the Day which says that this is the time for giving notices of such motion. And, finally, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the practice of this House has always been, the practice of this Government, and the practice of this Minister, has always been to give such notice at the appropriate time in the Standing Orders. I submit that this is totally out of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, my understanding was that the Speaker had ruled that Section 50 applied to the notice of motion made by the Government House Leader. It seems clear from reading the motion itself that it is in fact a notice of motion and not a motion, so Section 50 appears to me to have no application whatsoever to the circumstances. The question is at what point is the Minister permitted to give notices of motion, and quite clearly the rules of our House suggest that there is a Standing Order related to notices of motion and only that Standing Order ought to apply -i.e. the routine business of the day, so I fail to understand how the Chairman can refer to Order 50 at all in dealing with what is in fact a notice of motion. Section 50 says: if the Minister had given notice on a previous sitting he may then move in Committee of the Whole the closure motion, but he is not moving the closure motion he is giving notice of that, so Section 50 has no application whatsoever and we are really dealing with routine business.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am befuddled by the last comment. I could kind of follow some of the other comments but I am kind of befuddled by this. Standing Order 50 is the Standing Order under which you bring in closure. Okay? Standing Order 50. So, after I have given notice I can then stand up, as I intend to do on Monday, under Standing Order 50 and move the closure. Now, Standing Order 50 is clear. That is what I intend to do. The only question here, and what my hon. friends opposite are questioning, is whether it is proper to give notice. It has nothing to do with what the hon. Member for St. John's East said, nothing at all, but I can understand what is being said over here. I just say to my hon. friends that perhaps the matter can be cleared up quite simply. I have given notice, the Chair has ruled on it, and I would be quite willing for the Chair, over the next few hours, or few days even, to check with the precedence, to check with the interpretation of Beauchesne, with the people in Ottawa and so on, and I would not mind if the Chair would come back on Monday with a different ruling and take it under advisement. That surely can be done. We can surely go through that process. That is reasonable, and check in detail the precedence, check with the people in Ottawa that are experts on Beauchesne and so on, and if in fact it is in order and it appears on the Order Paper on Monday, if in fact it is not in order then it does not appear on the Order Paper I then have to give notice of motion again, and would be quite willing to go through that process which seems to be very reasonable and a way of getting out of this problem right now. I would suggest to Your Honour that we could go through that process.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, the more I listen to this debate the more I get the feeling something fishy is going on here. Now let me say once more for clarity, the reference in Standing Order 50 at the initial stage when I raised the first point of order was simply to point out that you had to give notice, and then I referred to the routine proceedings on our Order Paper. Let me further submit to Your Honour Standing Order 14. Standing Order 14 clearly outlines the routine of business in the House shall be as follows, except where priority has been given previously by the House to other orders, and that does not stand here. Statements by Ministers, Oral Questions, Presenting Reports, and Notices of Motion. Now, Mr. Chairman, I say to you how in the name of heavens can you ever rule, Sir, that this Notice of Motion put forth at twenty after four on Thursday afternoon during debate on Interim Supply is in order escapes me, and escapes anybody who has any sense at all about Parliamentary practice and procedure. This is totally out of line and out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Don't worry about my job or anything else, Mr. Chairman, I say to Members opposite. If they want to do some little things behind closed doors then let them be open enough to admit it in the House of Assembly. Because that is what they are up to, I can tell them. And they know that is what they are up to.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am saying to you that this matter is not resolved yet and will not be resolved yet until Your Honour adjourns the House or recesses the House and considers this matter. It is silly to say: well, I am willing to let it sit now today and see what His Honour says on Monday. Look. The Government House Leader did not present his notice of motion under routine business when he should have. It is his mistake. Let him present his notice of motion on Monday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further -

MR. FUREY: Put the real House Leader up over there, b'y, look. Get up, Neil. You're the real House Leader. He's got no control.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have recognized the Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: You don't know what's going on, Neil. You haven't got a clue. You're gone one day and look what happens.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I can't understand why the Opposition House Leader is getting so angry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because he's losing his job.

MR. BAKER: There is an easy way out of this. I suggest to the hon. Member that he control himself. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman opposite he control himself, it is not becoming. I have suggested the proper way out and I am sure that Your Honour, after checking the precedents and checking with the experts on Beauchesne in Ottawa, if in fact Your Honour - or, and checking with the people of the Table, that is fine too, yes, they certainly are good.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I say to the Opposition House Leader, just relax a bit, it is good for your blood pressure. If in fact Your Honour finds -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Len for leader.

MR. BAKER: If in fact Your Honour finds that the ruling is against practice and against the advice of other experts on Beauchesne and so on, then Your Honour can quite easily state so on Monday and I would be quite willing then to, at that point in time - so this is a way out of the dilemma and there is no need for people to get upset and angry and everything else. This is a very sensible, parliamentary way to get out of this, Mr. Chairman. And to get upset -

To get upset is an indication the hon. Members are - you know, they have been wasting time on nothing for the last five or six days and they want to waste some more time on nothing, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Before the -

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the same point of order?

MR. SIMMS: On the point that he just raised, Mr. Chairman, about recessing until Monday or whatever it was he said, I do not know what he said now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh. Okay, well he said you are willing to wait until Monday for a ruling. Now, I mean, that is too silly to talk about. If Mr. Chairman is not prepared to stand by the ruling he gave earlier, and he wishes to reconsider the matter, then all he has to simply do now is recess the House now, go phone Ottawa now, go phone London, go phone Calgary, talk to their Clerks. And if it takes a half an hour or an hour, come back and give us a ruling in this House today. Not two or three days from now. I mean, that is absolutely silly.

And why didn't the Government House Leader present his notice of motion back under routine proceedings? Then we would not have had a problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I will hear one more submission from the hon. Member for St. John's East, and the Chair is ready to rule.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Government House Leader was befuddled by my comments so I will try and unmuddyify them or whatever it is that Alan Fotheringham says in his column. I will try and demystify them. Order 50 says when the closure motion can be made. It can be made in Committee or it can be made at any other time. But it is required to have as a condition precedent that notice be given at a previous sitting. So what he was doing today was giving notice at the previous sitting. So the question is: Can that be done in Committee or must it be done under routine business? That seems to be the question.

However, I have to say what the hon. Government House Leader has proposed makes a lot of sense, if he is prepared to live or die by the ruling of the Chair on Monday, if the Chair says he cannot give notice during Committee then he has to give notice again and we cannot have closure until Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday or whenever he gives his notice. So I think despite the fact that it would be nice to have a ruling from the Chair immediately, if the Government House Leader and the Government is prepared to live by the ruling of the Chair on Monday after thorough consideration I think that makes sense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair made the ruling that to give notice of motion was in order. I checked with the Clerks at the Table and the experts who are here, and on their advice I ruled that it was in order. And since that time we have researched the topic more and we find that in 71, when the Committee rose, and after the Committee had reported: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will give notice that I will move that Rule 50 be invoked in the debate on Interim Supply. So I will move based on our expertise in this particular House and not based on Ottawa that it is in order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, regrettably I must challenge Your Honour's ruling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Listen there were no Standing Orders in 1971 in Joey's day, do not be so foolish.

MR. WINDSOR: It was a dictatorship then and it is a dictatorship now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You are taking the House on your back again. A bunch of hooligans over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We move that the Committee rise, so I can report the challenge of the Speaker's ruling to the -

MR. BAKER: Rise the Committee and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I already moved that Committee rise so we will have to report to the Speaker.

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

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

While we were in Committee, the Chair made a ruling which was opposed and I guess the normal procedure is that the House would vote on the ruling of the Chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the ruling of the Chairman in Committee be sustained?

All those in favour, `Aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `Nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling is sustained.

Are we into the Late Show now?

MR. SIMMS: God only knows, Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody knows.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think if you checked Hansard you will see that we stopped the clock at 4:30, so -

Debate on the Adjournment

[Late Show]

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, today I asked a question of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations concerning the Student Employment Program for this Summer, and I tried to make the point of the importance of a fairly good student program. I was not satisfied with her answer, because she seemed to say she did not know very much about it but she would have a program ready in a few days which she would be ready to announce.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I did before on behalf of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I wish to do on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I wish to announce today a Student Program for the upcoming year. The program, available to all employers in the Province, provides for a wage subsidy for student employees. It provides a employer with a 50 per cent wage subsidy, to a maximum of $3.00 an hour, for a minimum of twenty-five hours a week and a maximum of forty hours a week. The student must be employed for a minimum of five weeks and a maximum of eighteen weeks. To be eligible, the student is a person who will be attending a post-secondary institution in the Fall of 1991, is a resident of the Province, and is not an immediate family member of owners or proprietors of the enterprise submitting the application.

In addition, the student is someone who has attended school during the present calendar year and has demonstrated an intent to attend a post-secondary institute in the Fall of 1991. It is noted that the program provides an excellent opportunity for businesspeople in the Province to avail of the services of one of our most valuable resources, our young people. That is the Student Program that is going to be announced sometime in the future by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. But that program is not good enough for the students of this Province. In this announcement the Minister is about to make in the next little while, I would imagine there is no dollar value as to how much money is available. Is there going to be $100,000 in this program? Will there be $1 million in this program? Will it suit the needs of only a few students in this Province for different areas? Is it going to work on a first-come, first-served basis, Mr. Speaker? There are many, many questions that need to be answered with this statement of the new program for student employment from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to also announce publicly that applications must be postmarked on or before May 30. It is about time the Minister announced this program, so that people can get in their applications. Because there is only one month. Now if they have to get their application in by May 3, then we have an assessment process after May 3, it is reasonable to assume that sometime at the end of May some of the students might be able to get work on this program. Now they will be off from the middle of April, so they will have the rest of April and all May without employment. Then they have only June, July and August left to make enough money to pay the 30 per cent increase in tuition fees which has been brought in since this administration took over, and pay for the increase in residence fees which have been implemented because of the budgetary restraints of this administration.

I think the delay in this announcement is not as innocent as it seems.

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to be able to stand and again address the question brought up by the hon. Member for Kilbride, and I certainly intend to answer it in a much more civilized and pleasant way than the question was directed toward me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MS. COWAN: I think we have what we will find is a very adequate programme for our young people this summer. It certainly will be analyzed and kept close track of to see if indeed it is. We have $600,000 set aside now in the Budget for this particular programme. We also have coming into the Province $11 million from the Federal Government, under the Challenge Programme, which will again lead to all sorts of student employment.

We have, as well, about a half a million dollars in the Budget which you would not probably immediately remark on, but the fact is we do have a half a million dollars there scattered about in the different Departments for the employment of students in Government offices over the summer. As well, we have a programme for students. They will be hired for the parks, as they always have in the past.

So I do feel confident that indeed we do have a very good programme here. It seems that the hon. Member for Kilbride seems to feel it is very clever that he got a copy of my press release before it went on the airwaves tomorrow. I must tell him that I am not exactly shattered by that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Yes, nothing sneaky about it at all. I have a very efficient secretary. I asked her yesterday if she would make sure that everybody in the House got a copy of that because I feel so - what do you call it? - dedicated, I guess, to the youth of this Province that I wanted to make sure that our MHAs on both sides of the House had the information as soon as it was available. So there it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: That is right, fairness and balance.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was never done before.

MS. COWAN: No, no. And my secretary looked rather amazed, having lived through the last regime, and said you mean to say you want it to go to the Opposition? And I said, of course. The youth in our Province are far too important to let political thoughts get in the way.

So all being well, if the media is on the ball tomorrow this will be announced throughout the Province and our young people can start making their plans for the summer. The Member for Kilbride, if you would like me to forward to your department any applications for students in your District, please do not hesitate, as well the Member for Fogo, the Member for Exploits - anybody from any district - do not hesitate and we will do what we can to help you or direct you to other areas, like the Challenge from the Federal program.

So I feel quite pleased indeed, Mr. Speaker, that we have this program which I think will go a long way towards providing most of the students in Newfoundland with employment this summer, particularly if they live in an area where there are some businesses which can take advantage of the subsidy. This, along with our $3.625 million in the Youth Strategy Program, which is aimed at keeping our young people in school, as well as our graduate program for those graduates who are having trouble finding employment, I feel constitutes a very good program for the young people in this Province, particularly when we are working under very difficult financial times. We have managed to find the money to keep the young people of this Province in work this summer, and hopefully will keep them in school when they have that added income to help with tuition fees, books, whatever they need to sustain their stay at school. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Ferryland.

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In listening to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations talking about fairness and balance, I want to talk a little bit about fairness and balance today, and about the very unsatisfactory answers I received from the President of Treasury Board as it relates to a very unusual situation which is now taking place in the health sector of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand where you can get fairness and balance. As I have said many times in this House, and many Members on this side have said, the Budget is not balanced and it is not fair. We all acknowledge there are fiscal problems in the Province, and all the fiscal burden is on the backs of the public sector employees, either through wage rollbacks or very substantial layoffs in the public service.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough to have a system whereby the public sector are getting the full brunt of our fiscal problems, but now we find in the public sector there are two different sets of rules. On Monday morning there are 300 to 400 workers in the health care system who are going to receive a 3 per cent to 4 per cent increase - 3 per cent in April, and I think 3 per cent or 4 per cent again in October or November. So this year some workers in the health care system are going to receive a 7 per cent pay increase, while workers in exactly the same category in other parts of the health care sector are not going to get the 7 per cent increase. Mr. Speaker, that is not fair and it is not balanced, and somewhere along the way this Government has to take the onus for being able to pay salary increases to some employees and no salary increases to other very comparable employees in the same situations.

Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough if it was only for this year, but under Bill 16, the Act that was brought in to roll back the wages of our public sector employees, there is a section called Section 8 which basically says that workers can never get an increase to make up for the wage freeze. So, in effect, what this Government is now doing is going to legislate forever and a day the fact that 300 or 400 workers are going to be paid a higher rate of pay than their counterparts in the public service system. We think that is extremely unfair. We think it is very unwise for the Government. The idea of parity in the public sector is never going to be achieved, at least by these workers who are going to get the benefits. The other workers are going to be penalized, and we suggest to the Minister responsible for Treasury Board that he should rectify this situation. And the means we suggest for rectifying it is that this Government live up to the legitimate, negotiated contracts that were signed, that were negotiated by public sector unions, and that those are the wage increases all employees should get.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say again that this is simply another example of how this Government has not thought through their wage freeze and are now penalizing some employees and helping some others.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just very briefly indicate to the hon. gentleman that the legislation we have brought into this House imposes a one year freeze on the public sector employees. The employees he is referring to are employees who are under contract to contractors who have gotten a contract from some institutions and we cannot extend, no matter how much the Opposition pleads for us to do it, the freeze to the private sector.

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

MR. WINDSOR: On the 29th of June, Mr. Speaker, of 1972 a Royal Commission report was presented by one Mr. Fabian O'Dea, who subsequently became Lieutenant-Governor of this Province. It was a Royal Commission report commissioned to look into all matters relating to the Newfoundland Liquor Board as it was at the time, the Newfoundland Liquor Commission, and it dealt with many issues, not the least of which were some rather unusual leases that had been entered into by the previous Government, but it also dealt with the role of the Newfoundland Liquor Board as it was at the time, or the Board of Liquor Control.

It made a number of recommendations, Mr. Speaker, and I will just refer to two of them. `The Newfoundland Liquor Commission should be re-organized and should consist of a single chief commissioner who shall devote his whole time to the business of the Commission', and of four other outside members appointed by Order-in-Council.

`The licencing and inspection functions of the Newfoundland Liquor Commission should be separated from its other functions by the setting up of a separate licencing board to grant licences for the sale of alcoholic liquors and to inspect licenced premises. It was a great debate that took place during that period of time on separating the two functions. Because it was becoming very obvious at that time and it has been ever since, that there is a conflict between the function of promoting the sale of and marketing liquors, of being responsible to the Minister of Finance, to return some $81 million, I believe this year, in revenues to Government. That is the role of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation today, to market alcoholic beverages throughout the Province and to return $80 million in revenues from the sale of those beverages.

On the other hand, as this Commission recommended and adopted and accepted, the subsequent Act passed in 1973, The Liquor Control Act, established the Liquor Licencing Board with a mandate to oversee, to inspect liquor premises and to ensure compliance with The Liquor Act. Now the role of selling alcohol and the role of ensuring compliance with the Act are clearly in conflict. That is why the roles were separate.

My questions to the President of Treasury Board a couple of days ago were very simply, Why then has this Government now chosen to combine those two Agencies, to unilaterally dismiss the Chairman and the Board of the Liquor Licencing Board without any consultation with the Board of either corporation? All the responsibility now of the Liquor Licencing Board is being passed to the Liquor Corporation; there was no consultation with either one of the Boards, there was no consultation with either Chairman.

The Chairman of the Liquor Licencing Board was called to the Premier's Office and summarily dismissed with ten days notice, six working days notice. Effective today, the Chairman of that Board and eight other employees, long-time, valued employees, have been dismissed by this Government, with only six working days notice - ten calendar days notice.

The Minister is shaking his head. I tell him that on the 20th of this month the Chairman of the Liquor Licencing Board was called to the Premier's Office and told that his services would no longer be required as of the 31st of the month - no consultation whatsoever. And the Chairman of the Liquor Corporation heard about it through the public reports in the media; he heard that he is now responsible for all the functions of the Liquor Licencing Board, all the licencing of liquor establishments, all the enforcement and inspection of the Liquor Licencing Board throughout the Province. And he did not know how he was going to do it, because there is a Liquor Control Act which gives the Liquor Licencing Board the authority to do those things; nobody as of the 31st of this month has the authority - nobody has the authority. The Act is very, very clear. It gives the Chairman of the Liquor Licencing Board the mandate to issue such licences. It is very clear. I read that section out a couple of days ago, I will not bother to quote again - I did so when I was questioning the Minister.

Why did the Minister not consult? On what basis was the decision made? No advice from either one of the Boards, and clearly without any concept of how this new corporation is now going to function without having new legislation introduced; new legislation will be required - new legislation will be required. In the interim, maybe there is some legal way that this can be manipulated. I will grant that that is a possibility. We see no evidence of it yet, and we are three days away from the end of this month. So we see no evidence yet of how this is to be accomplished.

The key point, Mr. Speaker, is why was there no consultation? Why were the Boards not consulted as to whether this was advisable or not advisable? Why was the Board, the Chairman and eight other employees, dismissed outright?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister of Finance is not going to answer?

MR. BAKER: It was my question. You asked me.

MR. WINDSOR: In the absence of the Minister of Finance. Is he not allowed to answer today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I am sorry, but when Mr. Speaker read out the request it was that the answer given by the President of Treasury Board was unacceptable, and I want to explain why it was unacceptable. It is as simple as that. I do not know why the Member for Mount Pearl is getting all upset now. He should have another chat with the Opposition House Leader and perhaps together they should take a relaxing course.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. gentlemen. I realize the answer I gave was not satisfactory, simply because the Member for Mount Pearl, in his questions, made some statements I did not believe were correct. But knowing the gentleman, I thought I had better be careful and not say they were incorrect until I checked things out. I indicated to him I would find out, that I was kind of unsure about the answer. So now I will give him the answer. The answer is that there are still two boards, a Liquor Licencing Board and there is the Board of the Liquor Corporation, and these boards are totally separate. The only change is that the Chairman of the Liquor Corporation will serve as Chairman of the Liquor Licencing Board. He previously sat on that Board anyway, and we felt the two paid positions were not necessary. We were looking for ways to cut money, and one of the ways was to cut out what we felt were unnecessary duplications. And we have done this in a number of ways; we have done this throughout the whole public service.

So in actual fact the only change is a change at the top. The Chairman of the Liquor Corporation becomes Chairman of the Liquor Licencing Board. The Board stays in place, the process stays in place, the people stay in place, and there is no conflict. It is simply a matter of expediency, and it was one of the places where we found that we could save a little bit of money by combining the purely administrative functions of the two. Now when it comes to the regulatory function, it is maintained in an independent way and there is no possibility of conflict of interest, Mr. Speaker. So I hope the Member for Mount Pearl gets a little bit of relaxation over the weekend.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn. It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour `Aye'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against `Nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.


 

March 28, 1991 (Night)     HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS       Vol. XLI  No. 18A


MR. BAKER: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

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

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have a few words in this debate.

MR. MURPHY So you should.

MR. R. AYLWARD: As the Member for St. John's South said, so I should and he is correct, I should, as should he.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some mention of this Bill on Interim Supply as it relates to the situation in which the Government find themselves in having to cut back on staff, on expenditures, and pretty well everything because they found themselves short of money. I believe the announcements that went out indicated that the cutbacks would be from all across Government plus the health system and the Government departments, and now the Crown corporations. You would expect that people in leadership roles in this Government would be the first people to show the example of the necessity for cutbacks. So, obviously they cut back first and whatever they could not make up, they kept on going.

Mr. Chairman, if you look at the Estimates for 1991, as presented by the Minister of Finance when he read his Budget Speech, you expect to see cutbacks in pretty well every heading in every department, somewhat of a cutback; it is impossible to do them all, but certainly Executive Council would be the leader of departments for cutting back. But what do we see in the Estimates for 1991, as it relates to the cutbacks for this year.

Mr. Chairman, we can start off with the Premier's Office. The Premier's Office last year budgeted $203,000 and this year they are budgeting $209,000; that does not sound like a cutback in that area. They overspent last year to $221,000 again, Mr. Chairman, spending more money than they had budgeted. So, I would imagine, just because they had budgeted more money this year rather than cut back could very well be another expenditure.

You go to the next heading, Mr. Chairman, for Executive Support and you would expect, certainly, in the Executive Support we would have a cutback because we did have them in hospitals and we did have it in schools and we certainly saw the day when we had it at the university so, for Executive Council, certainly, they should have started to cut back too. What do we have in Executive Support from last year's revised figure of $707,000? This year we have almost $730,000, certainly not a cutback, to my mind, but Social Services got a cutback, health got a cutback, and education got a cutback while the Executive Support of Executive Council did not get a cutback; that sounds passing strange to me. Administration in the Premier's Office, Mr. Chairman, certainly would have taken a cutback to show a leadership role in this Province. To show this fairness and balance, certainly the Premier's Office and the Administration of the Premier's Office would show a cutback, but the last year's revised figure was $1,122,000 and this year it is $1,145,000, a small increase no doubt, not a cutback, not a cutback like Transportation had to go through, not a cutback like Social Services had to go through, but it is an increase, even be it small. Then, we go on to the Cabinet Secretariat for their current budget, Mr. Chairman, and the President of the Executive Council, the one who is going to spend all this money they collect in taxes and look after the cutbacks and make sure they do not overspend this year.

The President of Executive Council under heading 2.2.01: Last year he spent $800 and I congratulated him on that, because he had $27,000 budgeted and only spent $800. This year, he did not cut back. There is not much to cut back on, but this year he is budgeting for $14,000. That is not a cutback. From what he spent last year, which was only $800 and which is commendable, this year, he has it up to $14,000. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is not a cutback as in Health and in Social Services, it is an increase. That was an increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am using examples out of your Budget. This is the Minister of Finance's document. I mean, just because I am pointing them out here - we have the Resource and Social Policy Committees of Cabinet. Now, these two committees, you would expect, definitely were going to show a leadership role and cut back, because our hospital beds are closed, 450 of them at least, and we have nurses laid off, 300 or so, I am not sure of what the numbers were now. But, Mr. Chairman, last year they spent $7,300 so you would expect they would at least try to keep it even anyway, keep it the same this year, budget for the same. You might not be able to cut that much on it, because it is not a great lot of money, but from the $7,300 last year, this year's budget is $17,000. Mr. Chairman, they have upped it by 50 per cent in the Resource and Social Policy Committees of Cabinet. Now, these are the people who are making the decisions on cutbacks. Fisheries got a cutback, and the Minister of Fisheries certainly knows we need more money to put into fisheries development. We need more money to develop secondary processing in this Province if we are going to get any new jobs in fisheries because, with our stocks down, there are not very many other jobs left.

But what have the Resource Policy and Social Policy Committees done? They have increased their budget for this year over what they spent. That, to my mind, is not a good leadership example when we have hospitals having problems, Placentia, and I think there was something in the paper today about Carbonear and Old Perlican having problems in health care this year.

Mr. Chairman, we then go on to Executive Support. Now Executive Support is a fairly substantial budget here from last year, estimated and spent. They estimated last year that they would spend $663,000. Now, they over spent on that $703,400, so they spent a lot of money extra or some money extra last year. I am not saying it was necessary or not necessary; I do not know what they spent it on. But, because of the severe cutbacks this year, they were going to cut back. Obviously, everyone in the country would say, yes, they would cut back this year, even though it is hard and they need every cent they can get to try to administer this Province.

What did they do this year? From the $663,000 budgeted last year, we have $785,200. That is not a cutback, not a cutback the same as happened in Health. That is not what happened to the LaPoile hospital. They did not get a bit of extra money just to try to keep even. And if this money only keeps them even, these people did not get that extra money just to keep them even with what they had last year. They got less money and they lost services.

Mr. Chairman, if we keep on Executive Council as presented by the Minister of Finance, we come to Administration of Executive Support. Last year, they budgeted $504,600; this year, there are severe restraints, so we are going to cut back. We spent a little more last year than we had budgeted for. There were obviously valid reasons for that because we had to close hospital beds and lay off people. Mr. Chairman, last year, $504,000 was budgeted, and because we have this great leadership in this Province and this Cabinet is showing such great leadership, they cut back. Obviously, they must have cut back. But what do we have? - $521,000, an extra $20,000 in administration for Executive Support. That, to me, does not sound like a cutback. The hospitals in the Province found they got cut back, the social services people got cut back and, Mr. Chairman, the youth of this Province were eliminated. The Youth Advisory Board was wiped out completely, but not the administration of Executive Council, they got an increase.

Mr. Chairman, we will move on to Economic Research and Analysis, the next heading in Executive Council. Certainly, they cut back because of the severity of the Budget this year, caused, the Minister of Finance said, by all the borrowing of the last seventeen years.

Last year, they saved a bit of money. They did not spend the whole amount budgeted for, $681,000, they spent $636,900, so they cut back a bit this year because this is a real tough year. What did they spend? I see here that they did not cut back; they have budgeted $676,400. That is not a cutback.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is difficult enough to be in the House of Assembly on the eve of Easter, but when you have a duty and a responsibility, nobody minds and takes any great objection to being in the House, when it is absolutely necessary and it is important that the people's House be represented on both sides with accuracy and to the best of one's ability.

The member who just spoke, the hon. the Member for Kilbride, is a former Cabinet Minister. I do not know how many terms he has served in the Cabinet, but I believe, at least two; I came to know him when he was Minister of Agriculture. And I would have thought that in one term as Minister, he would know where responsibility lies in administration in government and he would also know with some accuracy what restraint and financial responsibilities mean to the Province and to people in government, where you have to make hard and fast decisions.

I really do not believe that the hon. member, himself, believes the few points he made were accurate because they were not. One of the particular areas where he talked about cutbacks was in the Department of Social Services, but there were no cutbacks in the Department of Social Services.

If you look at the overall budget of the Department of Social Services, there were substantial increases. There is no question about that. And I have no problem sitting down with the hon. member at any time and going over it budget by budget, detail by detail; in fact, I could do it from memory, I do not even have to use the book, and I will do it at any time.

But we have a responsibility. No minister or government takes any great pleasure in making the hard decisions, the difficult decisions we have had to make over the last several months. I speak for myself and I think I can speak honestly for all the ministers in Cabinet. My colleagues and I have discussions on a regular basis. We make decisions and support each other, but it is no pleasure. We would have preferred, had we been able, to increase every department's programmes, staff and administration in whatever way necessary, not doing it lightly, but just to increase programmes and staff where necessary. The point is, though, there is just not enough money and you have to make decisions.

Now, you have to keep two things in mind. You have to make decisions that are financially responsible and, also, you have to make decisions by which you do not deplete the resource departments, you do not take away the service to people in social programmes and you have to be responsible to the operations of government with respect to Treasury Board and Finance.

So what do you do? You look very seriously at each minister's responsibility to his or her department, to see where cuts can be made and where control measures can be put in place, to properly control and manage that department, and, at the same time, be responsible, as I have to be, as Minister of Social Services, for the needs of an individual.

Now, if the hon. Member for Kilbride were honest in putting forth some good, solid information about restraints, look at the role of each Cabinet Minister as compared to the former Cabinet Ministers. If I wanted to, as a Cabinet Minister, I could travel this Province or this country, on any number of occasions. From the number of invitations I get from other ministers and other programmes across Canada, I can travel at any time I wish and take an entourage of civil servants, executive people, with me, as I feel necessary. Nobody has to make any great plans or get permission from anyone to do that, because you have some leeway to do that as a minister in a particular department.

If you look at the expense account of ministers on this side of the House of Assembly, in this Government today, and the travel over the last two or three years in Government, why is it we are not travelling as much as we normally would? Sometimes you would probably choose to travel a little bit more, but you do not because the money and the need is not there. You do not do it flippantly, you do it with some responsibility.

As Minister of Social Services, I was invited to travel to Norway, I was invited to travel out to Calgary, and I was invited to travel to Ireland. One of the reasons I was invited to travel to Norway was to see what impact a large development like Hibernia would have on the country of Norway, and bring back a report so we could see what kind of impact Hibernia would have on rural Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you go?

MR. EFFORD: No, I did not go. I got the information in written form. It cost a few postage stamps.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you ever going?

MR. EFFORD: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never?

MR. EFFORD: Well, I will not say never; never is a long time. I have no intention of going. But the former Minister of Social Services went, and I have searched for the report up and down the Department of Social Services and I cannot find one documented word on the report. I am not saying he should not have gone to Norway. He probably had all good intentions. He probably brought back his ideas and thoughts in his mind, but he certainly never documented them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) policies.

MR. EFFORD: Well, I have yet to see the policies, but they may very well be. I am not saying that he should not have gone to Norway. What I am saying is, if you are going to be in a responsible position, if you are going to administer a particular department, and you have to make some hard and fast decisions, there is a more efficient and better way of doing things. I could draft up a letter and write to the people in charge of the social programmes in countries like Norway or Ireland and get all the studies and documentation. All I have to do is present it to the executive of the department and implement and put together a policy where we can adequately deal with the effects Hibernia would have on the social programmes, or the social culture, in an area like rural Newfoundland, Clarenville or the Burin Peninsula, wherever the major developments are going to take place.

Let us compare the Ministers of Development. Is it necessary for a Minister of Development to be on board a flight every single day, every week, every month? I do not think so, not with the world of technology, with the computer system and the fax machines. The postal system is not what it used to be forty or fifty years ago. We have no problems telephoning and asking for information. There are times you will have to travel, but when the money is not available in a particular department, it is not necessary to do it if there is a better means, a more efficient and cheaper way of doing it. It is important.

The hon. Member for Kilbride was pointing out, there are not enough cutbacks in administration. I think, if you are going to efficiently run a government, and you are going to improve things, you have to bring the economy back. You just do not sit down and make restraints and leave it at that. You have to look at the development of the Province for the future, and you have to have strong administration. Surely goodness, the hon. member does not expect to lay off every administrator, every executive class in all departments of Government. Is that his answer to solving the problem? You would still have to develop, you still have to take care of your social programmes, your resource departments have to be protected at a level to maintain some development for the future. We know it is the place of an Opposition to be critical. Certainly, I served in that role for four years but, at least, when you stand up and criticize or ask a question, or make some suggestions, you at least have some background on what you are talking about, and some sense of responsibility. If you are criticizing what the administration of the day is doing, then you make some suggestions about the proper way of dealing with a problem. It frustrates me to know that hon. members opposite have been in administration for so long, yet know so little. That is one of the most difficult things. I want to speak for a couple of minutes about the social programmes of the Department of Social Services. I do not know why hon. members are not recognizing what is written in front of them in the Budget for the Department of Social Services. We have a major increase, and I am not talking about dollars and cents, we have a major increase in programmes in the Department of Social Services. There is absolutely no loss, no deterioration of any programmes, whatsoever. In fact, in pretty well all of the programmes, there are major increases.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the Employment Programme?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, in the Employment Programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the Youth Employment Programme?

MR. EFFORD: I am speaking for the Department of Social Services. The Department of Social Services does not employ youth; perhaps the hon. member is not aware of that. I am speaking now about the Employment Generation Programme in the Department of Social Services, where there is no loss of money, whatsoever; last year there was $25 million and this year there is $25 million. Service delivery? There is no loss of services anywhere. There were no social workers laid off anywhere in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the Budget last year, by the way?

MR. EFFORD: The Budget last year was $24 million, and this year it is $25 million, and one of the reasons for it was the change in Bill C-21, from fourteen weeks down to ten weeks. When the bill was changed, late in the year, we had some adjustments to do in the programme, and when it came to budget, we ended up with a $1 million surplus in the Employment Enhancement Programme.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: I thank the hon. minister for taking part in the debate. I understand all he said, Mr. Chairman. All I am trying to do is make an analogy here. When the Minister of Finance read his Budget, we were in such desperate shape that we had to close hospital beds, cut back on schools, fire nurses and fire a lot of public servants. All I am saying is that the executive branch of this Government who had to do that should have shown some leadership. They should have cut back, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, I am going over executive council now, and we will continue with it, if the minister likes. I got as far as Economic Research and Analysis. I think I did that one. You spent $636 last year and you budgeted $676 this year, so that was the cutback that you just said you did?

MR. EFFORD: What page is that?

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is page 16, under heading 2.2.05. That was a little increase. Now, we will go on to 2.2.06, Resource Policy and Analysis. Last year, you budgeted $261 and you did save some money, you only spent $191,000, but you spent $191,000 and you budgeted $237,000 this year. That is not a cutback from what you spent. It is a bit of a cutback from what you budgeted. I give you credit for that, but you did not spend that last year. I am not trying to confuse the figures. I am just looking at the sets of figures that your Minister of Finance gave me, and figures for Executive Council that I would have expected to show some leadership. We will have to move on past that one, now, continuing with Cabinet Secretariat, Social Policy Analysis. Well, last year, you budgeted $83,800 and you saved some, you did not spend it all. Congratulations, last year. You only spent $48,200.

But this year it was much worse than last year. This year we would have had, if we kept going, a $250 million deficit instead of the $130 million we had. So, since we only spent $48,000 last year, because it is so bad this year we are going to cut back a bit. I think the logic in that is reasonable. It might not take any great intellect to come up with it. Last year, we spent $48,200 so we cut back this year and spent $53,400. It might be new math, I do not know, I did not do new math when I was in school, but that is not a cutback in my old-fashioned mathematics when I was in Grade II. So far, I have gone through ten of the headings in the Office of the Executive Council, and ten out of ten have increased, either over the budget or what was spent last year, ten out of ten. I found a breakthrough, or what I hope to be a breakthrough. Newfoundland Statistics Agency last year budgeted $368,700. They overspent last year to $407,800, so they spent more than they budgeted last year. Obviously, there must have been logical reasons, or the Auditor General -

The first heading, number one out of eleven, you are actually saving money. You cut it down by $57,000. That is the first out of eleven headings where we have a cutback in Executive Council, so maybe this is where it is going to continue. We start the cutbacks here and we will continue on.

Classification Appeal Boards: I expect these boards will not be very busy next year because they have gutted all the agreements and probably they are not going to classify or work on any appeals. Last year, you budgeted $154,000. I congratulate you for not spending the whole amount, you only spent $98,100. But this year our budget position would have been much worse had we continued at that rate of $98,100, so we cut back more - good logic I think. But, I see here, now, on page 17, under Classification Appeal Boards, we budgeted this year, $132,800. That is more than you spent last year. It is less that you budgeted last year, I will give you credit for that, but this year's budget was supposed to be much worse than last year and you only spent $98,000, so you cut back a bit, I think. Obviously, my logic is wrong. So we have twelve subheads, so far, eleven increases, and one decrease.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) decrease of (inaudible) dollars.

MR. R. AYLWARD: In Classification and Pay, last year you spent $98,100.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I am giving the three sets. In this one, I congratulated you for saving money last year. You saved $50,000-odd last year - good. I agree, that is good. But this year's budget was supposed to be worse than last year's budget, you could only afford to spend $98,100 last year, this year's budget was supposed to be worse if you continued on the same track. That is what the Minister of Finance said - not my words - the Minister of Finance and the Premier said that. This year, we are going to go less than $98,000 - no we did not, we went to $132,000, so the logic is gone again. So we have twelve now, that is eleven increases and one decrease.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I agree, they are estimates. I agree with that. So, should you not be estimating a bit lower than you spent last year, because our budget is worse?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Our budget position is not worse, then, so you are increasing it. Are you telling me, our budget projections, had we continued as we did last year - had we continued as we did last year, our budget position would have been worse, a $250 million deficit, I believe, somewhere in that vicinity, I was told.

We will move on to the Offshore Fund Administration: I expect probably you would need more money in that one, I will not argue against that one. You budgeted last year, $2.8 million and change and you spent $2.6 million, so congratulations on saving a couple of hundred thousand dollars last year. I expect you would probably save more this year, but maybe, a full year of administration on that offshore fund is going to cost a bit more, and you have budgeted $2.1 million. Maybe that is necessary, I do not know. Maybe there will be more activity. Hopefully, there will be a lot more activity, and that offshore fund will be much better used.

We will move on to Treasury Board Secretariat. This is the one that is definitely going to show us leadership. I know, when I was in Treasury Board, the only word in the English language we were ever allowed to use was `no'. The President of Treasury Board, at that time, told us to keep saying `no'. However, he kept saying `yes'. I remember, Dr. Twomey and I sat side by side at the table, and we were probably two of the `no' people, more than anything else.

Anyway, we will go on to Treasury Board, now, and this is where we will see leadership. Last year, we budgeted $187,000. Now, this is for the President of Treasury Board. This is his vote. Last year, he budgeted $187,800. He overspent it a little bit; with the problems we had last year, I do not blame him for overspending a little bit. He had a rough year, and I do not envy him the year he had last year. This year, Mr. Chairman, he is cutting back $1,000 over what he spent, but, from what he budgeted for last year, he has increased a little bit, not very much. One thousand dollars is not going to make or break this Province one way or the other, but there is a leadership question here. Is Treasury Board going to show leadership in cutting back, because of problems with the hospitals in Port aux Basques, Placentia, Clarenville, Carbonear? Mr. Chairman's area, Old Perlican, has problems, and we do not have a leadership.

We will carry on. Treasury Board, Committee of Cabinet: There cannot be politicians on that Committee of Cabinet, it must be staff, because they certainly would have cut back, I suppose. Maybe they are going to have more meetings, and they need more dinners. Last year, you budgeted $13,000, and, congratulations, only spent half of it. Good deal! This year's budget is worse, so you are going to go a bit lower than the $7,500 you spent last year, because we are in worse shape. But you have gone right back up to more than you budgeted, you have gone to $14,500. That is not leadership. That is not a cutback, it is an increase. Just in case you are confused - I know the Minister of Finance gets confused every now and then - that is an increase. From $13,000 budgeted, $7,500 spent, to $14,500 budgeted is an increase. No matter how you look at it, no matter how you add it up or subtract it, that is another increase. We have done fifteen headings under Executive Council, so far, and we have one decrease and fourteen increases. Now, we are doing pretty well.

We are going to Executive Support now, and Executive Support certainly will show a bit of leadership. Last year, they budgeted $305,000 and a bit, but they spent more than that. They spent $326,000, so that is not a cutback. This year, we are in much worse shape, so it will be a bit less than the $326,000, at least. Here, we have $335,400, another increase. However I look at that, I see an increase here. If I am wrong, somebody tell me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to have a few words to say in this debate. I know the hon. members opposite are trying to drag this out as long as they can. We have been two weeks now dealing with an Interim Supply Bill that, in the ordinary course, should go through in two or three hours. The hon. members opposite did not know how to govern when they were here, and they do not know how to oppose now that they are over there. They think that in order to oppose they have to stop everything from coming to a vote, just hold it, deadhead it, and bring it to a dead stop, bring government services to a dead stop.

Now, you have the hon. Member for Kilbride standing up and reading out these figures, trying to find something to say. It is reminiscent of the senators reading out the names on the petitions, Mr. Chairman. It is the same kind of approach. Worse still, it is a complete misrepresentation of the reality.

I will deal with my own office, one for which I have a particular responsibility. The simple fact is, Mr. Chairman, there has been a decrease in the expenditures in the Premier's Office every single year since we have been in office. The last year of the former government, it got up to $2,045,400. Now, admittedly, a part of that was due to severence pay, at the time. But, at the very least, the budgeted amount on the equivalents was $1,471,600. That was the budgeted amount for their last year in office.

In our first year in office, we cut that down to $1,388,900, and, in fact, Mr. Chairman, we only spent $1,264,700. So, we budgeted down and dropped another hundred off it. Last year, we budgeted $1,169,000 and spent $1,122,000, so we dropped more off it. This year, Mr. Chairman, we are budgeting for less than we budgeted for last year. Now, we are budgeting for $24,000 less this year than we budgeted for last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: You spent that.

PREMIER WELLS: We spent $1,122,000. So we are budgeting for $21,000 more than we spent, because we were able to save things. We did not waste money like the former Government did, merely because it was in the budget. We have cut the cost of the Premier's Office by several hundred thousand dollars, notwithstanding that the normal cost, and salaries and expenditures and everything have gone up. I think that is good performance.

To listen to the diatribe coming from the hon. member opposite, as he moans on about these increases in the Executive Office, and no increases in social services or health or education, that is utterly false, Mr. Chairman. There are substantial increases in education, substantial increases in health, substantial increases in social services, substantial increases -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - it is there in the budget, all hon. members can read it, substantial increases over last year's budget, Mr. Chairman. The figures are there. The hon. Minister just spelled it out. It is clear. Yet, the member stands up and tries to find something to say to kill time. We would be far better advised to pass this Interim Supply Bill, which is a normal measure that a Government looks for at this time of the year, and then we bring in the Budget and you have a full Budget Debate on the Budget and the details of the Estimates. But, no, the hon. members opposite just want to hold up Government, prevent Government from functioning, and prevent the House from getting on with the business of the people. There is no concern for the people, the concern is solely for the Opposition, trying to make them look good, trying to make them look like they are doing something, that they are really achieving something. They are just standing here, wasting taxpayers' dollars, day after day after day, reading out a list of numbers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I am asking hon. members opposite now to be reasonable and bear in mind that they have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this Province, a responsibility to get on with the business of Government. When we get down to the Budget Debate and the details of the Estimates, and the detailed consideration, we can have a full-scale debate on all of these detailed issues. Nobody ever goes into the details of the Estimates on Interim Supply. As I said, Mr. Chairman, they did not know how to govern and they do not know how to oppose. They need lessons in all of it. Maybe after they have been there for seventeen years they will learn a few tricks of the trade.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Interim Supply.

MR. NOEL: Is he Minister (inaudible)?

PREMIER WELLS: Maybe on Monday, but he will bring in Interim Supply.

Seriously though, Mr. Chairman, the only question I heard this afternoon, raised by the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, who is not here at the moment, was asked about the $20,000 in my office that did not appear in the Budget last year, but appeared as a revised expenditure for 1990-1991 and appears in the Budget this year. That is the housing allowance, which hon. members will recall, we detailed and explained about a year or so ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, well, it saves many tens of thousands of dollars over what was spent before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the dining room on the other side?

PREMIER WELLS: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not use that, at all?

PREMIER WELLS: No. I have not been over there for months and months and months.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No. No!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is the Premier's dining room.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not use it. Occasionally, we have had investment bankers or someone like that, when it was used, but basically, it is not used; we do not use it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) work.

PREMIER WELLS: I do most of it, Mr. Chairman, at my home; most of it that is necessary is done at my home. No other questions have been raised. I just wanted to correct the misrepresentation of the hon. the Member for Kilbride and point out that, in fact, we are budgeting $24,000 less this year than last year and, in fact, it is $22,000 more than was spent last year, but that is still $200,000 or $300,000 less than was spent by the former Government in the Premier's Office, notwithstanding that we have had increases in cost of about 15 per cent, in the meantime.

Now, there is improvement, there is performance and there is dedication to the public of this Province. Mr. Chairman, no wonder we have such wide-spread support throughout the Province; it is because of our performance, quite obviously.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. members opposite have any real concern for the financial interests of the taxpayers of this Province, and in lowering the cost to the taxpayers of this Province, what they would do is vote Interim Supply and then deal with these items when the individual items come up in the Estimates Committee or in the concurrence debates or at some time during the course of the Budget Debate; that is the normal sensible responsible course to follow, not the shenanigans that have been going on, now, for two weeks, trying to kill time to prevent Interim Supply.

Why? What good are they doing the Province in that way? Absolutely none, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is time they put the interests of the Province ahead of their own personal interests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have been accused of misrepresenting the facts. Certainly, it is a great political ploy by the Premier, and he uses it quite often. The fact of the matter is, I have read out sixteen items in Executive Council which have to do with him and the Deputy Premier or the President of the Council, and fifteen of them have shown an increase in this year's Budget over last year's Budget or spending; now, that is fifteen out of sixteen, so far.

But, Mr. Chairman, when the Premier talks about the waste of money by being in this House tonight, who is wasting the money? The past three nights I voted against opening in the night; I moved a motion that we close so that maybe we could save some money.

It was your people who voted to keep the House open tonight, not I, I did not vote to keep the House open. If it is a waste of time to be in this House tonight and a waste of money, it is your responsibility, because I voted against it. I did not want the House to be open tonight. I would have saved the taxpayers money and we could have come in on Monday and Tuesday at the regular time, which we all get paid for anyway, and we would debate as we ordinarily do.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if there is a waste of money here tonight, the hon. the Premier and the hon. the President of the Council are responsible for having this House open. And if there is overtime to be paid tonight, to anyone involved in this House, I am sure they would all prefer to be at home, too. I voted not to be here tonight. Today, you voted to be here, so it is your responsibility that monies are being spent on the legislature this night.

MR. BAKER: The (inaudible) Mount Pearl would not allow you to (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: To do what? I voted against being open here tonight. How did you vote today when the motion was to adjourn this House? Did you vote to keep it open or to close it? You voted to keep it open. I voted to close it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we will carry on a little further with Treasury Board. I think I did Executive Support. Of the seventeen items reviewed in Executive Council, so far, I have found a second decrease. In this year of hospital closures, hospital bed closures, the Youth Advisory Council being scuttled, and community colleges on the verge of being closed, out of seventeen items in the Budget for Executive Council,I have finally found the second one that took a decrease, and that is in budgeting.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the last you would need to decrease is budgeting, because the biggest blunder this Government made last year was in their budget. You had a $10 million surplus, one month, and you had $121 million deficit, six months later. Now, you should not decrease budgeting, you should increase budgeting but, because of the priorities of this Government last year, we budgeted $1.3 million in change and spent $1.1 million, and we are going to put it down to $1.0 million, this year. So, the place they need more expertise and more advice or probably just listen to the advice they are getting, Mr. Chairman. Because of last year's blunder they are cutting.

We will move on to Collective Bargaining: I cannot see why they even have a vote in here for Collective Bargaining, because there is none in the Province. There is no such thing as collective bargaining; that went out the window with the Budget. But, to be consistent, and to show that the Premier is going to cut, Collective Bargaining is the third one that is cut. He increases all the rest of them for all the money he needs, but Collective Bargaining, in which he has very little priority, he cuts. Budgeted last year, $565,000, spent $570,00, this year it is down to $488,000, not a big deal, but they did cut some money out of that.

Organization and Management: You might make an argument for that, because they certainly need organization over there and they need management. They need a plan. Their big problem is that they have no plan over there. But for Organization and Management, last year they budgeted $608,000 and spent $506,000. Congratulations! You saved last year, $102,000. Now, this year's budget was in a much worse position, so you are going to save a bit more this year; you are going to cut that down, I expect. What do I see in the figures for the Estimates? - $751,600, an increase, not a decrease. The hospitals did not get that, nor did MUN Extension. They did not get an increase, be it only $200,000 or $250,000. We have gone through nineteen headings, so far, and found three reduced.

I have come to another, now. Classification and Pay has to do with the workers in this Province, Mr. Chairman, not much of a priority, we just fired 3,000 or 4,000 of them, minimum. It will probably wind up being more than that. What do we do with Classification and Pay? That is a good one to target, so we will reduce that - $832,000 budgeted, $831,000 spent, down to $792,000. There is a good one, we will knock it off that. Do not take my money, but anything to do with the workers, take it.

Now, we come to Insurance Services, the twenty-first column. Insurance Services, last year, budgeted $177,900 and spent $194,000; this year, budgeted $182,000, a small decrease over what they spent, but an increase over what they budgeted last year. I cannot say that is a decrease. It is a decrease from what they spent.

I will give you that one, anyway.

Personnel Policy: I am not sure what that is, but personnel policy sounds to me like it deals with workers, again, so that is a good one to target.

MS. VERGE: It has to do with equity between women and men.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It has something to do with equity between women and men. Last year, we budgeted $269,700 and we spent $272,000. That is a good target for a decrease. It does not affect me, it does not affect the Premier, the Cabinet, or Cabinet Committees. We have targeted that one; we will knock it down to $245,000, a decrease. We have found five out of twenty-two, Mr. Chairman.

Human Resources Management Systems Development: It sounds to me like it has to do with workers, again, something to do with workers around the Province rather than the Cabinet or Cabinet Committees, or any perks they have. We will target that one. Here is another one we will decrease - $742,000 last year, $720,000 spent. Congratulations, you saved $20,000 last year. This year, you are down to $612,700. Another one you have on the workers' backs, you have nailed them again. So, that makes six out of twenty-three, four of them on the workers' backs, the same as the $3000 or $4000 you paid.

Pay Equity Review Implementation.

MS VERGE: What pay equity?

MR. R. AYLWARD: There is no Pay Equity Review, but they have increased it. I do not disagree with that. I am glad you increased it. I wish you had continued with the Pay Equity Plan that was in place so that people could get some money. You should review it and you should be doing more in that field, so I will not argue with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: It has nothing to do with pay equity? Pay Equity Review Implementation has nothing to do with pay equity? Why that heading? Maybe when I sit down the Minister will get up and explain what Pay Equity Review is.

We will carry on then, with Meech Lake Accord: That is a dandy there. Transportation and Communications - that one is gone, zero. They had nothing budgeted. They spent $150,000 and I will be very interested in getting that itemized when the time comes. They had nothing budgeted last year for the Meech Lake Accord, Transportation and Communications, Purchased Services. They spent $150,000, and they have nothing budgeted this year. Now, that $150,000 might have been the plane that was waiting on the apron in Ottawa for the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Okay, well, we all spent that. I apologize. That is our money. That was the $150,000 flushed down the drain when we did not vote. We spent $150,000 and we did not even get a vote. Now, if that is not the biggest waste of money! There is one in here that I think is bigger.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite good at reading something that is in front of him, and talking about how one particular administration increased a small percentage over last year, and decreased. It is funny he has not as yet made some comparisons. He touched very briefly on perks, and Ministers' perks. I have no hesitation in talking about my travel budget for last year. I ask the hon. member, who was a Minister in Government for at least one term that I am aware of, and probably two, if I give my travel budget for last year, that he give his for the year he was Minister in the Department Agriculture, and see what sort of decrease there is in perks, as a Minister, in travel. In last year's budget, for travel, as Minister of Social Services, my total was $18,000 for a twelve-month period. Now, when the hon. member stands, would he tell me what his travel budget was for the last year he was a Cabinet Minister? Let us be honest about the cost of operating a Government and of Cabinet Ministers. Let us detail it, not starting and finishing with the Minister of Social Services, but let us take every minister in Cabinet, including the Premier, and compare, person to person, with the ministers' travel budget in the former administration for a twelve-month period. It would be rather interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) wasting time over there.

MR. EFFORD: Well, we have no other choice. I am responding. I am responding to the points the hon. member was making. If we compare, let us compare decrease in expenditures. Why are we doing it? We are doing it because we have a financial responsibility to the taxpayers of this Province to manage the economy, to manage the Province with the least amount of money possible. I just gave the amount for travel, $18,000 in a twelve-month period, as Minister of Social Services. I am sure, when the hon. member stands, in going over the figures for Executive Council, he will get that point.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear when you talk to the people of this Province - the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes shouted across the House that he would be interested to know the outcome if a poll were done today. He said, jokingly across the House,`Let us put a little wager on it'. I asked, `What do you think the poll would be?' He said, `56 per cent.' That is not so far off, about 56. He is very honest about it. Now, 56 per cent would not be too bad after a budget coming down with such major, drastic cuts and restraints. I think, mid-way through the term, 56 per cent, increasing from here into the election, would bring us up to about the normal 70 per cent, which will happen at the next election. I feel sorry for the hon. members, because I know they are all scratching their heads and thinking, `Well, at the present rate, my seat will be gone.' With a Budget like this and a rating of 56 or 60 per cent, certainly, there are going to be a number of seats opposite lost.

I want to make one point, and I have to ask this question. Probably the hon. the Member for Humber East, who attempted to get up earlier - this is serious. She has been awfully quiet over the last couple of weeks - very, very, very quiet, and I do not know what is happening over there. Now, I understand that the hon. Member for Ferryland has been taking control of Question Period, and I know why. I talked to him briefly going out the corridor one day and he said, very sincerely, that he is interested in the leadership of the party.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) donation.

MR. EFFORD: I probably would give him a donation, because it would be an advantage for us to have him over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I have no problem, Mr. Chairman, with donating to the hon. member's campaign. I had the opportunity on three occasion in the last couple of weeks to question a number of students from different areas. I think, to get a feeling for what is happening around the Province and how satisfied people are, you talk to the youth. We speak to the various students and always give them a period to ask questions or make comments. It is surprising how tuned in the youth of our Province are today, to what is happening in politics, in government, and the decisions being made by their MHAs, or ministers or whomever. They are very close to the reality of what is happening. I think it is a reflection on what is talked in their homes. I think that is where most of it is coming from. There were very, very few negative comments from the three groups of people I spoke to. I would say there was close to 75 or 80 per cent agreement with the decisions Government made. And when you think of all the publicity about education cutbacks and the false and sometimes ridiculous rumours that have been spread over the airwaves, you would think it would be a lot less than that. I give you an indication of how concerned youth are for the future of this Province. They realize if something is not done now, there is not going to be much of a future for them in this Province. They have a legitimate right to be concerned about what is happening and what is going to be there when they graduate from high school or university, or whatever vocational institution they go to after they are finished with high school.

The one thing they did say, the one clear message, is, if you are going to make decisions, stand by them. Do not make decisions based on the political motivation of an individual or people putting pressure on you. You have to make decisions and you have to stand by those decisions.

Mr. Chairman, the youth of this Province are tuned in to the reality of what is happening, there is absolutely no question about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you talking about (inaudible) Labrador?

MR. EFFORD: You can get nitpicky and say, Well, you cannot make any decision whatsoever, I am talking about the major decisions that are made in this Province. The hon. the Member for Ferryland, if he is ever fortunate enough to gain the leadership - I suspect, as he has very little competition, he has a pretty good chance of getting it - is going to find, as he did when he was in the former administration, when he was a Minister in Cabinet, it is nice to be playing politics in the House of Assembly, but when it comes to making the financial decisions, it is a different quintal of fish.

AN HON. MEMBER: The media have the order figured out. The way they interviewed them tonight, Ferryland was first, Grand Falls, second and Humber East, third.

MR. EFFORD: Ferryland first, Grand Falls second, and Humber East third. Is that why the hon. the Member for Humber East has been so quiet over the last three or four days?

MS. VERGE: Where have you been?

MR. EFFORD: I have been here waiting for questions, but I do not get a question. I am disappointed, because I have enjoyed the questions and the debate in the last session of the House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never (inaudible) answer to a question, anyhow.

MR. EFFORD: I always give a straight answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you did not, because you did not tell us (inaudible) why you (inaudible) here.

MR. EFFORD: What did he say?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to stay here as long as we have to, to get Interim Supply passed, and I am sure no member on this side of the House is going to argue with that, keeping in mind one thing, that the business and administration of this Province must continue; we can play politics as long as we like, but it has to continue, and if hon. members opposite took any responsibility at all, they would not be playing such foolish politics as they are here tonight. You will have lots of time all next week. I have no problem, I love it in here. I can stay here from daylight to dark, I have no problem, whatsoever. You are not accomplishing anything. You are probably going to have your wife a bit made at you tonight when you go home, that you spent a foolish night in the House of Assembly when she had plans made to go Easter shopping, or whatever. I have no problem there. We have our minds set that if you want to stay here Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday or whatever, it is part of the job and it goes with the territory.

If the hon. the Member for Humber East rises in the next ten minutes, I would like for her to take at least two or three minutes after she has finished reading the book, to explain to us what purpose is being served by what you are doing? Give us about a two-minute explanation of what you are accomplishing by holding up Interim Supply, something sensible, something logical that I can understand. If it is just a matter of playing politics back and forth the House, surely you would not want the voters of this Province, your constituents, to think that is the only reason you are here tonight, to play foolish politics!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, that is interesting. The hon. Lynn Verge was just on TV saying she agrees with cutting back the amount each candidate in the leadership race can spend, $200,000 - $200,000!

MR. POWER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The hon. the Member for Ferryland should be careful of the comments being made when he is not out there in front of the TV cameras. Two hundred thousand dollars! Does the hon. the Member for Ferryland agree with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Member for Humber East is going to rise next and give me some explanation -

MS VERGE: The hon. the Member for Kilbride is not finished yet.

MR. EFFORD: Okay, well, give me some explanation before you get to the Estimates -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: When you stand up, do it. Question me. Will the hon. the Member for Kilbride, when he stands, take two minutes to explain to me, as one member in the House of Assembly, what purpose you are serving not only your constituents, but all the taxpayers and all the people of this Province, and I will be satisfied to listen to you.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: I will, gladly.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister just asked me a question, would I explain why we are doing this? We have had a devastating Budget on the people of this Province, and the reason I am doing this tonight is to show what hypocrites they are, in this Government, by not reducing their own budgets and their own subheads, the same as they cut Placentia hospital, the Old Perlican hospital, and all the rest of them. That is the purpose of it. I have, so far, gone through twenty-five subheads and stopped at Meech Lake Accord, money that we wasted, we, all of us in this House, wasted last year, because we did not get a chance to vote on it. It would be just as well we had burnt that and saved the week because we did not even get to vote on it. I have gone through twenty-five subheads, so far; seven of them show a decrease, and four of those, work-related, had to do with the workers of this Province. The hon. minister also said he had some students in who were worried about what was going to happen to them in the future and what would be left.

MR. EFFORD: No, they had a lot of confidence. They were not worried.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I agree, they should have a concern about it. I think you and your Government should be showing leadership by decreasing more of these subheads so that the cutbacks would be shared by more people than the security guards, the cleaners in the hospitals, and the food service workers of this Province; the burden should have been spread around much, much, more.

Mr. Chairman, we will go on with Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat.

MR. EFFORD: Wait, now, there is one more question, the minister's travel budget, yours compared to mine.

MR. R. AYLWARD: My travel budget as minister was very, very high, especially the first year that I was Minister of Rural Development, because I was determined to get to every, single community in this Province so that I could find out what needed to be done in Rural Development.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you go, in a helicopter, `Bob'?

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I drove, most of it. I went in a helicopter a couple of times. But I, personally, drove - not with staff - I drove a car and that is why I got too many speeding tickets, actually. For the details, ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and he will give you some inflated figures. And I do not care.

MR. GILBERT: I will give you the truth.

MR. R. AYLWARD: All of my expenses have been in The Sunday Express at least three times, so I do not care. If there is something you do not have, just give me a call, we will go down to Pleasantville and I will haul out the boxes, if they are still around, and get out the rest of my expenses. I do not care what you put out on my expenses, they were all legitimate. Another point, when I was spending money travelling around this Province, I did not have a Minister of Finance who was so incompetent as to budget a $10 million surplus and come up with a $120 million deficit. If I had had such a Minister of Finance when I was there, I probably would have been a lot more nervous than I was.

Mr. Chairman, we will carry on, now, with number twenty-six, Executive and Administrative Support in Intergovernmental Affairs. Certainly, there is going to be a cutback there, $800,044 budgeted last year and $648,900 spent. Congratulations, you saved a couple of hundred thousand last year. That is pretty good. It probably has nothing to do with the ministers, though, it is probably the staff in Intergovernmental Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, this year's Budget is the worst one, with probably a $225 million deficit, if we keep going the way we were, so we are going to cut that back. But I see here, we budgeted $745,400. We have increased that budget by $100,000, so I do not understand what happened there.

The next one is Native Policy, which has to be increased this year. I have no argument about it. The Premier is trying to do something with land claim issues, and certainly that is a good item. It has been increased by somewhere around $200,000, and I will not argue with that. I am not sure it is enough, but we will see when it comes. The Federal Government's share of that, by the way, is not very much, $10,000, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another increase.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is another increase.

Now, we have No. 28, Economic and Social Programs: That, last year, was budgeted for $231,000, Mr. Chairman, and $200,000 was spent because we had a rough year. So we are going to spend less this year, because this is supposed to be a worse year. $200,900 last year, $223,200, that is not a decrease, it is an increase.

Resource programs: Last year, budgeted $249,000, spent $186,000. They saved some money there, so congratulations. This year, we are going to save more, because it is a rough year - oops! - we are up to $214,800 again. That is not a saving, not a cutback such as Placentia hospital took, it is an increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are obviously not reading the Health Department.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Protocol: This is a dandy! We have $189,000 budgeted, $150,000 spent, this year's estimate, $522,400.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is a hard one to swallow, when I know an X-ray and lab supervisor, working for around twenty or twenty-two years at St. Clare's Hospital, who was laid off yesterday. She and another woman lost their jobs, actually, and she was a very good employee, not one who abused sick leave. She was a very productive employee.

Well, now, Mr. Chairman, if we are losing these kinds of employees in our health system, that is even more serious than closing beds. I have a hard time putting up with $522,000 for Protocol in this Budget when, Mr. Chairman, we have no money to open hospital beds and to look after the sick. Yet, we have $522,000 for Protocol. It is a hard one to swallow.

Constitutional Affairs: Mr. Chairman, that is the big one the Premier always loves, that is going to heat up this year, again. If you had good planning, I suppose you would have to increase that one; that is one he cut. He knows he will have to spend that money, anyway. So it will look good on the books, we will cut that one, because I am going to pump it all into there anyway when it starts to go - and you have to; you cannot sit home in Newfoundland. I know you have to but that is not a realistic figure of $109,000, unless you can hide it away somewhere else. If you budgeted $216,000 last year for it, I think if that heats up this year, $109,000 is going to be very hard to do.

We now have thirty-two headings, eight decreases, and this one here is a decrease on paper, it cannot work, Mr. Chairman.

Then, we have Newfoundland Information Services. This heading, Mr. Chairman, the one that irritates me more than anything else in this Budget, has to be the biggest waste of money in hard times, by this Government. I do not understand it; I do not understand years of cutbacks and closing hospital beds. In only a two-year period, we can go from a Budget of $168,000, I believe, in 1989, when you took over - that was our Budget for that year and it was the same for 1988, pretty well. To go from $168,000, two years ago, to $560,900 this year, is not defensible. I do not care what you say, that is not defensible.

AN HON. MEMBER: When times are (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: You need more propaganda when times are bad, that is probably the rationale for it, although I doubt it. But I understand what is going on. I know Judy Foote is running this and you have consolidated a lot of positions. I understand all of that. But I would not close hospital beds without firing all of them. I would not do it!

Hospital beds are more important than spinning out propaganda, but not to the Premier. And that is where I differ. I am not one who would be irresponsible if I were in that Cabinet and we had problems. I would not be irresponsible and say, yes, keep borrowing until we drown. We did not do that in Cabinet. You might think we did and you might like to say we did, but we certainly did not. But if I was in that Cabinet and I were looking at cutting like some of what you had to do - your priorities were wrong. When you can spend $560,000 on Information Services, and allow specialist doctors to leave this Province because they do not have the facilities to do their work, there is something wrong with your priorities.

The next, Women's Policy Office: This one says something about the Premier, too. Here is another cut; I think we have eight out of thirty-two so far. Certainly, they had to take some of the share. I say, probably 70 per cent of the people fired are going to be women. So you do not need a Women's Policy Office as much now. Last year, we budgeted $401,000, we spent $422,000, that is the one we are going to cut - a 12 per cent cut in the Women's Policy Office but nothing in the Premier's Office, nothing in Information Services, to cover that. Women's policy issues, obviously, are not very important to this Government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That makes thirty-four, Mr. Chairman, with - oh, good, got him up.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Chairman, I am appalled by the antics of the Opposition in holding up Interim Supply. Monday is the first of April. On Monday, we must start paying out money on next year's expenses and we must have money. I do not know why they are holding up Interim Supply with these foolish antics. We want to get on with governing this Province. I tell you this, even though the Budget might have been severe, the economy of this Province, next year, will be the best in Canada, and that is what has to come through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: We have forecasted in our Budget, an increase in our economic activity of .7 per cent, not a large increase, but, apart from Prince Edward Island, the largest increase in Canada. And that is after taking into account the serious problem of the layoffs. That is after that. Some people, the Conference Board, the Bank of Montreal, and others, are suggesting that the Newfoundland economy will increase even greater. It is wrong for people to start interfering with a Government that can bring this about in this Province. It is wrong. You are doing the wrong thing. When the Canadian economy is declining by 1 per cent, why do you keep Newfoundland from going ahead? This Government has to continue its firm economic policies to provide jobs for people in this Province, to get industry going, and that is what we are doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Now, never mind that. The Member for St. John's East is pontificating again. Let me read from the Ministerial Statement of the Treasurer of Ontario, Floyd Laughren, to his House a few days ago. He says this: `I would like to give the House an update on recent developments in the economy and share Treasury's current outlook as we prepare for the Spring Budget. Since I last reported to you in early December, economic conditions in Ontario have deteriorated. At the time, I indicated that despite the various uncertainties, we anticipated modest positive growth in 1991, but a number of significant developments have occurred since then which makes the outlook clearer, if not brighter.'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: I am skipping over some of this, Mr. Chairman, and getting right to the point. `The Statistics Canada employment figures released on March 8 show that Ontario has suffered the worst job losses since World War II. Mr. Speaker, 196,000 jobs have been terminated in this Province over the last four months. The unemployment rate, which was already at a disturbingly high 7.2, has now soared to 9.5.'

`There is no question,' says Mr. Laughren, `that the recession will be much deeper than expected last year. Real output is expected to decline by more than 3 per cent in 1991.'

We are not taking any comfort from that, because we know what a decline in Ontario does to us and to our equalization payments, but I want to put this thing in perspective. Canada is in recession, and in the next year, when the Canadian economy will go down, we have a chance to go up. So, let us get on with the job of governing. Give us Interim Supply. Do not hold us up.

Mr. Chairman, right now, we have 300 people employed in Hibernia. This year coming up, it will be 500, the year after, it will be 1,800, and we anticipate, the year after that, the peak in 1993 will be about 3,500 people. Then, it should level out to about 1,100, after a while, remaining at that level for quite a number of years.

The Minister of Mines and Energy announced recently, BP, in the coming year, will be drilling a well, and it looks like there will be about six months' drilling, for sure, offshore next year. That means we are going to have supply boats and all the things that go along with that, not a lot, but some economic activity we did not know about when we prepared the Budget.

Now, a few other things have happened that make the economic climate of Newfoundland better. We have done a few modest things in Government to help matters. We have eliminated that terrible thing of forcing businesses out there to put up bonds for retail sales tax. And businesses - when I was in Grand Falls, the other day, people said, `That was a good thing you did. Do not torment us with putting up those bonds. We will pay the tax and if we do not, come after us. Do not spend your time and ours trying to get those foolish bonds in place, just to please the insurance companies.'

AN HON. MEMBER: They are expensive, too.

DR. KITCHEN: They are expensive and a nuisance. So we have eliminated that. And it is not a big thing, I do not want to blow this out of all proportion, but it is a good little thing that we did.

Another thing is, we are encouraging Credit Unions in this Province. I am very pleased, for example, that the regulation of Credit Unions has now come over to the Department of Finance. And I am looking forward very much to working with our seventeen Credit Unions in this Province and helping them to get moving and expanding and doing the thing to supplement the work of the banks, particularly in rural areas of the Province where the banks do not often give good service. We are looking forward to that. That is one of the positive achievements, small achievements perhaps, but a positive achievement by this administration.

Another thing we have done is, we have the pension plans under control. For years and years we have built up a deficit, $2.1 billion in pension deficits, underfunding, and now it looks as if we have the pension funds under control from here on in. And that is a good solid achievement, something the people do not have to be worried and nervous about all the time.

We have a leaner public service after this. I am not going to minimize the hardship on individuals, I will not minimize it because it has been a very serious situation, a very sad one for all of us, to let people go. It is a harsh thing. I did not realize how harsh it would be and how hard it is to do that sort of thing. But the fact is that we are now left with a leaner, more efficient public service than we had before. And that is a good thing, because it means that we have fifty or sixty or seventy, whatever the cost is there - I will go into that shortly - million dollars less that the Government has to carry throughout. So, we are more efficient than we were, and, hopefully, future attrition in the public service will make it even leaner and more efficient.

The Minister of Development has put together a tremendous resource in Enterprise Newfoundland, with offices, computer networks and information systems all around the Province. Now, you remember when Frank Moores was Premier. I remember very well. He had much the same idea on a smaller scale, when he put Bob Cole down there to give information to people in businesses all over the Province. It was a good idea, because businesses need to be hooked up to Government, they need to know where the Government programmes are, and they need to know where to get financing. That has to be done. I am extremely delighted with the efforts of the Minister of Development in putting together Enterprise Newfoundland with five regional offices in Clarenville, St. John's, Gander, Corner Brook and Goose Bay, and the satellites. Also, he has put together a good team of people to run it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: No, listen, now. We have imported a good solid person, a Newfoundlander who came home to run that outfit for us. We are putting some of our top civil servants to help manage that group, along with the Recovery Commission, and we look forward to Enterprise Newfoundland being a very positive initiative in helping to get Newfoundland's economy and business operating.

The tax rates - we have not raised taxes very much this year. We raised them last year with the payroll tax. We had to do that. We did not want to do it, but we had to do it because of the last minute antics, last year, of the Federal Government. I do not want to nail the Federal Government, that is not my purpose right now. I can maybe comment about that later on. We want to keep our taxes down as low as we can. They are pretty high by Canadian standards now, slightly over the Canadian average, on the whole, and we do not want to raise them too much, because if taxes are too high that discourages economic adventures into the Province and we have to be quite careful about that.

Now, we are going to get into tax reform in the Province. In the next six months, we are going to be - the back of the Budget appendix -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Minister's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate my colleague, the Member for Humber East, allowing me to have one more shot at this. The Minister of Finance touts Bob Ray, of the NDP Government in Ontario, now, the new Government. He touts what they are saying since they got in. Now, I am not going to be here defending an NDP Government, but, Mr. Chairman, I would be very surprised if Bob Ray or the NDP Government in Ontario will increase the Budget to the equivalent of Newfoundland Information Services, some 300 per cent in a couple of years, and reduce the Women's Policy Bureau. Your priorities are wrong. I am not saying - well, there is lots more wrong with you, but I do not agree with your priorities. Anyone who wants to increase Newfoundland Information Services from $168,000 to $560,000 in two years has to have his priorities wrong. With Protocol up to $522,000, they have to have their priorities wrong. I do not think that an NDP Government in Ontario would make those moves. I cannot see them closing hospital beds and increasing Information Service's budget. It does not make sense to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will see.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, we will see, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe that will happen. It is going to be interesting to see what their approach will be in how they tackle their problems. I would say their priorities will be much different from the priorities of this Government.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister also talks about the leaner, meaner Public Service, the more efficient Public Service. Mr. Chairman, the morale in this Public Service is shot to pieces, and if that increases productivity, that certainly - I hope the minister was not teaching when he was at the university, that you increase productivity by taking what small amount of morale was in the public service. Robbing it from them does not increase efficiency. I do not see it and I do not understand it. I do not even know what the Minister was professor of, over at the university, probably Political Science, or something like that. I am sure, if he talked to some of the business instructors at the university - Gar Pynn is one I have met several times, and I know he is a very competent fellow. I am sure he is not going to tell you that demoralizing your workers and treating them badly, Mr. Chairman, increases efficiency. Maybe I am missing something. I do not think that increases efficiency. Even though the Minister is trying to instill fear in them, which I know he is trying to do, that, in itself, will not increase efficiency, either. That will bring us back to feudal times, days, gladly, long gone.

Mr. Chairman, we went through Women's Policy. That, again, the target of the Premier and the President of the Council, was a good one to cut. The Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women: Mr. Chairman, that, again, had nothing to do with Cabinet Ministers' meetings or the Cabinet Ministers' votes or the Executive Council, as it relates to Cabinet Ministers - another good one for the hit list. It went from $722,000 down to $663,000, one that he decided to decrease.

Mr. Chairman, the last one in the Executive Council budget is Hibernia Project - Implementation and Monitoring.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is interesting to know that the Member for St. John's South likes the numbers on the reduction of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I am surprised to hear him say that, because I would expect he would be a support -

MR. MURPHY: I did not say that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He did not say it? Okay, I am sorry. I apologize.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: You did not say it, okay. I misunderstood what you were saying.

Mr. Chairman, the last one is Hibernia Project - Implementation and Monitoring. I do not know, I am not sure that -

MR. WALSH: You do not know, that is the problem.

MR. R. AYLWARD: And you do! You get down to Portugal Cove and look after the people who are stuck down there. Get that helicopter you were talking about last night and get the social service cheques over to the people on Bell Island. They have the post office blocked off over there. Do you know that? Get their cheques over to them.

MR. WALSH: You are just wasting time.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am not wasting time, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is wasting time by being in here. He is wasting the time of the people of Bell Island, when he allows their community college to close, their hospitals to close, and is giving them a poorer ferry service than they ever had before. Mr. Chairman, he is the member who does not know.

The Implementation and Monitoring of the Hibernia Project, Mr. Chairman, last year, was $2 million, budgeted, $236,000, spent $2 million. Obviously, it was necessary. I am sure you did not waste it. It had to be spent, no doubt. I guess, the implementation and monitoring are not going to happen anymore this year, because it is down. It is up above last year's budget, but it is still down from $2 million to $358,000. Maybe we are not going to monitor Hibernia, I do not know. This, again, is one for the books. This is the one that, if it comes, you have to spend the money, anyway. If you need the monitoring, you have to do it, or if you need the implementation, you have to do it. So let us make the books look good.

As the Member for Green Bay said, the words `Baker' and `Kitchen' certainly lend one to think about cooking the books, and that certainly is one of the pieces here for cooking the books.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I cannot take credit for it, the Member for Green Bay said it.

Mr. Chairman, last year, Executive Council budgeted $13.8 million and spent $15 million. They spent more than they had budgeted. But this year, Mr. Chairman, we are in a worse position than we knew when we budgeted last year's money because, last year, we had a $10 million surplus when we made our Estimates for the $13.8 million budget. So, this year, we are going to estimate a lot lower because we had to close hospitals, we had to close the Extension Service at Memorial University, we had to threaten to close community colleges and, if not close them this year, probably next year, Mr. Chairman. So, this year, the total budget for Executive Council had to be reduced. The Estimates should have been lower than last year, because we were looking, this year, at a $250 million deficit, if we did not take action. Last year, we had a $10 million surplus, so, this year, Executive Council budget is going to be much lower than last year's budget of $13.8 million. What is it here? - $14.1 million. There is something wrong with that mathematics, that is not a decrease. That is a decrease in what you spent last year, but it is not a decrease. It is not what the Placentia Hospital got, and not what the Cabot Institute got, and not what Memorial University got, because, Mr. Chairman, it is an increase over last year's estimate, not a cut. That is a decrease over what you spent last year, but not a cut.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) sit down.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I will sit down now. I have had enough of it.

I have looked at thirty-six headings in Executive Council and the example this Cabinet is going to show the Province, because we are in such hard times, is that they are going to cut at least half of them. They will cut 10 per cent of them, maybe. They should cut half of them, they should cut 80 per cent of them, but I would settle for 50 per cent of the thirty-six, because there are a lot of important things in here. Some of them, I agree, had to increase so at least 50 per cent of the thirty-six should have been reduced. Mr. Chairman, ten of the subheads in Executive Council, out of thirty-six, were reduced. Four of them were worker-oriented subheads, two were Women's Policy subheads; probably, those six should never have been cut.

All I want to say is that your priorities are completely wrong, you are attacking the problem you do have absolutely wrong, Mr. Chairman, and I think you should have another look at this Budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to return to my comments about the amalgamation question and the effect it will have on our economy, but before I do that, I was reminded by some of the comments of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Member for Kilbride in relation to the activities of the New Democratic Party. The Member for Kilbride said he doubted if the NDP would close beds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you not a member of that party, one time?

MR. NOEL: Yes, and I am going to give some reasons, now, why I am no longer a member. My tolerance for hypocrisy has a certain level.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: I just happened to have a few clippings at hand here, one being to the effect that when the NDP formed the Government in Manitoba, a news headline of the day was `The NDP is the only provincial government to permanently close hospital beds.' Now, you would not believe that, from what the member says in this House. But, to be more current, we will review a few comments of the present Premier of Ontario who called Premier Peterson a liar for not living up to his commitments when he was Premier. And during a televised debate, Premier Rae said that what he said during and after an election would not change.

Well, I also have a clipping here from March 4, from The Toronto Globe and Mail: `Lower expectations, Leader in Ontario tells NDP members'. He was speaking to a convention of the NDP. `Now that the NDP is the governing party in Ontario, New Democrats should lower their expectations about how quickly change can be achieved.' You know, now that you have voted for what we said we would do, do not expect us to do it.

MS. VERGE: You would know about that!

MR. NOEL: No, I would not, because I support what I say I would do. And if you look back at the things I said I would do when I was an NDP, you will find that I am not doing much differently today. He said, `We have become a different kind of party, now that we have assumed power. Now, we are the party of Government. It gives a different sense of responsibility.'

I was over at the Extension demonstration in the other building, today, and heard Mr. Harris address the Extension Service there, and the people supporting it -

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. the Member for (inaudible).

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

- and he implied that if he were the government, there would be no cutbacks. I happened to run into the former representative of the NDP, who was there in the audience, and he questioned my right to be there. He did not know if I had the right to be there, since I was not actively supporting what they were advocating.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were clapping.

MR. NOEL: Well, you might have thought that. That is another example of how inaccurate your perceptions are. The fact is, I was not clapping.

In The Globe and Mail, January 28, Premier Rae is quoted: `Ontario's New Democratic Party Government cannot respond to every crisis by throwing as much money as we can at it. The Member for St. John's East would have us throw money at the problems we are facing in this Province, today.

When it gets down to particular areas of expenditure, I have another headline from February 12: `Ontario NDP grants fall short'. These are grants to municipalities, grants for education. `The Minister of Finance, the Treasurer of Ontario, conceded that the NDP failed to meet its promise of paying 60 per cent of school boards' operating costs. It will provide 41 per cent, instead' - a big difference over a few months. A few interesting insights on what happens between the time the NDP campaigns and the time it gains power.

Now, I would like to return to the comments I have been making about amalgamation in the St. John's region and the need to straighten out municipal services in this Province. And I hope the Ministers will pay attention, because I think we have to be prepared to move dramatically on amalgamation, particularly in the St. John's region, if it is going to become a creditable policy in the rest of the Province. We cannot allow a community like Wedgewood Park to exist and then expect the rest of the Province to support our efforts to amalgamate. It does not make sense, and it does not make sense for Mount Pearl, either.

Now, unfortunately, as a result of some of the things I was saying, some people got the impression that I was polarizing the urban region against the rural region, and that is not the case. The Member for Green Bay, today, suggested that I would be in favour of taxing the brown baggers who come into our city, and that is certainly not the case. We want people outside St. John's to come into St. John's to do business, but they are different from the people who, effectively, live in the St. John's region, which is a single consolidated region, and there is no reason why some areas should be paying less taxes than other areas. That is the thing we have to pay attention to. I know that the Member for Humber Valley took exception yesterday because I said that I thought we should be paying uniform prices for services wherever we live in the Province, and the way I said it I do not blame him for taking exception. What I mean is that we should pay uniform prices for all the services we get. Obviously, people who live outside the city have to spend money to come in to St. John's to see specialists, to see doctors, to come in to hospitals, and they have costs that people who live in the city do not have. So, it is fairness and balance to give them a little more on providing municipal services in order to compensate for that. I have nothing against that. But, if we are to provide the maximum level of services we can, in this Province, we have to do it as cost-effectively as we can, and we have to ensure that everybody makes a reasonable and fair contribution to the cost. This is why, I think, we have to make sure we do that in the St. John's region. There is no reason why the St. John's region should not be self- supporting, self-financing in the area of municipal services. We do not need to be taking money that should be going to other parts of the Province, but what we have to do is make sure everybody living in the St. John's region pays a fair share. And we are not doing that when my constituents in Pleasantville on a $100,000 house is paying $1,100 a year in taxes, while his friend, who maybe works with him over here at Confederation Building, who lives in Wedgewood Park, is paying $650 a year, a $450 difference, $5,000 over ten years. Now, how can you make sense of that? How can you expect people elsewhere in the Province to support amalgamation if you allow that to stand?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) rural Newfoundland.

MR. NOEL: Our friend, over there, the Leader of the Opposition -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. NOEL: The House Leader of the Opposition, who has a great aversion to listening to what other people have to say, and who happens to live out in Mount Pearl; if he has that $100,000 house, he is paying only $870 in taxes compared to my constituent, who is paying $1,100. And, as a result of that, as the Member for Mount Pearl told us yesterday, residents of Mount Pearl are paying $2.1 million less in municipal taxes this year that they would pay if they were taxed at the same rate as St. John's residents. Now, I want to get that $2 million into the revenue pool available to the St. John's region to provide services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted to hear that the hon. the Member for Pleasantville is keeping up on his knowledge of the New Democratic Party, its policies, and it practices across the country. It may hold him in good stead in the future, when he decides once again to be opportunistic and join the party that is about to form the government. In fact, it is quite interesting to see the hon. members on the other side of the House, the Minister of Finance, the Member for St. John's South, the Member for Eagle River, and others, taking great interest in the New Democratic Party. I wonder, what would they be like if we had three or four members in the House? They would be talking about us all the time. I am familiar with some of the articles that the Member for Pleasantville has referred to. One of them was `NDP Grants fall short' he only read the headline, he did not read the article for us. What it says, is that the grants fall short of the requests that people had made, of the hopes that people had, nothing short of the promises that had been made, that had been documented, only that it had fallen short of people's expectations.

What the hon. Member was informing the House was that the New Democratic Party was being very realistic with its supporters, with the people in our party who have great hopes for what they can do in government, but when they are in government, are realistic about that and try to tell their own people, yes, we will do it, but it will take time. In that sense, I agree with the approach of the Government in its plan. This just happens to be a different plan. The Government is saying to the people of Newfoundland, it will take time, we will do this all in due course. I agree that is the proper approach, that when one is in government, you cannot do everything all at once, you have to have a measured approach, a plan, and follow through, and that is what the Premier says he is doing with his program. I respect him for that. It just so happens that the plan the New Democratic Party has would be very different from the plan that the Premier of this Province has.

One should pay attention to the contents of those plans because, across this country, the New Democratic Party policies and approach and agenda for people, which was referred to the other evening, is gaining popularity and people are starting to recognize. They are not frightened, the way the Member for Carbonear is, by the word `socialist' - I think the other members, the other night, were calling it `socialites' because either they did not know the word or they liked to make fun of the New Democratic Party.

We form a Government in the Yukon and, in British Columbia, we are the Official Opposition, and the government-in-waiting, if one pays any attention to the news reports. In Alberta, we are the Official Opposition, in Saskatchewan, the Official Opposition and about to be the government, in Manitoba, the Official Opposition, and in Ontario, the Government. In Quebec, we hardly feature, because Social Democrats in Quebec are members of other parties. We are number two in the polls in New Brunswick, number two in Nova Scotia, and number two in Newfoundland, by the recent polls. So, it is very important that members keep up with the policies and approaches of the New Democratic Party, because the people are beginning to catch on that we have something to offer and that we have something to say about how to carry on public policy in this country. I think it is important to know that.

We have heard some comments about Manitoba and, I think, some suggestion that the Manitoba Government, when it was a New Democratic Government, was turfed out of office for certain things like raising car insurance premiums. Yes, I suppose, like all governments, the New Democratic governments are not perfect, they make mistakes, they have flaws. Let me tell you one thing they do not do. They do not do what this Government has done when faced with a problem of budget problems, budget financing - they do not lay off massive numbers of government workers.

In 1982, in Manitoba, the same Province that members were talking about, when they were faced with the massive problem of government revenues, decided they needed to have a freeze on government wages as one option. They sat down with the unions, and because the unions had faith in the Government of Manitoba and their policies and their programs they were able to reach an agreement. The public service unions in Manitoba agreed to a wage freeze, in exchange for which the money that the government was saving they agreed to put directly into job creation programs to help the unemployment problem in Manitoba at that time. That is the kind of co-operation and approach you will see from a New Democratic Party Government, for two reasons, number one, because they have a soul and they care and can get co-operation from working people because working people believe they are working for the same goals. In this Province, we have, unfortunately, a Government with a programme - and I do not doubt they have a programme. They are there to balance the books and the Budget. That is a goal - they are there to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Not this year, but just watch next year. If you get away with this, with the cutbacks this year, we will have a balanced budget, next year, don't you worry.

Now, I want to tell you, the New Democratic Party - those of you who take an interest, and I am sure the Member for Pleasantville will check this out, have a look at the budget of Saskatchewan when the New Democrats lost the government to the PCs. What did they do? They passed over a balanced budget, they passed over a proper fiscal management. They have now had six years of Conservative Government and they have one of the worst public debts in all of Canada.

Where will we get the money? Well, we have a fiscal problem in this Province right now and everybody recognizes that. And our goal would also be to achieve fiscal responsibility. We would not do it all in one year, that is the difference. This year, we would borrow more than we are borrowing. We would have a bigger deficit than $53 million. We can get that money. It may cost a little more, but we can get that money. We ought not to make some people pay and not all of us. Nobody turned off the tap of debt to this Province. Nobody has said to this Province and to the public, you cannot borrow one more cent. Nobody has said, you are not allowed to borrow, we will not lend you any more money. There are some people who have given hints that perhaps our credit rating would change and that means you would have to pay more to get the money. But nobody has said we will not lend you money.

So we have to measure a balancing act between the needs of the people and the needs of fiscal management. This Government has leaned against the people and in favour of an accountant-style Budget and cutback, and treat a certain group of people worse than the rest, public servants, women, and those who need hospital care, those on social assistance who are not getting an increase this year, despite what those on the other side say, and who are dealing with a 6 per cent inflation rate, other than one measure that the Minister of Social Services seems to be very proud of.

MR. EFFORD: Two measures.

MR. HARRIS: Two measures - he has managed two measures in one Budget, that is wonderful. And that is all they can manage when we have enormous needs and concern out there in the public. The Member for Pleasantville accused me of making some speech today in which I supposedly said something about spending money. I told the people at MUN Extension that I supported their efforts to keep MUN Extension going - that is what I did - at a cost of $1 million, a very important cost, a very important aspect, an aspect having to do with the spirit of rural Newfoundland and the ability of rural Newfoundlanders to have some control over their own destiny and be able to work together on their own economic recovery, to try to save their rural economies and their communities. It is in those kinds of things that this Government have made choices.

They say they have nothing to do with it, but they have made choices about that and they have eliminated those things in support of others. They have their plan, and they are putting it before the people of Newfoundland. The people of Newfoundland will respond. And it is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that they will respond by rejecting that plan, not today, not tomorrow, but it will not be very long, when the people of Newfoundland see the harm that this Government is doing to them and see the fundamental lack of soul that this Government represents.

Mr. Chairman, I will close my remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. NOEL: The hon. Member for St. John's East says he understands these are hard times and we cannot do everything, but he says you can borrow a few million dollars more, or you can raise taxes a little more. He is talking about a little more, but what cutback does he support? He has talked about supporting the need for restraint, but what cutback are we making that you support? If you do not support any of the cutbacks, then we are not going to be able to finance what you want by a few million dollars on taxes, and a few million dollars on borrowing. You want us to keep everybody employed who is laid off. Well, that would take $50 or $60 million. You want us to re-institute the salary increases. Well, that would take another $50 or $60 million. Now, I have a lot of particular concerns about the Extension Service, but it would take $1 million. Everything is $1 million, everything is a small amount, but when you put them all together they are a large amount. Where are you going to get the large amount? Give us some suggestions about that, and if you are not prepared to say what cutback you support, and if you are not prepared to say that we should go for the large amount, then what substance is to the position you are taking?

Now,I want to return to my preoccupation with Mount Pearl, in these few days, with amalgamation, with Wedgewood Park, and municipal services in our Province. I think it is the fundamental basis of what we have to deal with if we are to get our Province on track. We have this tremendous albatross of almost $8 billion in provincial debt as a result of seventeen years of trying to buy votes, buy their way into power. In 1973, when they came into power we had a provincial debt of $800 million. Now, we have $5.3 billion in provincial debt, plus $2.1 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, which is, I think, something like $12,000 or $13,000, per citizen, of our Province. The provincial debt, at $5.3 billion, works out to $9,000 per person, and the $2 billion for the pensions is probably another $3,000 or $4,000, so you are up to maybe $12,000. Our share of the federal deficit is $15,000 per person -

MR. SIMMS: Sixteen thousand for the last (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: - $16,000, now, I mean, almost $30,000 per person. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs told us last night, that our debt, now, from municipal services that have been provided is almost half a billion dollars, $400-odd thousand, and he said, if we are to provide those services for everybody in the Province, we are looking at another $2.5 billion, a thousand dollars per household, per year. Now, that is not going to happen. We have to face that fact. But the problem we have is that you people led people to believe that they can have all of these services, so now we have to deal with how we can put the economy back in shape.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible). You can sit down, he is gone, now.

MR. NOEL: Do you not recall my speaking yesterday, when the Premier was in his sick bed, I believe?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: Not exactly the same speech, because when I spoke yesterday the Member for Mount Pearl told me that the City of St. John's receives a grant in lieu of taxes of $4.5 million a year, and I told him that was wrong, it is $360,000. He read it out, he said $4.5 million, but what he read was from this brief that Mount Pearl presented to the Minister, yesterday. The brief said we get $4.5 million from the Federal and Provincial Governments, but he never made that clear. We were looking at ways to explain the figures he was talking about - that is why I waited to be more specific - and that definitive about it when he was here. I did not want to take a chance on overstating the case when I thought it could be corrected.

I happen to have a copy of the City of St. John's Budget here, today, and I happen to have a copy of the brief that was presented to the Minister, yesterday. That is the kind of thing Mount Pearl has been doing, you know, flogging the figures. They are talking about, how can we create this terrible conglomeration of a municipality in St. John's that would have fourteen members in this legislature and represent twenty-five per cent of the Province? That is the case, today. Nothing is going to change. Those fourteen members are in the House, today. We are not giving St. John's more members; we are not giving the St. John's region more members, but this is the kind of case that Mount Pearl is making. We had a councillor in Mount Pearl trying to say that we were looking for money for the operational costs of Provincial buildings. We are not looking for money for the operational costs, we are looking for money for the servicing costs, but they keep slighting things to their advantage. They talk about the $58 million that the City of St. John's said will be necessary in order to provide services in an expanded city.

MR. SIMMS: Let us hear another candidate for Cabinet, now, we have heard enough from you.

MR. NOEL: How come he suddenly came to life tonight? He sat over there all afternoon and never had a word to say. Were there any new figures out on the leadership race tonight?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Windsor is not here tonight.

MR. NOEL: Oh, his competition is not around tonight.

They are trying to make it like this $58,000 would be an extra cost of amalgamating the areas in the St. John's region, whereas, they are, in fact, talking about costs that will be necessary to bring Conception Bay South and the other communities, Paradise and Elizabeth Village, up to a reasonable level of services.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Yes, I remember the Member for St. John's East, the other day, was complaining about talking in the House while somebody was making a speech, and I think that we are going to have to get a rope to tie him to his seat, because he just will not stay in his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: He is always over talking to the President of Treasury Board or the Premier or the Minister of Energy, or up along here, or out talking to the Clerk. He is always running around the House. I guess that is the kind of capacity the NDP people have: running around, scurrying from place to place.

If the Leader of the Opposition would restrain himself for a few moments.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Opposition House Leader.

MR. NOEL: The House Leader - I just cannot get you straight.

But this extra money we are talking about is going to have to be spent, and for my friends from rural Newfoundland if we do not get it from the St. John's region, then we are either going to get from elsewhere in the Province, or elsewhere in the Province is not going to get the money that is going to be used in here. And my friends on the other side who are not from Mount Pearl should realize what they have at stake in getting this amalgamation question settled in the St. John's region and not allow themselves to be dictated to by the Member for Mount Pearl, as has been the case over the years, at the expense of the St. John's region.

Now, this brief that Mount Pearl has handed in to the Minister is really just amazing, you know. I think Mount Pearl is the Quebec of Newfoundland, they want to have their cake and eat it, too; they want to have the goodies, they want to have their independence.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this the Liberal position on the Constitution?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. NOEL: You know, Mount Pearl is a group of cherry pickers; they will take the nice little communities out there, they will take areas like Donovan's Industrial Park that can give them revenues; they will take, maybe, part of Paradise, and some of these areas, but do not talk to them about the areas that are going to cost them money, they do not want that. They do not want areas that are going to cost them money.

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

The hon. Member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Finally, Chairperson. I would just like to say while the Premier is just outside, that the Member for Pleasantville did a better job of delivering his speech tonight than he did earlier in the week; this was the best presentation yet. I find some fault in the content, but this was the best delivery.

I want to come back to the remarks of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance spoke for ten whole minutes on the $1 billion Interim Supply measure tonight, his biggest contribution to the debate so far.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Was the Premier here to hear it?

MS. VERGE: The Premier was here to hear it.

Now the Minister of Finance made an impassioned complete faulting of the Opposition for holding up Interim Supply, for holding up his work and the work of his administration. Chairperson, I would like to talk about the 3,500 public employees, whose careers are being held up, because the Government is laying them off -

MR. SIMMS: Three thousand my foot!

MS. VERGE: - or the sick people all around the Province, whose recovery is being held up, because hospitals and hospital beds are being closed by this Government; or students, in rural areas of the Province, whose education is being held up, because community college campuses are being closed and programmes are being cut.

Students in urban areas, as well as rural areas, whose education is being held up, because tuition fees are being put up yet again. Chairperson, what about the social assistance recipients, whose survival is being held up, because their income is going to fall behind the cost of living this year? - social assistance recipients who could hardly get by last year, but who are being dealt a reduction in their income this year.

Chairperson, the Minister of Finance and other members opposite seem extremely annoyed at the Opposition asking hard questions about their Budget; the Minister of Finance and the Premier seem to be irritated because this Budget of theirs is being discussed and probed. Now, if only they could find a way to rationalize the running of the Government, to eliminate the Opposition, just think how much more efficient Government would be; they have eliminated the Ombudsman, they eliminated the Consumer Advocate on the Public Utilities Board, now they have extinguished Memorial University Extension Services. So they are improving the situation, they are getting rid of checks and balances to their authority, but they have yet to figure out a way to get rid of the Opposition in the House of Assembly; they are going to have to work on that one. They are going to have to gather together their phalanx of public relations advisors, PR directors, and spin doctors and try to figure out a way to silence the Official Opposition.

Now, Chairperson, the people I represent are extremely unhappy about this Budget, they are quite shaken. They understand, with the economic recession, that governments have to restrain spending. They understood that during the time of the previous administration. But they believe that this Wells administration has made wrong choices and is instituting extremely regressive measures. When I say `regressive', I am talking about measures that are having the effect of widening the gap between the poor and the well-off - and I say `poor', to the Minister of Social Services, I say poor people whose income is being frozen when inflation is going up by 5.7 per cent - regressive measures that are being disproportionately harsh on women compared to men.

Women are taking the brunt of the public service layoffs, women are the only ones who are being retroactively hurt by Bill 16. Pay equity is being wiped out with respect to the past. It was supposed to take effect from June of 1988. And through Bill 16 women in the health care sector are losing $25 million, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY Why did you not put in pay equity? You had seventeen years to do it.

MS. VERGE: We did put it in, I say to the Member for St. John's South. We are the ones who made the commitment and agreed to a negotiated approach. The members opposite made a written promise two years ago to legislate pay equity. Obviously, they are not going to keep that promise, any more than they are going to keep a whole slew of other promises they made. The regressive measures are crippling rural Newfoundland, they are annihilating some communities, and they are going to widen the disparity between the rural and urban parts of our Province.

Now, Chairperson, most of the members opposite abdicate responsibility for these choices, choosing instead, to blame somebody else. And they have three refrains. They blame the Federal Government, although the Premier agreed with the recent Federal Budget. The Premier agreed with Michael Wilson's Budget, the same as he agreed with the GST and free trade.

The second refrain is blaming the previous Tory administration. Now, my friend for Mount Pearl, the Opposition Finance critic, illustrated, today, that in 1970, at the end of the Smallwood era, the end of the last Liberal era, the total public sector debt per capita in Newfoundland and Labrador, as a percentage, as a proportion of personal income per capita, was way more than it was at the end of the PC administrations in 1989. In 1970, I say to the Member for Placentia - perhaps this is going to be painful - the public sector debt in this Province per capita, per citizen, as a proportion of personal income per person, was 70 per cent. In 1989, it was 57 per cent - 70 per cent down to 57 per cent. Now, perhaps the Member for Placentia remembers what he made back in 1970, how much it cost to buy a house or a car in 1970. Just think about that compared to the cost today.

So we have to compare apples and apples. Another valid way of comparing is to relate the provincial government debt, the public sector debt, which includes government agencies, as well as departments, to gross domestic product, to the wealth that was being created in the Province. Again, when you compare 1970 to 1989, you see a huge decrease. So the debt burden left by the Smallwood administration was `way worse than the debt load left at the end of the PC administration.

Chairperson, the third refrain of the Liberals, opposite, as they wash their hands of responsibility for the regressive budget measures, is to blame the people. The Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech said that the people of the Province have too great expectations. He faulted the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, his constituents, for expecting too much. Now, could this be the same politician, working under the same leader, who went around this Province two years ago promising to build universities, no less, in every region of the Province, a new university in Central Newfoundland, a new university in Northern Newfoundland, a new university in Labrador, expansion of Grenfell College in Corner Brook to full degree-granting status.

Now, there were some nay-sayers, at the time, who suggested that the Province could not afford that, but that did not stop Clyde Wells. He promised to build a whole slew of new universities; he promised to open several additional hospital beds, well, he promised to actually open hundreds of additional hospital beds and infuse all kinds of additional funding and health care. That was one of the main election platform plans. Perhaps the best known of the Premier's election promises was bringing home from the mainland, mothers' sons to fill new jobs that he was going to create here at home in Newfoundland and Labrador. As Ray Guy pointed out, he must have thought all the mothers' daughters were quite happy being married to a car salesman in Mississauga.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Oh, too bad, Chairperson!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, how can the hon. the Member for Humber East, being the former former Minister of Education, with her degrees in education and her law degree, explain that $800 million when the hon. Joseph R. Smallwood left Government, $800 million, is a worse debt per capita than $8.4 billion - $8.4 billion! Now, explain it. The math that I learned - out in Port de Grave, in St. Luke's School, I never learned that kind of math. I tried as hard as I could on the blackboard, and when I taught school out on Triton Island, in Green Bay, I never ever could work it out on the blackboard. Now, I grant you, we never had much chalk.

MR. SIMMS: You taught school!

MR. EFFORD: I taught school.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good God!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Alvin Hewlett was one of my pupils. Eight hundred million equal to $8.4 billion! Now, I know how she drew that conclusion, the same type of conclusion she drew today, in running - not walking at a slow pace, but running, from the West Block - when she heard about all the people there from the university. She ran over, slamming all the doors behind her, and got up to be the advocate for the MUN Extension group, only to find out on the news this evening, she never got one minute. `The hon. the Member for St. John's East,' they said, `is our spokesman, we have nothing to do with the Tories '- after all that haste to get over there!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: And I asked her this evening - I knew there was something wrong, that she was so down in the dumps, that she has hardly smiled for the last two or three hours, and she sat back, subdued, in her seat. Now, I know why; let down by all of these people in the gallery, today - `We do not want Ms. Verge, we want the hon. the Member for St. John's East, he is our spokesman.' Let me say to the hon. the Member for Ferryland, your chances are looking better every hour! Well, well, well!

A month ago, the single parents got rid of her when she was knocking on doors, night after night, trying to get petitions signed. They booted her out, and now, MUN Extension group boots her out. What chance do you possibly have? Well, I tell you one thing. I told you a while ago that I should come over and sit down and show you how to write some questions. I should also show you how to try to get some news media attention. I will bring in my flashlight, one of those nights, so you can know how to do it. My, oh, my! It is absolutely unbelievable, what you go through!

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you been helping Jack Harris?

MR. EFFORD: Oh, Jack is learning fast. Mr. Chairman, I have to say one thing about the former Tory Government, they do not understand the simple mathematics of what the debt of the Province is. So how can you blame innocent people for not understanding? You really cannot blame them.

One time, there was an old fellow out in Port de Grave who told me, `One thing you will remember the rest of your life, is that Tory times are hard times.' He said he had to make a confession before he died, because he committed one sin in his lifetime. I took him seriously, and I asked: `Uncle Joe, what is that sin?' He said, `I voted Tory once in my life, and I only hope and pray that God will forgive me.' And when I see such a dismal mess of Opposition (inaudible), over there, make no wonder Uncle Joe would make a statement like that.

MR. HEARN: I wonder what he would say now.

MR. EFFORD: What would he say now? He would say, Thank God for the Liberal people in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, we can make rational decisions. We can look at the debt of the Province today, and we can keep on blaming it on the Opposition, the former administration - there is no doubt, they have to take the blame - but, if we are going to deal with the debt of today and go into the future, then we have to make rational decisions. And I have not heard one ounce of constructive criticism from any of the members opposite who put us into this dismal financial position we are in, not one suggestion as to anything we have done that they would have done differently, if they were in our financial position today, not one sensible constructive criticism, not one!

The problem is that you are afraid something positive is going to happen in this Province, you are actually afraid. And I can understand that sort of mentality, the fear of something positive happening. Because, any group of people who sat around a Cabinet table, who tell us they are going to grow food, cucumbers and tomatoes for all of Canada, Mexico and part of the United States, I can understand their thinking; I can understand the fear that must be in their minds now when they see some rationale put into a budget decision; that, from hon. members opposite, is not hard to understand.

The former Minister of Agriculture - the only time I saw him on television was in a news item where they were dumping cucumbers down at Robin Hood Bay, and when the dairy farmers in his own district - they did gain something from it, because the cattle did not eat cattle feed all that winter, they ate cucumbers, to the tune of $27 million!

The hon. the Member for Humber East said a few minutes ago, there were no major increases in the Social Services budget this year, and she is quite right, there were no major increases, but there were increases. If I had that $27 million to put in the budget of Social Services this year, I can tell you, there would be major increases in that part of the Budget. So, do not stand there, saying there are hypocrites on this side of the House until you look in the mirror, yourselves. Twenty-seven million dollars would feed a lot of hungry children. One thing we did last year, as a Government, was we created a school lunch programme in seven schools in St. John's, for hungry children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would rather see hungry children in this Province eating a decent breakfast than to see cattle -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: I have two more points I want to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes. The first point - we are talking about the cucumber farm, and I tell you, it was a tremendous mistake - I would rather have seen that $27 million that was spent on cattle food -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I have not said it yet.

- put into the hungry mouths of children in this Province.

Now, let us talk about the Churchill Falls Agreement. What ministers or what people in the Government of that day, not ministers, but members of the Government and members of the Opposition, 1968 - 1969 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: - just listen! - who voted for the Churchill Falls deal: Harold Collins -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tory!

MR. EFFORD: Thomas Hickey -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tory!

MR. EFFORD: Ottenheimer -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tory!

MR. EFFORD: Ank Murphy -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tory!

MR. EFFORD: and Crosbie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tory!

MR. EFFORD: Tory! And you are talking about the Churchill - Mr. Chairman, I rest my case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

If the Minister would look at those names again - unless I am wrong - I do not believe Harold Collins was in the legislature at the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have quiet for the few minutes I am speaking.

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

MR. SIMMS: Tell everyone, Mr. Chairman, would you? Don't just look at me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not just looking at the hon. the Member for Grand Falls. The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains has requested silence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains has requested silence.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that hindsight is always 20/20. I would like to see those people over there have some foresight, one thing they do not have, Mr. Chairman. It certainly was not shown in this Budget, a few days ago. It seems to me, the main thrust of the Budget is to try to reduce the debt on the backs of fellow Newfoundlanders.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are reading a speech.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much. I was hoping a member opposite would say that. This was a speech delivered by Mr. Gilbert on May 31, 1985.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: And now he supports it, Mr. Chairman.

I will go a little further, Mr. Chairman. `We have, for instance, the wage freeze still in effect. When I refer to the wage freeze I am not talking about the highly-paid people government likes to glamorize when they talk about a wage freeze, I refer to the people working in hospitals.'

What else did he say, I wonder? `Mainly, it is people working in hospitals. We hear now that hospital beds are being closed.' Now, this is the speech from the hon. Minister in 1985. Mr. Chairman, he has a face like a robber's horse.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let us go a little further. I had a phone call about an hour ago, a very serious one. I want to refer this phone call - in fact, I would ask one of my colleagues to pass the number along - to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, because I think the Minister is the only person who can solve this very serious problem.

Mr. Chairman, at eight-thirty, I had the call. The person had been trying to get his member all day. The problem is very serious, and only one person can solve it.

Mr. Chairman, tomorrow, weather permitting, there are going to a be a number of social assistance cheques, probably, family allowance cheques, and other cheques, delivered to Bell Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. WARREN: To Bell Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: And we are going to open the post office, so we can sort them.

MR. WARREN: That is right. I agree with the hon. member. Mr. Chairman, the member is right. In fact, that is exactly right. Those cheques will be going over there. The Federal Government is going to allow the post office to be open, so that those people can get their cheques.

AN HON. MEMBER: Excellent! A good idea!

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Chairman, why has the member not returned his phone calls all day and asked the Minister to allow the supermarkets to open so people can buy food for their families? Because, only the Minister can do that. Tomorrow is Good Friday and those people want to be able to cash their cheques to buy food. The Minister is the only person who can allow that to happen on Good Friday.

Mr. Chairman, let me say, also, I have already spoken to one of the managers of the supermarkets and they are willing to open the supermarkets if the Minister will give the okay. All that is needed is the Minister's okay to open those supermarkets tomorrow, so people can feed their families.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is all done.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member cannot say it is all done, because I spoke to a Mr. Slade only fifteen or twenty minutes ago, and he is still waiting for a call from somebody in Government. The hon. gentleman would not return a phone call today. Three different people on Bell Island tried to get the hon. gentleman and he would not return their phone calls.

I say to the hon. Minister, please call the three supermarkets on Bell Island. Do it now, for the sake of the people on Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: You know there are three over there?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, let me tell my hon. colleague, I probably know more than he does, because Mr. Slade is willing to open his supermarket tomorrow.

MR. MURPHY: The last time you were on Bell Island, the Kipawo made her maiden voyage.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, let me say to my hon. colleague from St. John's South - I believe it is St. John's South -

AN HON. MEMBER: If you go on for the next twelve years you will be saying that.

MR. WARREN: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I will be saying that for the next twelve years. In fact, I agree with his leader's statement, too, I do not expect I will be here for the next twelve years, either.

However, Mr. Chairman, I was serious in my comments to the Minister. The Minister is responsible, because Mr. Slade will open his supermarket tomorrow if he will not be charged by this Government. It is unlawful in our Province to open a supermarket tomorrow unless the Minister can tell Mr. Slade or the other two supermarket owners over there that they can open their supermarkets. I believe the other two are Food Land and Easy Save, and then there is Slade's Supermarket. Those are three I know of.

MR. WALSH: The supermarkets will be open tomorrow, no problem.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is saying, `The supermarkets will be open tomorrow, no problem.' All I am saying to the member is I had a request from one of his constituents. He did not respond to that. She has been trying to get him since ten o'clock this morning. Now I cannot help it if he did not call her back. All I am saying to the Minister is, let the managers of the supermarkets know if they are allowed to open tomorrow or not. As of twenty minutes ago, Mr. Slade was not advised. I hope the Minister will get up and respond now, because this lady is awaiting a call and Mr. Slade is awaiting a call, and it is now almost nine-thirty. I think it is incumbent upon the Minister to advise these people so that they will not be inconvenienced tomorrow. Ross Reid has made sure that the post office will deliver the cheques. Ross Reid has done his job, as the federal member; surely goodness, this Government -

MR. GILBERT: Table my speech now, boy, and sit down.

MR. WARREN: The hon. gentleman mentions his speech. One other comment he made there - I should read this.

MR. GILBERT: Table it! Table it!

MR. WARREN: `There has been a cut of $180,000 in clinics to the areas in rural Newfoundland that are suffering, and people are dying because they have not got proper medical care.'

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that in Burgeo?

MR. WARREN: LaScie.

I have here, right now, an example of this. I have here in my hand a telegram that was sent yesterday to the hon. the Minister of Health from the people of Ramea.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way!

MR. WARREN: Oh, yes! It concerns a serious situation that has developed there over the last few days.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the same Minister who was up in this House yesterday and this afternoon, when my colleague from Kilbride was up complaining, and rightfully so, about what he was doing as Minister. Only six years ago this same individual was here, and what was he saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you read that first one again?

MR. WARREN: Yes, I will read it again, because this should be on the record. `It seems to me that the main thrust of the Budget is to try to reduce the debt on the backs of fellow Newfoundlanders.'

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. WARREN: The Minister of Transportation.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible). I thought he said we were not reducing the debt.

MR. WARREN: Oh, no! This is what he said in 1985.

Another comment he made was, `Yes, the poor people unemployed.'

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. GILBERT: Table my speech now, Garfield, so everybody will have a chance at it.

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, as they say, there are lies and there are damn lies and there are statistics.

MS. VERGE: Who said that?

MR. NOEL: I think it was a fellow who has a Masters in that kind of mathematics, Mulroney, I think his name is, Brian Mulroney - lies, damn lies and statistics.

The Member for Humber East is trying to use statistics to convince us that her Administration did a good job of managing the financial affairs of our Province. Now, she would have to use magic to convince anybody that was the case, but if you put statistics together the right way, you can show all kinds of pictures. I believe the statistics she used, that was our debt as a percentage of personal income, went down during the Conservative Administration, but you have to look behind the figure to see just what the explanation for that might be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) slower.

MR. NOEL: Did I go too fast for the hon. the Opposition House Leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. NOEL: I am a slow speaker.

I believe she said that debt, as a percentage of personal income, declined during the course of your Administration.

MR. SIMMS: Debt per capita, as a percentage of personal income.

MR. NOEL: Yes. There could be many explanations. The most likely one is that that was a period of tremendous inflation, through the 1970s and 1980s, when income went up, so naturally debt, as a percentage of income, would go down. There are all kinds of explanations.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) the Department of Finance.

MR. NOEL: I do not know why the House Leader for the Opposition does not get up on his feet and take up ten minutes here tonight, instead of sitting down and screwing up everybody else.

MR. MURPHY: He is not here, he is out in Mount Pearl.

MR. NOEL: Well, The Pretender, The Great Pretender on the other side.

Another explanation is the fact that you people were so busy raising taxes while you were there that you did not need to raise debt as much as you should have in order to finance the services you were providing, because you raised taxes so high to provide the necessary income. So there are all kinds of ways of looking at figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). Is that what you are saying?

MR. NOEL: No, I am telling you how levels of debt can be explained. They are trying to make the case that debt did not get out of hand while they were the Administration. The fact that we went from $800 million to $7.4 million or whatever it was when they left -

AN HON. MEMBER: We were actually better (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Yes, they were not putting the Province in the hole. Another figure I happen to have here is debt service as a percentage of gross expenditures went up constantly from 8.7 per cent in 1973 to double and by 1988 it was 16.2 per cent debt service, as a percentage of gross expenditures.

AN HON. MEMBER: I was always interested in (inaudible). Is that a reasonable comparison?

MR. NOEL: Yes, I would not make it if it were not reasonable. I would not give it to you if I never had it.

MR. SIMMS: Well, where is it?

MR. NOEL: Well, where do you think it is? What difference where it is?

MR. SIMMS: I have it here.

MR. NOEL: You get up and give me your version when my ten minutes are up.

MR. SIMMS: You have not given any version yet.

MR. NOEL: Well, then, what are you asking me about?

MR. SIMMS: I asked you, Is there a reasonable comparison? And you said yes.

MR. NOEL: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Do you know what it is? You said yes.

MR. NOEL: I presume you are asking me what I was talking about.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, Walter.

MR. SIMMS: Hear, hear! Even your own colleagues are (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: He is only joshing. He is also concerned for his neighbourhood out in Mount Pearl.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: On a point of privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, we are in Committee of the Whole House and you cannot raise a personal privilege.

MR. WALSH: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: My point of order is very simple. The hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains might be 150 pounds, but all 150 pounds are 150 pounds of either bullshit or lies. I just spoke to the man who operates a store on Bell Island -

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

I ask the hon. member to withdraw that unparliamentary statement.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that statement.

I just spoke with the gentleman on Bell Island, who never attempted to phone me today, never tried one phone call; yet, prodded by someone else, Mr. Warren phoned him. He just phoned him twenty minutes ago. I did not have to return a call today. There were no calls made to me. I want his statement retracted and taken out of Hansard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SIMMS: I think the hon. member doth protest too much. I think if he reads Hansard he will see - the hon. member referred to a lady who had called.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I will try again. He said a lady had called and had indicated that she had called the hon. member's office on three occasions. He went on to explain this discussion with this gentleman, I forget the guy's name even, I do not know the gentleman's name. That was what the member said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I beg your pardon? Now, the hon. member might want to cool it, I do not think that would be fair. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, the obvious point is that it is not a point of order, that is the real point to be made.

MR. WALSH: It is so.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, indeed, it is not. It is not a point of order.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To that point of order, I think it is a very serious point of order when members in this House get up, name individuals, and indicate false information about those individuals in a forum where they are free from prosecution. I think it is a shameful practice, Mr. Chairman, and it happens far too often in this House, where members wave around pieces of paper and give false information to this House about the pieces of paper, to try to nail a member on this side of the House. That happens far too often and someone has to put a stop to it. That is not parliamentary. It is not a proper way to behave in this House of Assembly.

MR. SIMMS: To the point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just a final submission, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I mean, Your Honour would know that a point of order has to do with a breach of parliamentary procedure. This has nothing to do with that. This is a dispute or a difference of opinion between two hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) misleading the House.

MR. SIMMS: A point of order is not misleading the House. You cannot establish a point of order by charging someone with misleading the House. That is not a point of order. The Government House Leader knows it. And the best that can be said about it is that it is a difference of opinion between two hon. members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: I will start again, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, if ever there was an example -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman!

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

MR. SIMMS: I will try again, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, if ever there was an example of a difference of opinion as to facts or allegations, which is outlined in Beauchesne, this is an example of it. It is certainly not a point of order. A point of order has to do with parliamentary procedure, that is the point.

MR. WARREN: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, to the point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Development on the same point of order. I think the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains rose on a point of privilege, but we are in Committee and you cannot raise a point of privilege.

The hon. the Minister of Development, on the point of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I think what the Opposition House Leader is saying has merit. As I think he rightly says, the Standing Orders are quite clear, that a point of order deals with the process that the House goes through in the order of business, and if there is something disruptive in that order of business, then one raises a point of order.

However, I think the appropriate thing to do would be for the hon. member to give notice - the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, perhaps, would want to give notice, I see he has left the Chamber for a second. At the time the Hansard documents are printed, he can get a look at the verbatim transcript to see if, in fact, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains said he had a call from Mr. Slade, or Wade, or somebody from Bell Island. The hon. the Member for Mount Scio, on the point of order, wanted to make the point that he went out and phoned this gentleman, and asked, did he have a phone call; and if he did have a phone call, well, that is acceptable. But, obviously, the hon. member wanted to make the point that this was misleading the House, and that is not a difference of opinion.

MR. BAKER: Deliberately misleading.

MR. FUREY: Deliberately misleading the House.

So, Your Honour, I think, probably, what would be in order, is for the hon. the Member for Mount Scio to give the House notice that he would like to rise on a point of personal privilege as soon as he receives the Hansard transcripts and confirms verbatim what the hon. member said. I think that would be in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair has heard enough submissions on the point of order.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, a new point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to rule on the point of order before the House at this time.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, before you do, surely, the individual to whom the allegation was made should have a chance to speak to the point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I said the Chair was ready to rule on the point of order, and the ruling is that there is no point of order.

MR. SIMMS: The hon. member should -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the hon. member can rise.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, to the point of order.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I just left this legislature a few minutes ago to go up and call this individual, and also to call Mr. Slade. I was talking to the Minister and, as well, brought it up in this legislature.

Now, Mr. Chairman, when I was speaking, at no time did I say that Mr. Slade called me. Mr. Slade is the owner of the supermarket. Do not be so bloody stupid! I called Mr. Slade and asked him would he open his supermarket. Now, this lady who called me asking about her cheque, said Mr. Slade would open his supermarket if the Minister would say yes. Now, that is where Mr. Slade came in. I called Mr. Slade twenty minutes ago, and he confirmed it.

I am surprised that the Member for Bell Island would stoop so low and be so stupid, because I called Mr. Slade and asked him would he open his supermarket if the Minister okayed it. He said, yes he would.

Mr. Chairman, I say again, that this lady has been trying to get the member all day. She called his office three times.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, to that point of order.

Mr. Slade knows full well he does not need permission from a Minister of Labour to open his store.

MR. WARREN: He does so.

MR. WALSH: He does not. He has a convenience store license. He does not need it.

MR. WARREN: He has a supermarket.

MR. WALSH: The name does not mean anything. You are stunned and stupid, and you are caught again!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, I want to serve notice that, at the earliest opportune time, having receiving a copy of Hansard, I will stand in this House on a point of personal privilege. I do not need this foolishness from a buffoon over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible) ask the member, she saw me.

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

The hon. the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. WARREN: His time is up. It is up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

We, in the official Opposition, have so much to say about this terrible Budget, we have no many questions to which we are still awaiting answers, that we are competing with each other for speaking time. There will be more time next week and later in the Budget Debate.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of what has been happening in the House over the last while, we have now reached the point where we have had twenty-four hours of Budget Debate. Standing Order No. 119 indicates that forty-two hours of the seventy-five hours of Budget Debate have to be allocated for the Committees. Also, Standing Order No. 121 indicates that there are concurrence motions in the House, and that takes a maximum of nine hours. So, Mr. Chairman, add those two together and you get fifty-one hours. Add the twenty-four hours we have so far spent on the budget and you will see that we have reached our limit of seventy-five hours of Budget Debate, assuming that we go through with the Committee structure, which we fully intend to do.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to Your Honour - perhaps you could take a couple of minutes to check, and do a little research on it - that our time has run out on the Budget debate and we should, indeed, put the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a good try, I guess, by the Government House Leader, but the total allocation for the Budget is seventy-five hours, as he knows. We do not even know how many departments are being referred out yet because the Estimates -well, that has not even been done in the House. We have no idea if it will be thirteen or fourteen, so we do not know if it is thirty-five hours, thirty-two, thirty-nine, or what it is going to be. In Concurrence Debate, there is allocation for three hours for each Committee but it does not have to necessarily be used. I think the amount of time used on Interim Supply thus far is about twenty-four hours. I think, if you add them up, the seventy-five hours certainly have not been used, and they will not be until the Estimates and everything else is completed, so this is kind of a foolish submission, I think.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand what the Opposition House Leader is saying; however, the most important part of the whole Budget process is examining, in detail, the Estimates of each department. There will be fourteen departments referred to the Estimates Committees and, according to the Standing Orders, three hours shall be deducted for each department referred, so that is forty-two hours gone there.

MR. SIMMS: They are not gone.

MR. BAKER: It will be gone, and must be taken into account, simply because that is a necessary part of our procedure. As the Opposition House Leader knows, these Committees are going to be operating and we must deduct the forty-two hours for that.

Mr. Chairman, I know what he is saying, that we have not yet used them up, but they have to be allocated from the seventy-five hours. So I am taking them out of the seventy-five hours, because, according to our Standing Orders, they must be allocated out of the seventy-five hours, and that leaves no time. It means that if we use the nine hours from the Concurrence Debates - now, if the hon. gentleman opposite is saying that we are not going to have the Concurrence Debates and that we will only have very short Concurrence Debates, then he may, indeed, have a point. But, Mr. Chairman, I submit that we should allocate the three hours for each of the Concurrence Debates, which makes a total of nine hours; hence the seventy-five hours is used up.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, that was a very weak attempt by the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Well, if members will listen, clearly what has been used in debate is twenty-four hours, not seventy-five hours. Twenty-four hours have been used, and usually the Table will indicate to the House when seventy-five hours have expired. So, this kind of argument about what we might use next week, or the week after, when the Estimates Committees are in place, or how much time will be used in concurrence, I mean, that is all irrelevant. At the present time, we have used twenty-four hours. Yoy may use thirty hours in Interim Supply, when you get to the next step in the budgetary process, which is the Estimates Committees, you use up those hours, and when you come back to the House, you use concurrence hours, but if there is no time remaining to finish the Concurrence Debates, well then, the seventy-five hours have expired. But, Mr. Chairman, the seventy-five hours provided for Budget have not expired. Twenty-four hours have expired. That is the simply explanation.

Now, the Government House Leader can play little games again, if he wishes, and try to, somehow, get out of this little mess he got himself and his members into over the last few days. If he wants to try that kind of little tactic, that is fine, he can go on with it, but there is not much point in further arguing it. The Chair can make a ruling on it. There is no point in making the same arguments over and over.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

I will hear one more submission on this.

MR. BAKER: One small point, Mr. Chairman. What the Opposition House Leader is saying about the Committees is not correct. Fourteen departments and the three hours `shall be' deducted from the seventy-five, for that. It does not say may be deducted or maybe we will only spend two hours on the Committee. That has nothing to do with it. Whether we spend two hours or ninety-five hours, we deduct from the seventy-five hours, three hours for each department referred, and there are going to be fourteen departments referred, Mr. Chairman, so forty-two hours are gone there. It is not a matter of choice later on, that is automatically deducted from the seventy-five hours. There is no choice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I will hear the hon. the Opposition House Leader on this, and then the Chair will take some time to recess and get further clarification on the matter.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, the only point I want to make is in response to this argument by the Government House Leader's very faulty argument that he has put up now at the last moment.

Mr. Chairman, no departments have been referred to Estimates Committees yet. There have been none. Who knows if there are going to be fourteen? The Government House Leader says, yes, but we have had enough experience with this House Leader and with this Government to know very well that what they say one day may very well be quite different the next day, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Free vote. Free vote, remember? Easter break, remember?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to make my point, but I cannot do it, with continuing interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, my point is that we have no idea what departments are going to be allocated. Obviously, the Chair has no idea, because the motions have not even been put to the House yet or anything of that nature. This is another foolish argument, really, I suppose, on the part of the House Leader, to try to somehow get out of this mess he is in, as I said before. But there is no decision yet as to what departments are going to be referred, there has been no motion. That motion has to be passed by the legislature, I say to the Government House Leader, not by the Government, but by this legislature, and there has been no motion put to establish the Committees. Nobody knows what departments are going to be referred to the Committees.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: But the House makes that decision, not the Government. The House makes that decision, not the Government. So the Chair cannot make a decision on this kind of argument without full knowledge of that fact, and he does not have that knowledge because we do not know; the House has not even dealt with the matter, Mr. Chairman. So, as I said, this is really a silly argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair will recess briefly to consult with the Table officers. I am not sure how much time it is going to take, but can we stop the clock at ten?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the hon. the Government House Leader that the time for debate on Interim Supply has expired, raising that point, he brought to the attention of the Chair, Standing Order No. 121, Section 2, which says, "The motion to concur in the report of each committee may be debated for not more than three hours and at the conclusion of that period of time the motion shall be put by the Speaker." In considering the point raised, Section 121.2 certainly does not make the three hours mandatory, it is just a maximum time that would be allocated for Concurrence Debate. Precedent in this House, on May 28, 1987, the Concurrence Debate lasted for two-and-one-quarter hours, because the time for that debate had expired. The seventy-five hours allocated for Budget Debate had run out before the three hour maximum time limit placed on Concurrence Debate was arrived at. So, based on that, the Chair rules that the point of order raised by the hon. the Government House Leader is not a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members now know that any time beyond this comes out of the Concurrence Debate.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 2:00 p.m.