The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if other members would join with me in commending the St. John's Rotary Club in having undertaken a very successful telethon and fund-raising effort for the Kirby House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: They raised $183,000 for the Kirby House for battered women in St. John's and it is very significant, in that this club is exclusively a men's club, playing an active role and taking some responsibility to try to help on this issue. I think they should be commended for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to routine business, I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery today of the Ambassador of Korea to Canada, His Excellency Kunwoo Park and Mrs Park, and his secretary, Mr. Shoe. I am sure all hon. members will want to extend a warm welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to commend the Member for St. John's East on his comments concerning the Rotary Club's initiative. I didn't respond at that moment because I have a statement to make.

I would like to take this opportunity to offer congratulations to the Rotary Club of St. John's for their efforts to raise money to build a new Iris Kirby Transition House for battered women and their children.

The people of this Province should be thanked because they have recognized the need for such a facility, and through their generous contributions, have made the dream of a new safe house a reality. I, personally, attended the dinner and auction last evening, and at the end of the function, the final figure of dollars raised was $183,000. This amount, along with corporate donations, will put the total over the $200,000 objective of the St. John's Rotary Club.

Mr. Speaker, my department provides operational funding to Kirby House and will continue to assist this very worthwhile project. Iris Kirby House is one of five such safe houses in the Province providing temporary accommodation to women and children who are exposed to violent relationships.

The Department of Social Services is very concerned with the well being of abused women and children throughout the Province, and is very supportive of community initiatives such as this project to build a new safe home in this region. The need for a new Iris Kirby House is evident and the fact that a new one will be built is a credit to all those who have worked so hard to make this dream a reality.

The speed with which the money was raised is indicative of the awareness by society of the problem of family violence. It is hoped that this growing recognition will have a preventative effect on this major social problem.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to join with the members of the government and the Member for St. John's East in expressing appreciation to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who contributed to this weekend's fund-raising drive to build a new Iris Kirby House as a shelter for battered women and children in St. John's to serve Eastern Newfoundland.

I would like to commend the women's movement, who initially drew attention to the chronic problem of family violence in this Province, and who pioneered in providing services and gradually generating community support.

I would also like to thank the St. John's Rotary Club, a traditionally male organization, for joining in the effort to combat family violence.

Mr. Speaker, while acknowledging the generosity of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador in supporting transition houses, I think it is time to question the government policy of expecting community donations to operate transition houses. We have, in this Province, the minister indicated, five transition houses for battered women and children. Actually, one of them, the one in Labrador West, gets only a token operating grant from the Province, a token grant of $10,000 or $15,000 a year. The other four, those in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Corner Brook, Gander, and St. John's get operating funding from the Province which is subsidized 50 per cent by the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan. But that funding does not even pay for groceries, and consequently, the volunteers who operate these shelters have to appeal to the community year round for operating funding.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we don't expect that kind of community contribution for hospitals or for jails. Why should we expect it for -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Environment and Lands, who is on her way to Ottawa to meet with officials regarding the issue of foreign overfishing. Today marks the beginning of National Wildlife Week which is being held from April 5 - 11 across Canada. This year's theme is "Keep Canada Ever Green for Wildlife". The Wildlife Division of the Department of Environment and Lands is planning a number of activities for the week.

Canada is an incredibly green nation. Almost half of the country is covered in forest. With almost 10 per cent of the world's forests in our hands, we have a lot to lose if we let our green heritage erode and, of course, so does wildlife. National Wildlife Week can be a time for all of us to find a way to make a difference, from recycling to replanting. All living things, especially wildlife, will benefit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

We, on this side of the House, also support National Wildlife Week. It is interesting to note that this great country of Canada is an incredibly green nation. I say to the minister and to his colleagues that this government should be aware in keeping our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador green. I think we can all make a difference. It is not only the wildlife and not only in the forest, but I think we have an obligation to the people of the Province to put the people first and let them do their job in keeping the country clean.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Oral Questions, the Chair would like to bring again to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the representation of some town councils throughout the Province. First, I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence of the Mayor and two councillors of the Council of Baie Verte. The Chair was not provided with their names unfortunately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, we have a councillor, Mr. Winston Norris,

from the council of the new town of Badger's Quay-Valleyfield-Pool's Island-Wesleyville-Newtown, abbreviated form of the new town.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In his Budget Speech, we understand, the Speech, itself said that the personal income tax rate for individuals would be increased by 2.5 percentage points for the calendar year 1992-93. I ask the minister, does that mean that the increased income tax rate is retroactive to January of 1992? Is that what that means?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and the Minister of Finance have both been saying, and indeed now he has confirmed, that the increase will be retroactive to January of 1992. They have also been saying that the increase in the personal income tax rate is to replace the school tax that is currently being paid by individuals; but the school tax will not be abolished until June 30 - halfway through this particular calendar year. I want to ask the Minister of Finance: Does that not then mean that in fact people will be paying both the school tax and the higher income tax for the six months from January 'til June, and that is, in fact, double taxation?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no double taxation. What we are trying to do is to have a Budget where our deficit is $29 million on current account, and our budgetary expenditures on capital account. In order to come up with that number, and to maintain the expenditures that we agreed upon, we had to bring in several taxes. We had to increase the personal income tax. We had to increase the payroll tax, and we had to bring in a cigarette tax. That is how we did it.

To tie all the tax increases to something that happened to the school tax is not entirely appropriate, although we did explain it in that fashion when we did so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will try to ask the minister again: The income tax rate is retroactive to January of 1992. From January 'til June individuals now will pay the higher 2.5 per cent income tax rate. He just confirmed that. Can he confirm that those same people will also be paying the school tax for the first half of the year, from January 'til June?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, in order to recoup sufficient funds we have really to raise the tax to 66 per cent rather than the 62 per cent which is presently in existence. For the current year the tax will be raised to 64.5 per cent - 2.5 percentage points more than 62 - and basically that is to replace the school tax; but there is no double taxation in that sense. There is just no double taxation. If we wanted double taxation we would have made it 66 per cent right off the bat.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a question for the Minister of Finance. In this year's Budget the minister also announced that there would be a 1 per cent payroll tax for the first time for fish plants in this Province. Can the minister tell me if that 1 per cent will also apply to the payroll of fishermen who sell fish to a plant? Is that included in the payroll of the plant?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, there is a deduction of $100,000 there, so anyone with a payroll of less than $100,000 would not pay at all. Now if there is some sort of an organization which sells fish to fish plants and they are operating as a company then they would be taxable. But the actual number of people who will be paying it who are fishery groups I do not know. But I can find out if there is such (Inaudible).

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the minister answered the question. Maybe when he answers the next one he will allude to this one. What I am asking: a given fish plant would also have a payroll that it pays for fishermen. I am not talking about fishermen setting up a company. Fisherpersons who sell to that plant, as a part of a payroll, they receive a weekly cheque from the fish plant. Is that a part of the payroll, I am asking the minister? Secondly, the minister has said that the tax paid by the 1 per cent would be roughly equivalent to what was paid in school tax. Does the minister still stand by his original statement that there would be no difference in the 1 per cent payroll tax and the mil rate assessment that was charged through school property tax?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the total amounts are roughly the same, but I might point out that businesses generally have gained by their new tax regime, as opposed to what was there before. Now certain individual businesses may be better off or worse off depending on what they were doing, what happened before with the school tax, and it also depends upon the proportion of labour they have in comparison to other components. Other factors of production. So you cannot say that every single business would be impacted exactly like it was before. If that were the case then there would be no point in changing the tax.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that is not what he said. How does the minister explain this discrepancy then? A fish plant on the northeast coast last year in school taxes paid $17,000. So far this year they will pay $8,500, half the year, that has been announced. If we use their payroll of last year there will be an additional $50,000 in payroll tax for a total in school tax this year of $58,500, as opposed to the $17,000 they paid last year. Now, does the minister not agree that this increase would dramatically affect the operations of that company and in fact it might mean that they will have to lay off employees because of an increase of nearly $40,000 in payroll tax?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the hon. member has his facts straight, but anyone who pays a payroll tax of $50,000 - the payroll tax is 1 per cent - would have a payroll of over $5 million. Five million at 1 per cent is -

AN HON. MEMBER: $50,000.

DR. KITCHEN: Yes. So there is either something wrong with your calculations or you are dealing with a very isolated illustration.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Finance another question.

The school tax, as estimated, took in about $32 million revenue a year. I think those were his numbers. I haven't got them in front of me right now. If they intend to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-six million.

MR. SIMMS: Thirty-six million, okay. Therefore, if you are going to collect the school tax for half the year that means you are going to be collecting $18 million this year. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask your question.

MR. SIMMS: I am trying to ask it, but you keep interrupting over there.

Therefore you expect they are going to take in $18 million in school tax this year. Your own budget estimated $21 million from the increased income tax, $10 million in payroll tax, which is a total of $49 million, to replace the school tax of $32 million. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well you have just said you are going to bring in a total of $48 or $49 million, and it replaces the school tax of $32 million.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Normally in a year people would be paying close to $40 million in school tax, but you have to take out the cost of administration which is about $4.5 million, and you are left with about $36 million. And about three-quarters of the year that makes $27 million. So that is really what we are replacing this year, about $27 million. Then, of course, there is some levelling up that is going to happen, about $9 million this current year, up until the end of the current fiscal year. That will drive it up to about $36 million that we will be putting into it. I do not know if that explains it or not, Mr. Speaker, but I will gladly go into more detail if the hon. member wants me to.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier. In view of the problems that we are experiencing with foreign overfishing, particularly with the countries of Spain, Portugal and, as of late, Germany, I am wondering if the Premier or the government has considered directing the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation to immediately stop the import and sale of Spanish, Portuguese and German wines to try and impress upon those countries who are flagrantly overfishing outside our 200-mile limit? Has government considered that or, if not, would the Premier and government immediately directly the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation to stop the sale of those wines?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, trade sanctions are normally one of the first things that come to mind. Now if we were to stop the importation of Spanish and Portuguese wines into Newfoundland - I do not know what the amount is - I doubt that it would be a fraction of the sales of fish by Newfoundland to Spain and Portugal. So immediately we stop the importation of wines from Spain or Portugal they would stop the importation of other fish products from Newfoundland. So you would get a tit for tat reaction and it becomes a Canadian action and you get stoppage of other things. Then you get a response from Canada and response back. That is not quite the way to deal with it. We feel we should try other ways of dealing with it, and that is what we have been doing, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial government has not given any consideration whatsoever to this. If I were in another forum I would think that it was the Prime Minister of Canada who just answered.

As a Province there are not too many things that we can do to try and bring attention to this issue which is having a devastating effect upon our people. So I just want to say to the Premier that I think the government should take action and they should immediately direct its corporation to stop importing and selling these wines from Portugal, Germany and Spain. We do not have too many levers as a government. We are trying all kinds of diplomatic efforts. So won't the Premier make a commitment to the House today that he and his government will seriously consider doing this as part of the process to bring a stop to foreign overfishing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not make any such commitment because we have already considered it and decided that it would be an inappropriate thing to do. In fact the Newfoundland fishing interests may be more severely affected by such a decision than they are at this moment.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, I believe the government has been making significant progress in the last couple of weeks, the last few weeks in particular, in the effort that is being carried on. The Korean Ambassador is present in the Chamber today. I had an excellent discussion with the Korean Ambassador this morning. I am hopeful that he will take the issue to his government.

Korea has acted in a responsible direction. In this past year they have significantly reduced the level of fishing from what it was in 1991 from some 17,000 tons in 1991 down to 7,400 tons last year, and I have asked the Ambassador to take to his government the concern of the people of this Province with the request that they cease such fishing totally right at this moment, particularly for the species that are in jeopardy of extinction.

Now we have been making such good progress along those lines that I do not feel that this kind of trade sanction activity that is now suggested would get us anywhere whatsoever. The government considered what it might do in that regard, but we came very quickly to the conclusion with advice - we had advice on the matter and how we would be affected - we came very quickly to the conclusion that it would hurt us more than it would help us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Because the City of St. John's will end up with a shortfall of approximately $1 million, and because that shortfall was caused by amalgamation, will the minister give serious consideration to an increase in grants or by any other means to help the city over this financial hurdle?

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

MR. HOGAN: I am not aware of any shortfall budgetary position of - I have lost the name, I did not catch the name - I think the member said St. John's. I have not been officially notified of it, only what you read in the media and hear from various reports. Mr. Speaker, it has not been officially reported to the department.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because of the condition in the Goulds, where drinking water and sewerage problems are of grave concern, there should have been a special program, an agreement, but, Mr. Speaker, there was not. I am wondering if the minister now would bring in such a program to correct an impossible situation in the Goulds?

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just waiting for the rabble there to be finished.

I do not know of any program that has been requested of the provincial government now, or for the past twenty years, in particular for the Goulds, to be given any special treatment above and beyond what goes through the normal requests.

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

MR. PARSONS: I want to ask the same minister, Mr. Speaker: What is the policy of government pertaining to the farm land in the Goulds area, and is there a government proposal to review the uses of those lands?

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

MR. HOGAN: Not to my knowledge on the use of the land, Mr. Speaker. I guess the member is referring to the taxation problems that have been experienced by farmers in the area, and there has been representation made to the department on that. We have agreed with the provincial organization, I think it was, that came and made representation on behalf of all farmers - not only the Goulds area, but throughout the Province - but specifically the Goulds. We undertook to take certain action in conjunction with that organization to address the problem, and we hope to resolve it to their mutual satisfaction.

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

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

My question is to the Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation. A few weeks ago I asked the same minister a question with regard to year-round maintenance of the Trans-Labrador Highway from Labrador City and Wabush to Churchill Falls, and he informed me that we would have to wait for the Budget to be brought down to allow him to announce whether or not the road from western Labrador would be open year-round next year. In other words, would the snow be removed from the road next year after the bridge is completed - the Ossokmanuan Bridge? Again, the Budget has come down and there has not been any announcement. I wonder if the minister could tell me if the road will be maintained next winter, and the people from Labrador City be able to drive their vehicles from Labrador City to Wabush, and of course to allow the people in Churchill Falls to have their freight brought into Wabush via truck?

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As in my last answer to this particular question, whether or not the Trans-Labrador Highway from Labrador City to Wabush can be maintained open throughout the winter, in fact year-round, depends upon a number of factors. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation has entered into negotiations with CF(L)Co to ascertain what obligations CF(L)Co is prepared to assume with respect to winter maintenance on the Trans-Labrador Highway, in particular on the section from Ross Bay Junction to Churchill Falls.

As the hon. member will no doubt be aware, CF(L)Co currently maintains a road in the winter to a certain standard between Churchill Falls and Esker. Obviously they would be interested in abandoning the road to Esker, because it is only a railway siding, in order to access the section of the Trans-Labrador Highway between Labrador City and Churchill so they can have access directly into Labrador City. So negotiations with respect to CF(L)Co are undertaken in that respect to determine what their obligations would be.

Secondly, with respect to the section from Churchill Falls to Happy Valley - Goose Bay, as the hon. member is aware, this section is a very low standard road. It was constructed to a low standard. In fact, it is only a tote road. In order to maintain that section of the road open, there has to be a significant amount of capital expenditure to improve the bridges, various dips, grades and realignments that are required even to consider the possibility of maintaining the roads open for this particular winter. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation has entered into discussions with the federal government to determine what funding sources are available to address the bridges, dips and other grades that need to be aligned in order to allow winter maintenance to occur this particular year.

Mr. Speaker, I give the hon. member the assurance that the government is doing everything possible to ascertain whether or not that road can be maintained open this particular winter, and we are making every effort to see that it is, but no definite answer can be given at this point in time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard so much gibberish in all my life.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: I am not sure, but I believe in the first part of that gibberish he suggested that the road from Labrador City to Wabush was going to be maintained this year. Now we lost the motor vehicle registration office. We have lost a judge. Now we are going to be pleased in Labrador City and Wabush to know that you are going to keep three miles of highway open next year. So you are really doing a fantastic job. Keep it up and you will make a complete fool of yourself and the department!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could settle down just for one little minute and answer my very simple question. How much money will be spent on maintaining the road by this administration on the Trans-Labrador Highway from Churchill Falls to Labrador West? Also, how much will be spent on maintenance of the road from Happy Valley - Goose Bay to Churchill Falls? They are two simple little questions. He should be able to get them straight.

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the amount of money that will be spent to maintain, or could be spent to maintain the road between Lab City and Churchill Falls, in large part depends upon the obligations that CF(L)Co is willing to undertake. Since we do not know what obligations they are willing to undertake it is impossible to say what the winter maintenance cost will be on that section of the road.

With respect to the other section of the road, before winter maintenance can be undertaken on that section of the road, as I indicated significant capital work will have to be done. Discussions are ongoing with the federal government to access funds to undertake that capital work. Therefore we will have to await that particular decision before we can determine whether or not any funds will be spent on winter maintenance anywhere on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

I hope that satisfactorily answered the question, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I guess in this particular administration the left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing. We have a Minister of Mines and Energy who suggested we give absolutely no direction to Crown corporations. Now we have the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation saying that: we are going to sit down with the Crown corporation and see if they will maintain the provincial highways now. I wonder if he could get it straight. Talk to his Minister of Energy down here. When he tells me that the Crown corporations are going to have nothing to do with taking direction from this cabinet.

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I did not indicated that cabinet was going to give direction to CF(L)Co. I said we were in the process of ascertaining what obligations CF(L)Co is willing to assume. Obviously if CF(L)Co is willing to abandon the road to Esker, which is almost an equivalent distance from the road from Churchill Falls to Ross Bay Junction, this would result in a considerable savings to the provincial government on the maintenance cost of that particular section of the road.

We are not directing CF(L)Co to assume this obligation. We believe they will derive a significant benefit from assuming that section of the road for a period of time. We are in the process of negotiation. We are not ordering CF(L)Co do it. In fact, I do not even know if we have the legal authority to order CF(L)Co to undertake that particular obligation. But we are, and I can say this to the people, the residents of Labrador, this government is making every effort to see that that road is opened next winter. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the minister has responded that he feels that the Crown corporation is responsible for clearing the snow or maintaining a certain portion of the road. Can he now tell me what his Department is responsible for?

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I did not indicate that Crown corporations are responsible for maintaining the provincial highway system. What I am trying to do, and what I am trying to indicate to the hon. member and to the people of Labrador, is that if CF(L)Co was willing to abandon the road to Esker and move towards the road to Lab City they would derive a benefit. If they were willing to do that and assume part of the cost of winter maintenance on the Labrador Highway, not only would CF(L)Co benefit, the people of Lab West would benefit, and the government would benefit as a result of economies achieved by the fact that CF(L)Co would assume this particular responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you responsible (Inaudible)?

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, what we are responsible for right now is summer maintenance on the 'freedom road,' and from Lab City to Ross Bay Junction. That's summer maintenance. As I indicated to the hon. member - and he can rest assured, and I wish he would bring back the word to the people of Labrador - that we will make every effort to have a year-round road in Labrador so that people up there are not suffering the afflictions of isolation. This government is making every effort - with the federal government, with CF(L)Co, and through our resources - to end the isolation experienced by people in Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Minister of Health about the City of Corner Brook water supply. Would the minister comment on the cause of the problem, the seriousness of the problem, and give us his views on the commonly held view in the area that it is humans and not beavers, which are responsible, and the view that it has been a mistake to allow so much logging and recreational activity in the Corner Brook watershed area?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is really an Order Paper question. It is a question for which you would require a certain amount of time to dig up the answers. In the meantime, I will start, and go on as long as Your Honour will permit me, because it is a fairly in-depth question.

Mr. Speaker, on March 19, the public health director in the Corner Brook area, she, and Shawn Tetford, from the Department of Health and representatives from the Department of Environment and Lands in the City of Corner Brook, held meetings on this whole matter that the member is talking about, the beaver fever, and it was decided that they would initiate the following course of action - Mr. Speaker, this is all detailed. This is really a public health matter which the government, of course, didn't cause. We went out and discovered that there was a problem with the beaver droppings and this particular thing happening out there, and it is a fairly detailed matter.

I can table it for the hon. member or I can bring it to the House, but I think, suffice to say, representatives from the public health division have been meeting with the Department of Environment and Lands, with the City of Corner Brook, and since March 19, a fairly detailed list of things have been done in attempting to deal with this matter. But I should assure the hon. member that the government did not cause the beaver droppings to get into the water supply. It has happened in other parts of the Province and the best that government can do, is attempt to deal with it through the different branches, which will include Health, Environment, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and, of course, the City of Corner Brook.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, since my time is so limited, I won't go back to the Minister of Health, but I will note that he did not answer my question. I will ask the question now, to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Will the government provide financial assistance to the City of Corner Brook, in immediately correcting the problems so that the 'boil' order may be removed and in providing a long-term solution? I understand from city officials that the short-term immediate cost will be in the range of $20,000 to $30,000, but that the cost of a permanent solution may well exceed $1 million; will the Province assist the City of Corner Brook in dealing with this problem?

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

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, the Province is not entertaining such thoughts. Although I have had several conversations in recent days with the Mayor of Corner Brook on that and other matters including the beaver fever, he has not mentioned soliciting assistance from the Province. He seemed to be quite in control of the matter.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will now ask a question of the acting Minister of Environment and Lands. Again, it concerns the contamination of the Corner Brook water supply.

Would the minister comment on possible corrective measures that can be and should be taken to contain this Corner Brook water supply problem and to prevent similar problems in other municipal water supplies in the Province?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the Department of Environment and Lands is very much aware and very much on top of the situation in Corner Brook. There is consideration being given to finding a way to remove the beavers from the watershed area. I would like, while I am up, Mr. Speaker, to comment on her preliminary question to the Minister of Health.

She questioned, was it wise to have done the forestry operations that we have been doing in Corner Brook? I will point out to the member, that in the Corner Brook watershed, there is a lot of merchantable timber that Corner Brook Pulp and Paper wanted to harvest. She may well have been involved when the understanding was made, a committee struck and people from the environment, the city council and every other interested group in Corner Brook who wanted to have a say in it worked on and devised a plan that was acceptable to everybody, to harvest that wood in the better interest of Corner Brook, the people and the company. So, Mr. Speaker, in-as-far as they are talking about whether it is appropriate, it was the people of Corner Brook who decided it was appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride. There is time for a very short question, with a similar answer.

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

I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and I will make it as brief as possible.

Does the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation know the figure that the Department of Transportation will save by having the Department of Highways' responsibilities for the roads in the amalgamated area transferred to the City of St. John's, downloaded on the City of St. John's taxpayers? And would the minister, because the City of St. John's is having difficulty in meeting the extra requirements of amalgamation, consider keeping the roads that are within the argicultural zone, particularly in the Goulds area, under his jurisdiction?

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the savings, if any, that are to be expected as a result of transfer of jurisdiction of the roads from the Province to the City, I am not aware of that figure offhand. However, I would say, in answer to the question, that a proposal was presented to the City of St. John's containing two components, one a capital component and one a maintenance component. Officials of my department have met with officials of the City and we are now awaiting the response of the City to the proposal. We will consider the City's response to the proposal if and when we receive it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 3, on Page 579 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Fogo asked two questions relating to employment generation and I undertook to get answers. I would like to provide the brief answers now.

The first question related to the $3.1 million in the Employment Generation Program in this Budget, how much for projects last year and how much for new employment generation. While I will provide a much more detailed answer in the estimates for the purpose of answering the question, it is approximately half and half. About one half of that money is for previous commitments from earlier years and about one half of it, which is the same amount as last year, will be available for new initiatives in the coming Budget year. I will give more details in the Estimates.

The second question talked about the experience of how many full-time jobs have resulted from this program which was introduced. The questioner, Mr. Speaker, indicated the program has been in place for nearly four years and what has the experience been. I report to the House that the program was initiated and announced first by my colleague, the current Minister of Environment and Lands, in January, 1990, so it has been in place just over two years. In the initial sixty-week period there were 590 jobs created and approved under the program and the experience in the initial assessment of that first sixty-week period is that approximately 50 per cent of them went the full sixty-week duration of the program, which was almost 300, and of those that went the full sixty-week program of subsidy, 78 per cent of those are still continuing on with no subsidy, as full-time positions. I am sure there will be more questions about the program in the Estimates, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BAKER: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The adjourned Budget debate. I think the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir adjourned the debate.

The Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few minutes and I would like to conclude my remarks. As I started off, I indicated it was a good news Budget for the people of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, and it certainly was. The dreaded school tax was eliminated. That, in itself, was good news for the people in my district, and what made it better was the fact that the equalization grants from education have been increased. Under the school tax system that we had, the base wasn't there to collect the tax in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, so the only amount of money that was going into the schools and going to the school children out of the school tax effort that was being put forth in the Bay d'Espoir area was about $93 per pupil. By virtue of the fact that right now the Government in this Budget has done away with the school tax and increased the equalization grant by putting an extra $12 million into the Budget means that the per pupil grant now in the district of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir is somewhere around $400 per pupil and rising.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the way it always should have been. They finally got it right.

MR. GILBERT: I didn't say in my few remarks on Friday that it was a continuation of a 'fairness and balance' Budget. I have a few figures here and I think it is worthwhile to have a look at them. When the municipal capital grants were announced during the last couple of years, we heard members from the other side claiming it was political partisanship and the Liberal districts were getting it, it was pork barrelling. It was the same thing with the roads Budget from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. I just took it upon myself to have a look at what happened. I will just go back to 1985 for the municipal grants system, just to give you an idea. I took two districts in the same area, two South Coast districts, Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and Burin - Placentia West. We will take the municipal grant system for 1985, the year when the Budget was pretty well in place before the elections so they did not know that I was going to get elected in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir then and they had planned something else. In 1985 in municipal capital works there was $353,000 that went into Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, they no doubt cut back something. In Burin - Placentia West, there was $1.1 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. GILBERT: A million point one.

Now, an interesting thing happened, though, in 1986 in the District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. There wasn't one cent went into Municipal Capital Grants in 1986, but there was over $1 million spent in Burin - Placentia West in that same year.

Now, we go to 1987. That was another year when there was an Opposition member in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and a government member in Burin - Placentia West. In 1987, there was $155,000 spent in the District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, Mr. Speaker, and there was over $1 million again spent in Burin - Placentia West.

Now, we go to 1988, another year when there was an Opposition member in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. That year, there was $250,000 spent in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and again over $1 million in Burin -Placentia West.

The first year we were in government, there was $278,000 spent in the District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir but there was $838,000 spent in Burin - Placentia West. Then, the next year, when the Budget was announced, we heard the cries of pork-barrelling and things like that. So there was, I must admit, $1.7 million spent in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir in 1990, but there was $700,000 spent in Burin - Placentia West. Then, in 1991, there was $1.8 million spent in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, but there was $770,000 spent in Burin - Placentia West.

Now, we will go back ten years, from 1981 to 1991. The District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir had $5.9 million in a ten-year period. The District of Burin - Placentia West had $10.7 million in that same ten-year period. And this year, I understand, there is something like $2 million spent in Burin - Placentia West and $1 million spent in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

So I think we have done away forever with - we have not heard the members talk about pork-barrelling this year, because we have done away with it and we have pointed out exactly what we were trying to do. We are not going to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It might be the appropriate place to remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, in conclusion, there is no doubt that there is no partisanship and it is a fair and balanced budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often one gets to stand in this House and express his gratitude to a member on the opposite side for coming in, standing up and making a four-minute speech acknowledging the great contribution that I have made to my District of Burin - Placentia West and, certainly, providing me with an opportunity, I would suspect, to use that portion of Hansard in my district. It is not too often one gets a former Minister of Transportation to throw that type of accolade in the way of a member whom he has indicated has worked extremely hard on behalf of his district for a number of years.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, and I say with the deepest sincerity that I really appreciated his kind comments, and I can assure him, Mr. Speaker, that I will let the people of Burin - Placentia West know how he has appreciated how hard I have worked on their behalf.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you are continuing to do so.

MR. TOBIN: And I will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to speak in this Budget Debate, not because I am elated with the Budget, in itself. I don't think anyone can get overly excited with this Budget. The Minister of Finance has basically said the same thing. I heard him on Friday past, on my way to Marystown, driving back home - he was involved with the, I think it is the On The Go Program or whatever it was with CBC radio - and he acknowledged, at that time, as he did today, that this government has implemented a double taxation system on the people of this Province for three months of the year.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what he said.

MR. TOBIN: I can say to the Premier that I am only repeating what the Minister of Finance said. This lady called in and the Minister of Finance said: Yes, I suppose that is what you can call it, or something to that effect. The Premier should become irritated with him, not with me, because I am only repeating what the Minister of Finance said.

MR. R. AYLWARD: We will send you a transcript in the mail now while you are gone, while you are up talking about Triple E.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Finance. He was quite explicit in his support of the Budget and what it meant, and he did say quite clearly that it meant double taxation.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He did not pull any punches. He just admitted it.

MR. TOBIN: He is saying no. I probably misunderstood it, Mr. Speaker, I do not know.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I heard it too, and I never misunderstood him yet.

MR. TOBIN: Now I will not say what I heard the Minister of Education has said about your Budget. I will not repeat that. I will let him speak for himself, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, he had a few words about it after the (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I saw his excitement for the Budget when he tried to shake hands with a few people outside this Chamber a couple of weeks ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Last week.

MR. TOBIN: We all know, Mr. Speaker, how the Minister of Education likes to shake hands. If there is ever a person, Mr. Speaker, who I met in my ten years of public life - as a matter of fact ten years ago today I was elected for the first time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Ten years ago today, Mr. Speaker, three of us in this House were elected. Myself, my colleague from Grand Bank and my colleague from St. Mary's - The Capes. It was the first time we were elected. There were others who came back, but the three of us were new members.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the House of Assembly has changed somewhat in those ten years -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Forty-four members we had that time was it? Forty-five?

MR. MATTHEWS: Forty-four.

MR. TOBIN: We had a few too many. It was hard to get money.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, we had to share it up too much.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the ten years that I have been in public life I have never seen anyone who likes to shake hands like the Minister of Education.

MR. MATTHEWS: Everyone is his friend.

MR. TOBIN: Everyone is his friend. How are you my friend? How is my friend today? Any he walks out to the teachers last week and he says: How are my friends today?

MR. MATTHEWS: And he put out his hand.

MR. TOBIN: They said: Put that in your pocket.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, put that back in your pocket and get some more money for education they told him.

MR. TOBIN: That is what they said, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: Put that back in your pocket.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The President of Treasury Board was supposed to go out, but the Minister of Education walked out - I say to the President of Treasury Board - to the teachers last week and said: How are my friends today, and he put out his hand. They said: Put that back in your pocket and get some more money for us. That is what they said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Get some more money for education.

MR. TOBIN: Some more money for education. You have a double taxation system brought in

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, but I cannot repeat what you -

AN HON. MEMBER: They cannot repeat what they said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, they said there is not enough money for education, Mr. Speaker, that is what they said.

MR. GRIMES: Who said that?

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the weeping willow should stay quiet.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Kleenex of 1986.

MR. TOBIN: Because if there was ever a total example of hypocrisy as the Minister of Employment. He put the teachers of this Province, Mr. Speaker, on the streets because of the strike, because of a wage freeze. He put them on the street, Mr. Speaker. The President of the NTA put them on the street because of a wage freeze, goes back and joins Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. Not only did he freeze their wages, he rolled back the contracts that they had.

MR. MATTHEWS: Tore up the contracts.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, tore up the contracts and laughed at the teachers of this Province. How sincere and genuine was the minister when he was President of the NTA?

MR. MATTHEWS: Wept one year and laughed the other.

MR. TOBIN: Back then, Mr. Speaker, he was so upset he wept, and now he is so happy he is laughing. So what has changed for the teachers in this Province? What has happened for the teachers in this Province when seven or ten years ago - whenever it was - he put them on the streets because of a wage freeze and he goes back in government -

MR. MATTHEWS: He will put them on the streets again now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Carbonear can say what he likes too. There is an example of a fellow, when he was President of the Federation of Municipalities, claiming that he was going to tear up the building, Mr. Speaker, because there was not enough happening. Now what is he doing? Standing up and voting for a Budget that has changed the grant structure and done nothing but create hardship for small municipalities in this Province. They cannot afford water and sewer, Mr. Speaker, and that very same member, when he was President of the Federation, stood entirely opposed to what he is now supporting. So talk about hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. What an example.

MR. MATTHEWS: And the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, the same thing.

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. MATTHEWS: He was on the federation too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have never done too bad in my district except in the last two years. The past two years I have done very, very little. This year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Closed up the shipyard.

MR. TOBIN: I do not know, Mr. Speaker. Insignificant.

MR. GRIMES: How much did you get this year?

MR. TOBIN: This year? I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, how much we will be able to avail of. Hopefully we can avail of all of them, Mr. Speaker.

Now I want to talk about roads. This report that the Minister of Transportation gave was so bad that he would not even read it in the House. He slipped it to the press instead. He would not get up in the House and give a ministerial statement. I would not blame him. When the minister of this House had to get up and announce things such as... what is it? Paving and muddy holing Tilting, approximately point three kilometres; resurfacing Trepassey, MacNeil's Turn, point three kilometres; resurfacing Old Perlican, one kilometre; replacing a culvert.

Can you imagine a minister putting out a capital works...? The number twenty-seven item is: replacement of a culvert in Wesleyville. What an announcement. Replacement of a bridge part. Replacement of a bridge on the Shore Road. All of these things. Resurfacing a place where there was a culvert put down last year. What you would not believe. Never before have we seen it. Not only that, this year the budget for capital works for transportation is $25 million. The last five years I think we were in government it never went below $40 million. Never below $40 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, the minister says yes that it did, does he? I can tell the minister that it was never less than that. I can also tell him what the budget document, or the cabinet document dealt with, the year that the governments changed. That was $48.4 million. That is what we had dealt with, Mr. Speaker, as a cabinet, put in place. Not only that - $25 million is bad enough - but when you find out a year later that a large portion of the money that was allocated last year for transportation was not even spent in this Province, one has to wonder. How much was it, Rick?

MR. GRIMES: Not so! Not so!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, if it was not for the Roads-for-Rails deal that this crowd over here complained about - particularly the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir - if it was not for that agreement that was signed, the $800 million that went in this Province, and the portion of it that has been spent this year, there would not be a need for a piece of heavy equipment in this Province. Because I can tell the Minister of Transportation that from what is here on this list, that any company that owns D-8 dozers today might as well drop the blades because there is no work for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: Well, I can say to the minister that I have not seen anything here that would involve D-8 dozers. I have not seen it. It is mostly resurfacing, Mr. Speaker. That is what we have in this Province today. Twenty-five million dollars, $15 million less than it was four years ago. Yet, this crowd supports it. Fifteen million dollars less than the budget was a few years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Member for St. George's says no. It's not true? Mr. Speaker, let me see what I can find here. I am not sure where it is now, but I was going to read out the Minute in Council that approved the Transportation budget. I was going to read it out from back in 1988-1989 year. I can tell the minister that $40 million worth of road work was approved, which is $15 million more than what is approved this year. Including provincial roads. I am not talking about the money that John Crosbie got that has been spent in places such as the Burin Peninsula highway. I believe anyone who has driven over the Burin Peninsula highway lately realises what a mess that road is in because this government has sat on money for three years and not allocated it for the upgrading of the road. That is what is happening. The people of the Burin Peninsula deserve a better highway than we have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. I remember looking at Hansard and the Member for Windsor - Buchans said that, prior to the 1982 election. He could not wait to go to the polls. He was in opposition then, and he knows what happened to him in 1982. He didn't come back. Now if he can't wait to go to the polls again, probably he doesn't want to come back. But the Burin Peninsula Highway is in desperate shape. The Member for Lewisporte probably knows what I am talking about, what the Burin Peninsula Highway is like. The Member for Lewisporte bounced his way down there this weekend. He knows all about it. It is not fit to drive over, and for three years, this government has sat on funding from the Roads for Rails deal and not spent a nickel on the Burin Peninsula Highway. The road from Red Harbour to Marystown was done a few years ago, the last year we were in power, and since that there has not been one dollar spent on the Burin Peninsula Highway, yet the money has been allocated. The money that Mr. Crosbie got for the Roads for Rails agreement with our government has been there for three years and not spent. When one considers the work and the taxation that comes to this Province from the people of the Burin Peninsula, it is no wonder that we should expect more than we are getting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe you should not have entered into a thirteen year agreement (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, I don't care what we have to do. I can tell the Member for St. George's that this government had to make a decision on what money was spent from the Roads for Rails deal, and they never spent a cent on the Burin Peninsula Highway - not a nickel! Not a nickel, Mr. Speaker - not one plugged nickel did they spend on the Burin Peninsula Highway. That's what is happening in this Province. And it is one of the roads that has needed to be done moreso than anyplace else in this Province. The member should drive down there and he would know exactly what I am talking about. I can tell him right now that they deserve better, because when one looks at the economy of the Burin Peninsula, I believe it is fair to say that they have contributed significantly to the tax base of this Province.

Also, what is happening is that many of the oil companies have now set up their old tanks down there and, rather than having them brought in by water, they are now being trucked in by tractor trailers and tankers. All of that additional weight on the Burin Peninsula Highway has left it in the state it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) have total control over (inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: Well, I can tell the Member for St. George's, and probably the Member for Fortune - Hermitage might like to listen to this, that if it were not for John Crosbie this year, insisting that the Burin Peninsula be included, there would be no money spent on the Burin Peninsula Highway. That is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: John who?

MR. TOBIN: John Crosbie. John Crosbie. The fellow who gave you $800 million for the Roads for Rails deal. That is the fellow, Mr. Speaker, that you are now going around this Province denouncing day in and day out. I don't hear you saying too much about it now. It seems pretty good now, because if it was not, every heavy equipment contractor in this Province would be gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, it is good. Sure it is good.

So what else do we have in this Budget? What about Social Services? It is too bad that the Minister of Social Services is not here, because I have never seen such disregard for the poor and the suffering in this Province, I have never seen such contempt displayed for the unfortunate in this Province as we have seen in this Budget.

We have seen the Budget reduced from $159,460,800 to $154 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, $5 million less - $5 million less in the Budget for Social Services recipients, yet the minister is projecting a 30 per cent increase in his caseload. So how does the Minister of Finance explain that? How does he explain that - attacking the poor of this Province? How does he explain to the pensioners of this Province, who are not getting an increase this year? How does he explain that? I am sure there are days that he must be confronted with pensioners, government pensioners, who want to know why there is no money there, because we get letters every day, and I am sure members opposite get the same letters, from -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you go check your facts?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You said a few weeks ago that you were going to resign your seat over that report. I did not see you pass in your resignation yet.

There are pensioners day in and day out - people have been fired, Mr. Speaker, in the last twelve months from the health care system in this Province by the Minister of Health - who are on pension and not a single nickel for them in increase. That's what is going on in this Province, and government couldn't care less about it.

The Minister of Finance is the minister responsible for bringing in the Budget, so he has to take much of the responsibility for what is not in the Budget as well as what is in there, and when one considers that the people on social assistance -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are better off than they ever were.

MR. TOBIN: Are better of than they ever were? Well, Mr. Speaker, why does he not go out and talk to them? If they are better off than they ever were how can he justify $5 million less in his Budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No. Well, that's what is happening. Mr. Speaker, I guess when you get up in the Budget debate, there is also a great opportunity to talk about your district and the problems that your district is experiencing and the fact that certain parts of it have not been addressed in this Budget. I want to talk for a few minutes about the roads in my district that are in a deplorable state. The road from Spanish Room to Rock Harbour is not fit to drive over. It is a gravel road. The road from Little Bay Bridge to Beau Bois is not fit to drive over. The road to Monkstown - there is a certain section of that road that cars, oil trucks, and grocery trucks have been stuck in for the last two weeks and the department's response is to provide a grader to tow them out, and that is not good enough. That Monkstown road situation should be addressed immediately, providing the appropriate type of fill that will prevent the trucks from getting stuck. The people of Monkstown deserve no less than than type of support from this government. For years they did not have a road and yet, this government has not spent one nickel to assist the people of Monkstown who are hard workers. Most of them are involved in the fishery and have to have their fish trucked over that road, and again this year, sadly to say, despite the representation that was made by the people, there is not a cent for road improvements in their community.

The road, as I said, from Rock Harbour is deplorable, it is not fit to drive over. The road from the Burin Peninsula highway, to Spanish Room, to the Cow Head facility was an ongoing process and the final phrase was supposed to be from Spanish Room to the community of Rock Harbour at a cost of only $400,000. That road, Mr. Speaker, is not in very good shape. We had hoped since 1989 that it would have been addressed, but this government, for some reason, has not seen fit to put money there. Just about all the people in Rock Harbour work in Marystown and there are days when they cannot get to work because of the condition of the road. There are days the school bus cannot drive to Rock Harbour because of the condition of the road. The Member for Burgeo - Baie d'Espoir today talked about the money I got for my district. Did I not deserve it, Mr. Speaker? Ten years ago we needed $30 million to pave the roads in my district. We did a lot, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately, we didn't get to finish it all before this crowd came in and this government has turned its back on the people of Rock Harbour.

I ask the Minister of Transportation, in the name of common decency, if there is any money in this year's Budget that is not spent, don't do what he did last year, but get up and pave that road to Rock Harbour at a cost of $400,000. That is not very much, as a matter of fact, there is almost that much paid there in taxes a year. If anyone is familiar with Marystown, we took it from Creston Boulevard in about four or five different phases. We did so much a year and we finally got to Little Bay. The last year we were in government, we built the bridge, and the final phase would cost another $300,000 or $400,000 to do the road to Beau Bois, but we did not get one cent since. The people of the other side of Little Bay and Beau Bois never got a nickel, and that is unfortunate, because, as I said about Rock Harbour, the people of Beau Bois work in Marystown, as well, and they beat up their cars, day in and day out because of the deplorable condition of that road.

They were promised by members who sit opposite that that road would be paved. It was a four or five year project because it is a good distance. Every year we did a portion but in the last three years, not one plugged nickel did the people of Beau Bois get for their road. When one considers, for example, there are probably three or four trawler captains, most of the people out there are involved on the trawlers, pay in thousands, tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in taxes and no service; government refused to spend the $300,000 needed to provide them with pavement. So again, I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to look at that.

The branch roads throughout the district are not fit to drive over. They all need to be resurfaced and yes, I am sure there are other places that have the same needs, no doubt. But when one considers the measly amount of money that this government has spent on roads, provincial roads, that is, in my district in the past few years, as a matter of fact, it really irritates me to see them show such contempt for the people of Burin - Placentia West. It is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, and his predecessor.

MR. HOGAN: You are not talking about the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that's for sure.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking about the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, because I said it publicly - the day he was appointed I went on radio and commended him on being appointed to Cabinet as Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I said, I knew of nobody over there who would have more compassion and understanding of municipal needs in rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. I said I knew of nobody over there. I know of a few over here, but I know of nobody over there who would have more compassion and understanding for municipal problems in this Province than the Member for Placentia. And I said that because I believe it, because there is one bay in this Province that is the best bay; the best bay, bar none, is Placentia Bay and I have one side and he has the other. There is no place like Placentia Bay.

MR. NOEL: And you are going to be spending a lot more time down there pretty soon.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible for me to spend more time down there than I have, because I am down there except when the House is in session and for the past ten years I have travelled my district. I am not like the Member for Pleasantville, who can walk out through his door in the morning and look around and say I have visited my district. A lot of other members are not. He has no concept or understanding of the needs of rural districts in this Province. Many of his colleagues have, as we have, but that Member for Pleasantville has no understanding. As a matter of fact, I ran into him once, back some years ago when I lived in Trepassey and he was campaigning for the NDP. He knew all about rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, the people in rural Newfoundland showed him what they thought he knew about rural Newfoundland in that election. So, you stick to the Triple E Senate, Mr. Speaker, and the Constitution, because you know nothing about rural Newfoundland. And Placentia Bay is the best bay in this Province, despite what the Member for Pleasantville says.

MR. NOEL: You won't be able to vote in city elections anymore.

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

MR. NOEL: You won't be able to vote in St. John's elections anymore.

MR. TOBIN: I never took any great pride in voting in St. John's elections.

MR. NOEL: No, you, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind the hon. the Member for Pleasantville, he is not to speak from the seat he is in. He is not in his own seat, and in any event, the House is very careful about interruptions. I also remind the hon. member that he is not being recorded and it won't go down in posterity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: I have nothing against the City of St. John's, I think it is a great place, with great people, but it is not for me. My life, Mr. Speaker, and my home is on the Burin Peninsula. I have been there for the last twenty years and I hope when I get old enough - my grandfather lived to be 102. I hope I live as long as he did and that when I die, I die on the Burin Peninsula. One thing about us, there is longevity in the family, and we have been extremely successful. The Tobins have been extremely successful in whatever they undertake, and I could have a long future yet in this Assembly. So I am sure the Member for Pleasantville will be watching me from the galleries as I perform for years to come, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I want to get back to the basis of this.

MR. NOEL: Watching you in the galleries.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and I would like to rig up the knot.

Mr. Speaker, I am serious when I talk about the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. He represents the east side of Placentia Bay and I represent the west side of Placentia Bay, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it is well represented on both sides of the Assembly. When I get back in government, after the next election, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people of Placentia -

AN HON. MEMBER: After you become Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, will you give me $3 million?

MR. TOBIN: I can assure the people of Placentia that, after the next election, when I am minister or whatever it may be, they will have a strong voice both in the House of Assembly and around the Cabinet table.

MR. NOEL: After the next election you will be a church minister. That is the only minister you will be.

MR. FLIGHT: After the next election (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the Member for Windsor-Buchans is talking about. I know he knows what it is like to watch from the galleries, Mr. Speaker, because he got turfed out of this House once before and he will be turfed out again if he decides to run.

Mr. Speaker, I have five minutes to clue up, so let me say -

MR. SPEAKER: I don't believe so. According to my time, the hon. member's time is up now, and the Chair was just giving him a minute or so to give a concluding sentence.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in cluing up, then, I want to say that I don't support the Budget, that it doesn't do enough for the people I represent, it doesn't do anything for the people of Newfoundland. The double taxation system, Mr. Speaker, and everything else that has been implemented is not good for the people of this Province, is not good for the people that I represent and it is not good for the people that they represent. So I encourage them, Mr. Speaker, to join with us in rejecting this Budget outright. I sincerely hope that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when they go to pay their taxes in the next little while - their personal income tax is increased by 6 per cent - will only wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier had stayed home and looked after this Province, forgot his foolishness with beating around this country on the Constitution and taking advice that is totally unsound and unfit, from the people from Pleasantville.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: It is always a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to rise following the Member for Burin - Placentia West, because most of the time, he is so amusing that he brings a little bit of life into these dreary premises, dreary on times. He brings a little bit of humour and a little bit of life. I laugh at most of what he says because most of what he says is what, I guess, a lot of us baymen are used to doing in the spring of the year when we go in to clean out a barn. With that said, I do appreciate the fact that he has complimented the Minister of Provincial and Municipal Affairs and the government of this Province, and not only him but the whole Opposition.

You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that there haven't been any comments made this year in the House about municipal capital funding. We haven't heard a word, for some reason or another.

MR. NOEL: Except from you.

MR. REID: Except from me.

It is sort of ironic, I think this is probably the first year in a long, long time, that Opposition, whether it be the Liberal Opposition before 1989 or now, I guess, the Conservative Opposition after 1989, that there haven't been any comments made about the capital works budget. And do you know why there haven't been, Mr. Speaker? People like the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West are after walking away with close to $3 million in capital works this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? How much?

MR. REID: Three million dollars, and the poor Member for Carbonear had to give up his share so that he could get some of it. The poor Member for Carbonear managed to get $450,000 this year, and $100,000 of that is for an environmental impact study, which I was going to get anyway. But with that said, I went to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and I said: 'Well, if Burin Placentia West, or Fogo, or Humber - East, is it? -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Humber Valley.

MR. REID: - Humber Valley, or any member for that matter, needs money more than we need it in Carbonear, sure, why shouldn't they get it? There are places in the Province, Mr. Speaker, that still do not have a water system, have sewerage running in the drains, a number of places. Those are the places that this government is going to fund. I have no problems with that. If it happens to be a Conservative riding, sobeit. Let it be a Conservative riding.

I just wanted to mention the fact that - I do not know. My hon. colleague for Burin - Placentia West mentioned that it was ten years ago today - and it was ten years ago today - that the Peckford regime took power in this Province, if I am not mistaken. From that time, in 1982, up, I guess, until 1989, I happened to be honoured to be a member of the council of Carbonear and I think I became mayor around that particular time. I sat for seven years. Just after I became mayor, I joined a group called the Large Towns Group, which was a part of the Federation of Municipalities, to begin with. I became the first chairman, by the way, as my hon. colleague for Humber Valley can remember, of the Large Towns Group in Newfoundland, and subsequently became the president of the Federation of Municipalities.

I remember the hundreds of meetings that we had in that period of time. Just about every time we had a meeting as it related to the municipalities, it was always: 'What are we going to do with the Peckford Government and those people who are in government? Because every time we had a meeting, it seemed like there was something being picked away or taken away from the municipalities in the Province. I remember the component grant going from fifty cents to forty-five cents. My hon. colleague for Humber Valley and I went in and fought hard and long for that. We fought with the Peckford regime - he was not a part of it then - and we demanded that that government of the day have pity on the municipalities in the Province.

I can also remember, around the same time, I think it was 1983 or 1984, there was an announcement made on Carbonear. I have to refer to Carbonear because I am knowledgeable enough to be able to talk about Carbonear. I cannot talk about Gander and what happened in Gander or Corner Brook. I will talk about Carbonear and Carbonear district. At the same time, around 1984 or 1985, fifteen beds were closed in the Carbonear hospital - cutbacks in the health care system in one of the budgets, I am not sure which one it was. I remember my hon. colleague for Trinity - Bay de Verde coming to my house one night and he said to me: 'They are closing the Old Perlican hospital.' Do you remember that? They are closing the hospital here, they are closing the hospital there. Cutbacks in health - can you imagine?

In 1985 or 1986, I remember, as a teacher, having to go on strike, forced onto the streets of St. John's, Carbonear, Corner Brook and all over the Province, not because of my hon. colleague from Exploits, I am telling you, but because of my hon. friends who now sit in Opposition. They put us on the streets for one reason only, because they had a deficit that year and they figured by putting teachers on the streets for a couple of weeks that would help them balance their budget. They succeeded.

AN HON. MEMBER: And it did too.

MR. REID: Sure it did. It worked. No problem with that. So I stand here, and I can go on. I can talk about the seventeen years, or the ten years, under the Peckford regime. I can talk about budgets that were brought down. If I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, just about every budget that came down, there was an increase in alcohol and cigarettes, a decrease in education and health, a decrease here, a decrease there. I am not saying that it is a reflection of any one individual or group. I think it is a reflection of the whole economy of Newfoundland.

Somebody mentioned today, and I heard it on the radio too, and it was mentioned at an earlier meeting - it was reported that it is the first time since the Second World War that there has been no increase in domestic product or global national product, and that includes all of the countries of the world, I would assume. It was a decrease.

MR. RAMSAY: First time ever.

MR. REID: I have been wondering for the last two years, I guess, what we are into. Some people call it a recession. You go on the lower shore or lower part of my district and it is far from a recession, it is a depression, it is as simple as that. It is not only a depression here in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, it is a depression all over this country. It is a depression in the United States.

Look at the figures that are coming out of Great Britain and the possibility of that great Tory regime in Britain falling in the next few days to a Labour government because the unemployment rate has hit 9 and almost 10 per cent. Look at the problems they are having in the United States, and the same reflection is on the upcoming election, I suppose, in the United States presidential primaries that are coming up now in the fall. Look at what is happening in Ontario, great Ontario. A prime example of what is happening, I guess, to Canada is what is happening in Ontario. Well it is only this morning that I learned that Ontario has a current account deficit this year of $14 billion. Can you believe that. Little Saskatchewan with less that one million people are looking at $2 billion. It is unbelievable. Not much bigger than Newfoundland. I do not know exactly what our deficit was in Newfoundland last year, $60 million was it?

MR. RAMSAY: Fifty-nine, yes.

MR. REID: Fifty-nine million. That is nothing. That is chicken feed, I suppose.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Prince Edward Island is looking at $200 million, and we here in Newfoundland are looking at a deficit last year of approximately $60 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: And we came in $8 million under Budget.

MR. REID: Came in $8 million under Budget this year, my friends are, Mr. Speaker, giving me some facts. We are going to come in under Budget. I would almost make a prediction now. I would be willing to stand in the House and say right now that we are going to balance our Budget next year if things keep going the way they are. We probably will.

But getting back to what I was saying about the economic situation of the Province and getting back to all the things that governments can find money for. I look over, I suppose, with sorrow in my heart for those hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side because while they were putting teachers on the street, while they were cutting municipalities funding for grants, while they were closing hospital beds, while they were cutting back on education grants, while they were cutting back to $25 million in 1987 to municipalities, somebody in government was thinking about this wonderful plan where they could spend $25 million of the taxpayers money on a place called Sprung. With all of that said, it's frightening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: It was not you. You did not have the authority. You had nothing to say in government, and your colleagues are saying that today. You were a second class minister at the time and you had nothing to say in Government.

MR. NOEL: Like the good Germans, nobody was responsible.

MR. REID: Nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Proud of it?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes I am proud of it.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Opposition for not being critical because basically what they are saying to us is not criticism. It is not getting reported in the media. Nobody wants to hear it anymore. Newfoundlanders are out there now looking for encouragement. Everyone is looking for encouragement. Hundreds come along to me and say: Art, is it going to get better? Am I going to be able to find a job this year? I say: I hope so. I hope it will get better. I am not going to go out and be pessimistic about the economy. I am not going to be pessimistic about the Province because I think in a lot of cases, Mr. Speaker, that is what is wrong with Newfoundlanders. They have been put down all their lives, and they would just as soon right now - a lot of baymen and rural people just assume that the worst is going to happen to them. I suppose if you believe that it comes true.

MR. RAMSAY: They used to lead them on.

MR. REID: I want to get back to the Budget, Mr. Speaker.

We came into this Government in 1989 and the Premier promised, and as far as I am concerned he has fulfilled it, not to the nth degree yet because it is an ongoing process. We have made promises to the Province that we would come up with a strategic economic plan and when we look at what we have tried to do in the Province I guess in 1989 when we came in things were a lot rosier than what they are now, and there were all kinds of factors that affected our plans for the future. I suppose to come as far as we have in the last few years we have not done too bad with what we had to work with, a Government that was passed a substantial debt and having to cope with that substantial debt. Now, I guess, in a time when, like I said most governments in the country, including the federal government, are trying to come to grips with substantial current account deficits, we in Newfoundland now can say, I guess because we moved a year earlier than anyone else in the country, we can at least say we have some control over our destiny.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the single most important comment that was made in the Budget, or item in the Budget that the people of Newfoundland sat up and listened to was the increase in taxation. I will say there had to be an increase in taxation to offset that $40 million that we lost, or we will be losing, July 1, from the school tax that we have been collecting in the Province. Over a two year period that tax will amount to 4 per cent but the misconception out there is that when people say 4 per cent you automatically assume that it is 4 per cent more income tax in 1992 than there was in 1991 which is not really true because that 4 per cent is 4 per cent of the portion of the federal tax that we in Newfoundland collect so it is not 4 per cent. You cannot put 4 per cent on top of your salary and say I am going to have to pay that much extra.

Mr. Speaker, I sat in this House last week and I heard the hon. Member for Mount Pearl quote figures. I heard a number of other members on the other side quote figures about who would suffer and who would not suffer and how much money. The hon. Member for Mount Pearl on a number of occasions with his calculator figured out what it would cost a person making $20,000, $30,000, or $40,000, and being the type of person I am, Mr. Speaker, as you well know I had to find out for myself. What I did was I went to the Department of Finance and spoke to some officials who worked out for me a scale of what exactly would happen to certain individual people in the Province as it related to the amount of extra income tax they would pay this year and next year in comparison to what they were paying in school tax and the surprising thing about it, Mr. Speaker - I am going to let you copy this later on because I think everyone in the House should have a copy of it, and I believe it, it is true because I have worked on it myself, and then you can look for yourself. I just want to read some figures if you would allow me. I am going to base it on 4 per cent, not 2.5 this year, but 4 per cent. I am not going to talk 2.5 per cent, I am going to talk about what is going to happen at the end of 1993. I am going to first talk about a 4 per cent increase and I am going to talk about a married couple, two people working with no children. I am going to use that one. I have four different categories and I could not use children because basically if you use children it is too much of a problem to try to figure out because if you are talking about children and two people are working then you are talking about baby-sitting allowances that can be claimed and all kinds of other things so I am going to take the extreme and I am going to say there is a married couple working and they do not have any children. I am going to take the upper end of the scale. Mr. Speaker, a family with a combined income of let us say $30,000, $15,000 each. Now, if I am not mistaken that works out - between $15,000 and $20,000 works out to be about the amount of money that a woman and a man who are working at a fish plant and getting ten weeks work at a fish plant, plus their unemployment insurance after they are laid off, they make somewhere in the range of $30,000 to $35,000 - maybe a little over that, based on their hourly pay and so on.

MR. RAMSAY: Between the two of them.

MR. REID: Between the two of them. Based on a $30,000 income - remember now, for 4 per cent for two married, no children, the tax on their income in 1993 - not this year - 1993, will be an extra $105. That is $52.50 extra. That is extra money that they will have to pay in income tax, but if they were living in St. John's, or in Corner Brook, where the school tax is $150 a year, then do not forget, both of them together would be paying $300. The difference of the $300 school tax and the $105 increase in income tax is a saving to that couple of $195 per year.

Somebody asked me today when I showed them this: Reid, you are not going to talk about anybody over $30,000 are you, because there is nobody in the district, or very few people in your district, making over $30,000. I said, well there are some. There are teachers. There are certain workers. There are doctors and lawyers. There are some office people, I guess, making over $30,000 a year, but not many. You go on to the bottom part of my district, Victoria, Salmon Cove, Perry's Cove, and down towards Northern Bay, Gull Island and that area, and there are not too many people down on that shore making $30,000 a year. I will guarantee you that - not too many.

Anyway, I am going to go a little bit further. A husband and a wife making $30,000 each - listen to this one now. I know they are going to come back and argue with me on this one. $30,000 each would give you a total of $60,000 per family - a married couple with no children - their income tax increase would be $300 a year. $300 a year, but that is what they are paying now in school tax, so it means absolutely nothing to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: So you are up to $60,000?

MR. REID: $60,000; $30,000 combined, yes. I will send this around and let you look at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Four per cent in 1993 would cost the average couple - a couple making a total of $60,000 - $300 and they got their $150 each wiped out, so they break even.

Now I will go on a little bit further and say, married couples making $100,000 - and now I am talking more along the lines of what my hon. colleagues sitting across from me are making per year, and we will see how much they would pay. $100,000 a year between a husband and a wife, you will pay an extra $715 in income tax, and take your $300 off that, that you are going to save, and you lose, basically, $415.

Now the hon. minister stood in this House when he read the Budget, and he is after standing three or four times since, and he basically said that finally we have a taxation system in Newfoundland where those people who can afford to pay will pay. I do not represent a district where there are many $100,000 earners. I will have to pay it - I admit - a certain amount more, but when I think about all the people in my district last year who scraped ten weeks of work in whatever way they could, through social services grants and everything else, making $4.50 and $5 an hour, if they could get it, and I think about those people having to pay, out in my district, $120 or $130 a year income tax, when there were doctors, lawyers, politicians and business people paying the same amount? Make no wonder that this government decided that it was time to get rid of that foolish, insignificant tax that was in!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The richest man in this Province today was paying $150 a year school tax in St. John's and the poor son of a gun who was living in a shack in Torbay or Logy Bay or down walking the streets of St. John's was paying $150. Fair tax? No, that is not a fair tax. Not one of you can get up publicly and in your district say to the 90 per cent of the people who live in your district that that was a fair tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Carbonear. Let me give you the breakdown for a single individual with no children. Let me give you that one. I haven't got a lot of time left. Mr. Speaker, a single individual who makes $20,000 a year will save $65. A single individual living in Newfoundland right now who did pay $150 in school tax who makes $30,000 a year will not get any increase. It will balance out. Thirty thousand dollars. That is a single. I also have the bottom. I am not sure where this is but there is one tax authority in Newfoundland that only charges $85 per year. Where is it? Does anyone know?

MR. RAMSAY: It was Bay d'Espoir, was it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)?

MR. REID: Probably Ferryland? Eighty-five dollars a year.

MR. RAMSAY: Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MR. REID: Anyway, I have taken the maximum of $150. That is St. John's, and I believe Corner Brook too. Corner Brook charges $150, I believe, is it? I know the Avalon north region charges $120.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes. Well, I have taken the highest one and the lowest one. I am going to give you some quotes from the lowest one, now. School tax for $85. So let's say Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. A family of two workers with no children would have to make $40,000 between them a year and they would pay $170 in taxes. But then, two times $85 is $170. So they balance out. So you are looking at a family making approximately $20,000 each. So that is right back to where we were. My hon. colleague for Bonavista is looking at me, because he knows. Right back to where we were again.

You are talking about somebody working in a fish plant and drawing a bit of unemployment during the year. That is what they add up to, around $20,000. So all those people - and there are thousands of them out there - are not going to pay any taxes. Not going to have any affect on them whatsoever. None whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about teachers?

MR. REID: Oh yes. Teachers are going to pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: More?

MR. REID: No.

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MR. REID: No, no, no.

MR. RAMSAY: Some will. Some.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Fishermen, now, poor fishermen.

MR. REID: Yes, that is what I am talking about, poor fishermen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: You tell me a poor fisherman who made $60,000 last year and I will tell you he is not poor! What poor fishermen?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CRANE: But there are none of them in your district, Art.

MR. REID: Poor fishermen. No, there are no poor fishermen in my district, all lies. Come down sometime and I will show them to you.

MR. CRANE: No $60,000 ones.

MR. REID: I will take you down in Ochre Pit Cove, down on the wharf with 150 of them some night, and you will see how much they made last year. There was not one of them down there I don't say made over $10,000 last year, unemployment not included.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)?

MR. REID: Terrible.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)?

MR. REID: No, and John may have a few. He only got a handful. If there are any out there making money it is only a handful. No more than that. No more than yours, either.

Anyway, I am going to circulate this, Mr. Speaker, I am running out of time. Basically all I wanted to do was bring that to your attention. I sit here and I listen to my hon. colleagues on the other side, and they are doing the job that they have been elected to do, and that is to criticise. That crowd does nothing only criticise anyway. There is no planning. I have not heard the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West get up and say: now you should do this. If you don't do it this way let's do it the other way. Right? We don't hear him. I don't hear him.

I don't hear the unions around the province saying: here's what you should do. I do not hear them and I suppose the reason we do not hear them, and I am going to include my hon. colleagues on the other side with one exception, the reason we do not hear them is because my hon. friends who are in unions and representing unions in the Province also support a fellow by the name of Bob Rae, who is the Premier of Ontario, who, just this last year, one year in government put his province $14 billion in debt in one year, $14 billion. How can you do it?

I do not know how to do it, but I bet you my hon. friend for St. John's East knows how he did it, and we await, we will sit back and we will hear of the cuts in Ontario, we will hear of the cuts in Saskatchewan, we will hear of the cuts in British Columbia and when it is all said, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance can sit back and say: I told you so. I did something about it last year, this government over here took the bull by the horns a year before anyone else in the country did, we took the bull by the horns and that is why we today, can honestly sit back and say that this government is handling the economy and the problems we have in this Province, the right way.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to sit on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suppose I should have been up before the hon. member, he said, so far nobody has criticized the allocation of funding for the capital works project this year, the $60 million. Well I will have a few words to say on that as I go along with my few words on the Budget debate, but to the hon. member I would like to allude to one of the comments made by him about a plan. I remember a plan not too long ago, I think it was April 22, of 1989, a plan comprising, I do not know how many pages but it was about three-quarters of an inch thick and it was called then, the bible of the Liberal candidates who were running for election around the Province.

I was going through this just the other night, some fantastic reading especially leading up to an election and in fact, one of the reasons I was going through this particular document was to get ready for the next election, because I do not know if members know it or not but I have my nomination over with in the District of Humber Valley, so I will be a candidate and I was looking for some great material, some quotes and some material to put in some pamphlets that I was about to get ready for the next election; that is the nice thing about having your nomination ready, especially when you look at a forced Budget gone down and the possibility of another one, but I doubt it very much. So, one thing for sure, Mr. Speaker, that I can surely make up my pamphlets and have no worries or hesitation about what is going to be in the next Budget. I do not think there is going to be another Budget before an election.

Mr. Speaker, I will open my comments on the municipal Budget. I am glad the minister is back because I am going to tell you one thing that if there is anything this minister believes in, there is certainly one thing that I know that he certainly does not believe in and that is the components under the new grants system. He has never said it to me personally, you have never said it publicly, but as far as I am concerned, you are against that particular system. Now, if you could convince your colleagues in Cabinet, if you could get their attention long enough and your backbenchers, because there is one who just spoke, the hon. Member for Carbonear, knows quite well what I am talking about and that particular system, the new system that was announced in the fall of 1989, by the former minister, is bad stuff - very bad - for the municipalities in this Province.

I have said it before, and I will say it here again today, municipalities in this Province have been denied the right to even apply for capital funding - to even apply. I will give you some of the reasons why. Under the old component system if you could get your cabinet colleagues to understand what you are going to try to get through to them over the next number of months, because I know you are going to have to, because you will have pressure put on you by municipalities, and I think you believe in it yourself, like I said - to try to get your colleagues to look at the rationale behind this new system. Before, you had the per capita component, and you had your social assistance component and your roads component. Municipalities knew exactly what they were going to get under those components, except for the social assistance one - very little variance in the per capita one; very little variance in the roads component.

You could do up your budget and pretty well tell; but now, under the three components, they got in an equalization component. I have asked the question time and time again. I still do not have the answer. Nobody has been able to tell me from where they got the provincial average. Did they, in one of my suggestions, take all the property in the Province, except for St. John's, Mount Pearl and Corner Brook, take the average and come up with a provincial average? Is that what they did? That is what they did. They came up with approximately $48,000 for deficiency grants under the equalization component.

In setting up this equalization component, they took the total property value - that is the total property assessment in any given municipality in this Province - and divided it by the number of households. Then, when they got that particular figure, say for instance that came to $40,000 - the provincial average was $48,000 - they base it on whatever the percentage of that was. If it was 16 per cent, okay, they paid them a deficiency grant based on 16 per cent. That is the provincial average.

If something was explained to me pertaining to this equalization grant that I do not know about, how they arrived at the provincial average is one thing, but to pay rural Newfoundland and Labrador - not only rural Newfoundland, but even St. John's; I would venture to bet today that I would say they left out St. John's; they left out Mount Pearl, and they left out Corner Brook when they got the provincial average pertaining to the equalization component. I would venture to bet that is what they did.

Municipalities - what could they make it up on? Total property value, and then anybody who does not have any property tax instituted like in a local service district or anywhere else, will get a maximum of forty dollars per household. If I am not mistaken, that is what the other part of that component is. Now how municipalities can operate - and not only that, but I am sure there is another way that members opposite, when they sit down around the cabinet table, can simplify those particular components rather than what they have in place today. As far as I am concerned, it is ludicrous. How can a councillor who is working every day of the week - most of them are volunteers in this Province - come home after working all day and sit down in a council office and try to determine what they are going to get under the components, let alone the repayment on capital debt on water and sewer. I will get to that later.

I vowed that I was going to take this opportunity to talk about the components and the repayment on capital debt, water and sewer, because as far as I am concerned, municipalities in the Province today are being shortchanged, in no uncertain terms. Now I do not disagree when it comes to some kind of a system with regard to repayment on capital debt, but the component system and the equation and formula they have in place for that today, as far as I am concerned, is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I will move on to the local incentive grant under the component system, the new grant system. There they take the total property tax collected in a municipality - the total property tax 'collected' in a municipality - and then the sums are done based on the number of households again in a municipality. Then you get that and you come down and take I think it is 25 per cent of the first lot, 37 per cent of - I just forget what they are now, the proper percentages. I think it is 25 per cent on the first one. Then it goes on to another.... There's nothing up to $250, that is a zero, and then from between $250 to $500 it is 15 per cent. As you go over that you go on up to $750, 25 per cent, then the maximum is between $751 and $1,000, which is $1,000 with 40 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, you work that out, again based on households, and that is what you get under the local revenue incentive program. There is no way in the world for that to move. Even if the value of households go up. It is based like I said on the total of property tax collected and the minister should take that under consideration. If that particular municipality does not collect that property tax in that particular year, or the year previous to that, then they cannot get their full compliment under the local revenue grant. There is no way to get it.

Household component, the $85, well that is pretty straightforward. But the equalization component and that local revenue incentive component, as far as I am concerned, should be looked at.

The roads component. That started off at a couple of thousand dollars. Up to the fall of 1989 that was $2,000 per kilometre. Municipalities in this Province could just make it under that. That took into account snow clearing in wintertime, maintenance of the roads in the summertime, year-round. Year-round, where the councils had jurisdictions over their grants. That was cut in the fall of 1989 from $2,000 per kilometre down to $1,949. It went from $1,949 in 1990 down to $1,269, and then went from $1,269 down to eight hundred and something this year.

Now the other thing about this. They were told in 1989 that they were going to lose fifty-odd dollars in 1990. Not one sound until just last fall. Councils were notified retroactively that they had lost, from $1.949 down to $1,269, and then told that they were going from $1,269 down to eight hundred and something. Now how can any member on the other side of this House, or in this Chamber, regardless of his political stripe, stand up and say that is fair? They cannot do it. Municipalities cut over 60 per cent to 70 per cent in some cases, and trying to look after roads in this Province.

It is alright if you want to look around this particular area. No problem. Get outside and have a look at some of the jurisdictions around this Province, and look at the total amount of roads you have to keep up in this Province. Right in my community, in the community of Cormack, a small community of seven hundred and ninety-odd people, twenty-eight kilometres of roads to keep up. Now you tell me how the council and the people are going to maintain that particular road system on eight hundred and some odd dollars a year? Winter and summer? When we have the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation going in every day of the week begging for money from his colleagues to try to institute and put in place a system whereby you could pay more money and help with the roads in this Province.

The Member for Gander, the President of Treasury Board, knows exactly what I am talking about. Now, if anybody on the other side - especially in cabinet - should support the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on this particular subject, it is the Member for Gander. Because he knows exactly what I am talking about. He is after sitting down with a couple of municipalities and going over that in detail over the last number of months. I am sure he has not heard the last of it.

Now, let's move on to the water and sewer subsidies that the hon. Member for Carbonear brought up. Nobody on the other side mentioned about partisanship, political patronage or whatever. I did not get into it, to be honest with you. When I responded to your particular ministerial statement on capital funding I did not get into that. Because as far as I am concerned there is a more important issue. If municipalities have money, and they can afford to pay for it, so be it. More power to them. But as far as I am concerned municipalities - I would venture to say that not 60 per cent of the municipalities that received funding under this particular program this year will be able to take advantage of it, and I am serious. That is not being political, I am going to back it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope not.

MR. WOODFORD: You hope not! That is exactly what I was thinking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, he said, "I hope not." I did not say the reverse about the 40 per cent, I said 60. Well, Mr. Speaker, now I have the answer.

MR. WARREN: That is on record.

MR. WOODFORD: I said that not 60 per cent of the municipalities in this Province will be able to take advantage of the capital funding allocated to them this year. The President of Treasury Board said, "I hope not." I don't think it is what he meant, but still he said it.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why. Because last year under that particular scheme, under the municipal infrastructure last year, if I am not mistaken there was only - it is right here in the Budget highlights - $36,425 spend - that is under the Revised Budget for Municipal Affairs. That is revised. Under the estimates for 1992 - 1993, after announcing an allocation of $60 million in municipal financing, the estimate to be spent, $48,000,652. It is even written in the Budget. It is in the highlights. Now, members can't say that I am playing politics with that, that is written in the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why a lot of municipalities are not going to be able to take advantage of it. I will give you one example under the new water and sewer subsidy. This was not made public. I don't think what I am going to say now is public knowledge to municipalities in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It will be after this, though.

MR. WOODFORD: It will be after this.

Mr. Speaker, under that formula municipalities would have to take their total debt charges. Say for instance a municipality had a total debt charge of $300,000. They would take the number of households in that community and divide it into their total debt charges. When they get that figure - say, for argument's sake it was $600 - they would first take 60 per cent off that particular amount of funding because that is what had to be paid, 60 per cent of that total amount of funding, say $360. Then anything over $750 would be looked after 100 per cent by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Now I find out that that was only applicable to any loans up to the end of 1989 - 1990. That particular formula is only applicable to loans incurred and debt incurred by municipalities in this Province up to 1990. Now, the minister can correct me if I am wrong. I stand to be corrected, no doubt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. WOODFORD: Under that particular formula.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious subject and I -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, we can see that. We can see by the way you are (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: With some of the comments coming across the House, Mr. Speaker, I can't help but laugh. I am human. That is one thing about it, I am human.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health struck dead on with regard to a municipality in my particular area. I will give a prime example of what I am talking about. Now, from what I can understand - the minister may have had a hand in this. He probably did. I have to try to give credit where credit is due. I'm not sure, but in the municipal financing under capital funding, the community of Reidville in my area got an allocation of some $350,000 to look after the water and sewer system. Mainly water.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. WOODFORD: Three hundred and fifty-thousand dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. WOODFORD: Reidville.

MR. GRIMES: I got it for you.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the prime example here, and I will use Reidville. Yes, I will use Reidville. That is a prime example. If the minister had anything to do with it, then thanks a million, on behalf of the people of Reidville. I am not one bit ashamed of that.

Reidville, I will tell the minister, under this system, had $300,000 in debt, say up to now, and that was previous to 1990. So that formula kicked in. They operated under the old formula, paying $23,000. Now the Member for Carbonear, I suppose he knows about those formulas, I would say he does, he is after being around long enough. But under that particular formula they pay $23,000 under the formula I just outlined.

To give you an example. After 1990, any debt incurred by any municipality in this Province - any municipality, regardless of which it was - was based on up to a maximum of $300 per household. To add to that, the consumer price index for that particular year is added to the total debt of that municipality. Before they multiplied by the number of households in that particular municipality. To give you an example. Reidville alone will go from $23,000 repayment on capital debt to a total of $46,000 repayment on capital debt this year alone.

MR. WARREN: And the minister didn't even know the difference.

MR. WOODFORD: Municipalities around this Province do not know that. I am sure. I don't only blame the Department for this. As far as I am concerned, I blame the Federation of Municipalities too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Sure, that was fair. Sure it was fair. I will tell you why.

MR. REID: There were communities in Newfoundland paying their whole way.

MR. WOODFORD: I will tell you why. Because then it was an incentive for the municipalities to put up their taxes. If you did not put up, the most you could pay was 20 per cent repayment on capital debt, based on your local revenue. Based on local revenue in a municipality.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: All revenue, yes, all local revenue in the municipality. Then, if you went and put it to 25 per cent or 30 per cent if would have been incentive -

AN HON. MEMBER: Fixed revenue.

MR. WOODFORD: Fixed revenue. But now what is happening under those components, there is no way in the world to tell. A municipality in this Province has to have a balanced budget. They are not allowed to send it in - end of December, as you know - they are not allowed to send in a deficit budget. They have to send in a balanced budget. How in the name of God can you balance a budget when you find out a few days before that you are going to be short $30,000, $60,000, $150,000, or $200,000? You cannot do it. Taxes are in place. Their fiscal regime is all in place because their budgets are done, and then find out a few weeks after that this kind of a thing is in place. That is the bad thing about it.

The new system now, all debt charges after 1990, are multiplied, like I said, a maximum of three, plus the consumer price index. That will go up again next year. Granted it was 2 per cent or 3 per cent, the consumer price index was added to it next year before the calculation is done. So really the municipalities... how can you budget, that is what I am saying? There has to be some kind of a system put in place so municipalities will know up front what they are going to pay.

I do not have to tell - everybody here knows that people sitting on councils today all around this Province, 90 per cent of them are volunteers. The clerk is the only one on the office every day of the week, the clerk is the only one who deals with the minutes after, and deals with the department officials every day of the week. Then, a council comes in in the nighttime, and can you imagine? Can you imagine clerks today in council offices around this Province trying to explain those formulas to the councillors when they come to their meetings in the night time. It is not easy.

You call the officials in the Department of Municipal Affairs today and I will tell you something, a few of them are after crossing up on me the last few days.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WOODFORD: They are after crossing up on me on the intent of the formula. They got mixed up pretty good when I started to cross examine them on the formula. That is a fact, and I do not blame them. I can say there is something wrong with it, yes, but the point I am trying to make is the complexity of this particular system. It is alright for St. John's, Gander and Grand Falls, they have city managers, they have city engineers, they have environmental officials, they have everybody on staff getting the biggest kind of money, and when the councillors walk in for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well as far as I am concerned they have to be told up front. A municipality in this Province has to be told up front what they can bear. If you are going to give a municipality -

AN HON. MEMBER: Based on what they can bear.

MR. WOODFORD: Based on what they can bear. And I will tell you another thing we are doing. I said it here last year in a Speech and I will say it again, we are putting in cadillac systems in municipalities around this Province and the municipalities cannot afford it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Artesian wells (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Cannot afford it. We have artesian wells in the province. Put in two or three artesian wells in communities in the province and it can do the same system for $40,000 or $50,000 that is costing millions and millions of dollars to do. Now I know, and I have told municipalities, and you know I am not going to hide that fact, telling officials in Municipal Affairs over the years because what I am saying cannot be argued against because it makes sense. I come from a community that does not have water or sewer systems. It has drilled wells and a septic system. What is wrong with it? When we have a community with 33,000 acres with 791 people and cannot put in a septic system. There is something radically wrong. I mean it would cost, I think the last figure we got was $6.9 million to put a sewer system alone in Cormack. It is ludicrous, crazy. If the government went out and gave everybody $1,000 and said: Look, put in a good concrete septic system, $1,000 per household, $300,000 and you have everybody looked after.

We have one particular well - I will give you an example - with 27 families on it, down forty feet giving off 24 gallons a minute. What is wrong with that? They are never out of water. They do not have to be hooked up to a system where it is interfering with beaver fever or anything else. It is coming right out of the ground. Why can't that work?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, we have to do a whole assessment. I will tell you half our problem. Because the community next door to us has a water system the other community figures they should have it and then on she goes and up she goes. Now there has to be a system where we can deal with the municipalities in this Province and cut down a lot of the debt in municipalities in this Province and put it to better use.

I am sure that if the minister went to his colleagues in Cabinet and explained that particular formula to him and sat down with some of the engineers, it is such a simple procedure. Why is it so hard?

Now I can understand the former minister not understanding what I am saying. I can understand that. I can understand, for instance, a councillor in the town of Gander. But you go down and ask a councillor down in the town of Roddickton or Englee, out in Carbonear, or come over my way, or go over around the Bay of Islands and out west where the hon. Member for Port aux Basques is from, and I can assure you they will give you an earful when it comes to trying to run a municipality on a shoestring. They cannot do it. It is as simple as that.

It is all right in here when even the sitting members, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Education, how many calls do they get pertaining to water and sewer in the run of a day, of a week? How many calls do they get on roads? None. They have to admit it. That is just the system, they are here, they are living on the doorstep.

I was just elected in 1987, coming out of the 1985 election, and I went to supper down here with a member for the St. John's area and I could not believe it - I do not know if I said this before, at around nine o'clock, ten minutes to nine exactly, I said, I have to go boy. He said, what is the problem? I said, I have some phone calls to make and I have a few letters to write tonight. He said, what, phone calls to make? Well, I said people work all day and I have to get back to them. Now, is the time I will get back to them and get it done before they go to work in the morning. He said, my son, you are off the head. He told me, and he told me the truth I believed him, he said that in the three months previous to that he had three or four calls. That is all he had, he did not know a thing about it. He did not know what I was talking about. I said, boy, you are some lucky. I challenged him. I said, come out with me for one week, one week in my district and you will quit, you will chuck it in. You will come in, hand in your resignation, and go home and forget about it. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get those few points out and there is no other way to get them out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: It is true. They understand it I suppose once they get out around. I can understand that around the Cabinet table as well. I ran into it. I was only there a short few months but I guarantee I could see it. There is no trouble to see it when you have people sitting around here and I trying to make my case for a part of the Province they knew nothing about. Now, you try to beat it in their heads. It is just like taking a sledge hammer. It is useless. I tell you it took some beating, I guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to get those few point out pertaining to the municipal grants structure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I would love to. By leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is not going to be so nice I can assure you. This is another thing and hon. members should sit up and listen to this. The Member for Pleasantville -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave. Yes, by leave.

MR. WOODFORD: Okay, I will just take a few minutes. I do not want to take the time of anybody else. Mr. Speaker, we have a very bad situation in this Province today whereby forestry is down, forestry is at rock bottom, we have a fishery that has never been so bad, we have municipalities in the Province in total chaos, we have tourism which as far as I am concerned is not going to increase anymore than it did last year. Let us just say we have most of our industries at rock bottom. Our mining industry is the worst it has ever been. We have an industry in this Province today that is working. We have an industry in this Province today that can expand. We have policies in place -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: That have nothing to do with Newfoundland. They are Canadian national policies that are pertaining to this Province as well as the other nine we live in, and we have people working in that particular industry, namely agriculture who can put their money where their mouths are when it comes to production in this Province, and that is why the member is picking on them, because they are efficient. They could work. With 3.7 per cent of the national average, and you over into an executive council meeting last week in Deer Lake trying to flush out the Liberals in Deer Lake. I know you had a job to do it, but you tried to flush them out and tell them that they are not doing anything, that they are driving around in a Cadillac or driving around in something else. Shame on you and shame on the people who back you as far as I am concerned. Anybody on that side today, in that particular administration who can sit there, who can stand there, and go anywhere in this Province and listen to an industry being condemned, when everything is falling down around our ears in this Province, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, they should be ashamed.

MR. NOEL: Let's hear some substance now, (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Never mind the substance. I can give you the substance too, if you want it.

MR. NOEL: Well, that's what we need!

MR. WOODFORD: But, Mr. Speaker, it is about time that hon. members opposite started to put the muzzle on people like that who are trying to downgrade and put people down in this Province who are trying to work hard for a living.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: I will say one thing more. Most of those people have a day's work done, sir, before you get up in the morning. Think of that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in this Budget debate, because this is truly a remarkable Budget. Probably we are living in the most difficult times that this Province has been in since the Great Depression. So it was no mean task to present a Budget in this day and age. I want to, on behalf of all the members of this House of Assembly - I'm not particular what side they sit on - compliment the hon. the Minister of Finance for the tremendous job he did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to put this Budget in context. Hon. members will remember May 5, 1989. People yet unborn will look upon that day as a red-letter day in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because what people will come to realise in the future is just how close we had come to losing our Province. We had come to the brink, prior to May 5, 1989. This Province, in the words of the former premier: it was the nineteen-thirties all over again.

What the hon. previous premier did not say was - he was quite upfront with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and said: look, we are right on the brink of the nineteen-thirties all over again. He was honest there. But he failed to tell them that it was his doings and the workings of his government which forced this Province to the brink that we had last seen back in the nineteen-thirties. This is where we were.

So May 5, 1989, the day on which this particular government took office - we were sworn in, the cabinet was sworn in - will go down in the annals of history as a red-letter day in the lives of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, we took over the government of this Province with every good intention to bring in some Liberal policies. We started off putting our emphasis on health, education, and development, just as we told our people we were going to do. We went around, we opened up hospital beds, we built schools, we put in place the Economic Recovery Commission, and we started the program to bring this Province, to bring some semblance of sensibleness, back to the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This was started.

At about the same time as we were starting to put these policies in place it was our duty and our responsibility to open up the ledgers of the Province. To open up the books and see what kind of a mess we had gotten ourselves into. The mess was never seen before. If Alderdice had been elected premier instead of Clyde Wells he would have gone to Ottawa and asked for a commission of government. That is how close we were. We were right on the brink.

One of the first things we had to do was march off to the banks and write out a cheque for $24 million, because some fools thought that this was a place where there was an insatiable appetite for cucumbers, and that we were going to invest $24 million into satisfying that insatiable appetite for cucumbers, Mr. Speaker. We all know how silly the experiment was.

To begin with, Mr. Speaker, it was discovered that the Province's people didn't like cucumbers. So they published this great book that the hon. the Member for Port de Grave talks about, the cookbook, and they developed in Newfoundland and Labrador an appetite, such as the world has never known, for cucumbers. We had to spend $24 million to pay off that experiment, but now we have all those people, Mr. Speaker, who are just languishing after cucumbers. The appetite was generated and we have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today who are importing cucumbers from all over the world because of the stupidity of the former government, Mr. Speaker.

When we opened the books and looked at the mess, we saw an expense for this very building that we are in today - $5 million or $6 million? -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight million.

MR. DECKER: - $8 million, Mr. Speaker, for this glorified chinese restaurant. That's all it is. Look at it! It looks like a chinese restaurant, Mr. Speaker. Contracts had been awarded. We could have stayed on the ninth floor for another fifty years. We could have opened hospital beds throughout this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: I guess I struck a nerve, Mr. Speaker. I guess I struck a nerve, because the hon. member knows full well the stupidity of the decision, with people in this Province starving, with people in this Province out of work, with people in this Province screaming out for hospital beds, Mr. Speaker. With all this I struck a nerve, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: On a point of order. I would like the minister to explain whether the devil made him renovate Exon House for the Department of Fisheries, as well? Did the devil make him do that, too?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Of course, there is no point of order, Mr. Speaker. An hon. member who spent ten years in this House should know the rules and procedures of the House. You should name her, Mr. Speaker, and flick her out, if she is going to interrupt a good speech.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the contract had been awarded. It would have cost us more money to back out of the contract than to finish the madness which the previous administration had brought upon us. Maybe we did need a new House of Assembly at some future date, but the timing was wrong. You don't build on the brink of recession.

Mr. Speaker, when we opened the books, looked at the ledger and saw the mess, we looked at the Workers' Compensation Commission, a commission that the previous administration were telling the world was in good shape. The bottom line was black, lots of money. And when we looked back, Mr. Speaker - did the hon. member say $130 million in debt? One hundred and thirty million in debt! Now, who is responsible for that? Is this the devil the hon. member is talking about? Is this some fairies the hon. member is talking about? No, Mr. Speaker. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is responsible, ultimately, for that $130 million.

Mr. Speaker, the pension funds, the pension plans - the teachers' pension plan had reached a stage where, in another five or six years, it would have been bankrupt. It would have been bankrupt, Mr. Speaker! And what did I hear the hon. member complain about today in Question Period or somewhere in the House? - complaining because this government did not give an increase in pay to pensioners.

AN HON. MEMBER: The $25 million (inaudible) what you took out to pave roads and (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the pension funds that the civil servants and the teachers have been paying into for years is not an indexed fund. Honourable members sat over here for seventeen years. They knew it was not indexed, yet they didn't have the political sense -they were on that drunken sailor approach to governing - they didn't have the political sense to do what was proper and right. Instead, Mr. Speaker, they tried to buy votes by raising the pension every year, and they drove the pension fund deeper and deeper into debt. If we had not taken office on May 5, 1989, Mr. Speaker, that pension fund would have disappeared.

Now I say to a former employee -

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget the million spent on their cover-up of Mount Cashel and all (inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Bingo.

Mr. Speaker, I say to people who are retired today, teachers who are about to retire, let's just go to the year 2005: If this pension fund had not been corrected by us - here is a Province with, at that time, probably a $6 billion Budget, and the Province would be expected to take $2.5 billion and put it into a pension fund to look after some people who have retired. At the same time the health care sector will be screaming out for, maybe by then, $1.5 billion. Where would government put the money? Government would have no choice but to keep hospital beds open, and staff the schools. So think about the dismay that retired teachers would have faced if it had not been for that red-letter day - May 5, 1989.

On top of the mess we inherited, on top of the mess the ledger was in, which would have driven, I am sure, weaker people to commit some drastic action like suicide or resignations, this administration had the fortitude to hang in there and try to do something about it. In addition to that mess which we inherited, we ended up with one of the deepest recessions the Western world has known since the 1930's.

I am trying to put this Budget in context. First we had a mess in the ledger, caused by seventeen years of the drunken sailor approach to governing. Next, came the recession, which made it more and more difficult for governments around the world to govern and to raise money to provide essential services. So there were two strikes against us. The hon. the Minister of Finance had two strikes against him as he prepared this Budget - the mess the previous administration had left, the international recession, and then, to top it all off, the disaster in the fisheries.

John Cabot could never have believed, when he found it difficult for his ship to plough through the numbers of fish that he encountered on the Grand Banks, that a full species of cod would be almost eradicated from the face of this earth. This came, Mr. Speaker. So here is the situation in which the Minister of Finance found himself. He was working with a Province that had almost been put bankrupt by the previous administration. He was working with the worst recession since the 1930's, and he was working with an almost total disaster in the fishery, which is our main industry. In spite of all that, he came up with a Budget of which I believe the best commentary I heard on it was given to me as I briefly spoke about it in this restaurant before; in this - it is a restaurant - in this House before. It was the best commentary I heard on it. I am talking about the commentaries which were on CBC television and the radio and various newspapers across the land. The best commentary I heard was made by the waitress in the Deer Lake Motel.

On the same night the Budget was read, I flew out to the West Coast, and I had my supper in the Deer Lake Motel. When the waitress came along to serve me, I recognized her, because I have been eating there for years and years, even before I got in politics, and I am known there in that restaurant. I asked her, 'What do you think of the Budget?' 'Hold your tongue,' she said. 'It is the best Budget we have ever had in this Province.' Imagine - $3.5 billion dollars. I thought this was the reason she was calling it the best. Obviously, it is the biggest Budget we have ever had, $3.6 billion, or $3.5 billion - $880 million going into health care alone. What is education - $800 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight hundred million.

MR. DECKER: Eight hundred million going into education. Never before in the history of this Province have we spent $800 million in one year in the education budget.

Employment and Labour Relations, what is your budget?

MR. GRIMES: $30 million.

MR. DECKER: Thirty-odd million in Employment and Labour Relations. Every single portfolio, each department, got more money than ever before in the history of the Province. She said, 'Hold your tongue, it was a wonderful Budget!' I asked, 'Why? What is so wonderful about it?' She said, 'That so-and-so fifteen dollar waitress licence. We don't have to pay that fifteen dollars anymore, therefore, it is the best Budget.' Now that shows ingenuity to me. That is the thinking of a Minister of Finance who can prepare an election Budget, because that fifteen dollars meant more to that waitress - she knows the $3.5 billion is alright. She knows it is in good hands, but she also knows that there is someone in the Ministry of Finance who is concerned about the nuisance taxes that the previous administration perpetrated upon our people, forced upon our people. She said, 'You know, one of the things we used to find resentful, was to have to pay a fifteen dollar fee for the privilege of selling liquor. Mr. Speaker, it is commendable that the hon. the Minister of Finance is such a warm human being that he started the process. He didn't finish it. How many of the nuisances taxes did you take out?

AN HON. MEMBER: We took out 171 this year.

MR. DECKER: He took out 171 nuisance taxes, so now, Mr. Speaker, any reasonable human being will say, Well, there can't be very many left, twenty-five or thirty. How many are left?

AN HON. MEMBER: About 1,200.

MR. DECKER: Twelve hundred nuisance taxes! Can you imagine? In seventeen years, they came up with 1,400. What is that? - 200 a year. Every year that the previous administration was in office, they brought in 200 nuisance taxes upon our people. Is it any wonder that generations yet unborn will look upon May 5, 1989 as a red-letter day in the history of this Province? Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, absolutely.

Now, I want to just draw the attention of the House to certain things in the Budget. Although I am the Minister of Health, before I talk about health matters, I want to talk about that abomination that was inflicted upon our people for ten or fifteen years - I don't know how long it was in - more than that; I am talking about the school tax. And, Mr. Speaker, every time I hear an hon. member on the other side of this House get up and insist that we bring back that school tax, I almost throw up. I am going to ask if it would be in order for me to bring a garbage pail into this House, so that I can throw up every time the hon. the Member for Kilbride or the hon. the Member for Grand Bank or the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West get up and say we should bring back the school tax! It turns my stomach inside out.

The Member for Fogo is always asking that we re-instate this abomination upon our people, Mr. Speaker, but thank goodness, this government, backed by our able backbenchers, are going to stand firm on this one, and as long as we are here, and that could be a good many decades yet to come, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador need have no fear, because the school tax will not be re-instated. And that is good news for the people in Conch. Do you know why it is good news for the people in Conch? Prior to this Budget, the average income for a student in Conch, as a result of school tax was $130 per year. The average income for someone under the Avalon Consolidated School Board in St. John's, was more like $485 per year.

I can take hon. members and I can walk them from Conch to Raleigh to Cook's Harbour to Daniel's Harbour to Port aux Basques, to Ramea and I can walk them through every single community outside the overpass and I can show them where the abolition of this abomination called the school tax, has actually increased the amount of money that will go into education in the rural areas of our Province. What a tremendous accomplishment!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, although that is outside my portfolio, I am so overwhelmed with excitement that the hon. Minister of Finance, with the strong co-operation of the Minister of Education, finally did away with this abomination, and the people of the Province are happy. Now, let us talk about the health budget.

In the 1992-1993 fiscal Budget, on the eve of inheriting the biggest mess in the books in the history of this Province - the ledger was totally in the red, paying off Sprung, paying off seventeen years of total mismanagement - in the midst of the deepest recession that we have had since the 1930s, facing the reality of a practically failed fishery, in all that, the hon. the Minister of Finance put forward in this Budget $880-odd million for health care, $880 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: - in round terms, a billion dollars out of a $3.5 billion Budget, one billion of it went into health care. That, Mr. Speaker, is commitment. Never in the history of this Province has there been so much money spent in health care, never before. Was the health care budget frozen? No, Mr. Speaker, the health care budget was not frozen. Was it frozen last year? No, the health care budget was not frozen last year. Now, there are those soothsayers and those interest groups who would like to have you believe that the health care budget was frozen, but it was never frozen. It was increased last year. It was increased in 1989, it was increased in 1990, it was increased in 1991, and it is increased in 1992.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Was the health care system in this Province re-organized and changed? Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yes, yes, yes, I am proud to say. Did we stop moving around our roads for transportation and horse and buggy? Did we give up dog teams? Yes, Mr. Speaker, we changed. We change with time. Did we overcome tuberculosis? Yes. Did we overcome a lot of children's diseases? Yes. So, Mr. Speaker, we had to change the health care system, change it for the better. What we have out there now is a system which is better organized and more heavily funded than ever before in the history of this Province, and a lot of that credit goes to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at some of the things we did. Provision has been made for eighty-six long-term care bed openings. I hear certain interest groups, the nurses' union talking about nurses being laid off. In Western Memorial Hospital, we are opening beds. At Golden Heights Manor, we are opening chronic care beds; at Agnes Pratt Home; the Baie Verte Peninsula; and the Dr. Hugh Twomey Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, unless we are going to train some apes or import some robots, I understand that it is the members of the nurses' union, the nursing assistants and health care workers, who are going to service these beds we are going to open, Mr. Speaker. You know, one of the most terrible diseases that I have seen any person suffer is Alzheimer's disease, Mr. Speaker. Any family who has had any experience with a relative or a family member who has had Alzheimer's knows exactly that it is not something that you would make light of as the hon. member is trying to do now, make light of Alzheimer's disease. Anyone who would try to do that, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Probably one of the most devastating illnesses that any family can have. And when this government took power there was an extreme shortage of spaces. They were lumped in with all the other people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. DECKER: I told the story when I visited St. Lawrence. The hon. member says where. Out in his own district, that is where. On a ward. On a ward, Mr. Speaker. In one bed was a lady probably eighty years old who was perfectly sane and reasonable. In the next bed, through no fault of her own, was another woman suffering from Alzheimer's. The poor soul who had the Alzheimer's was going off over and over, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my question was how could the woman who was sane know she was sane? That was the kind of health care system they handed over to us on May 5, 1989, Mr. Speaker. That was the kind of health care system they handed over to us. They did not hand it over to us, it was plucked from them by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who had enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Look what happened, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, we could not deal with that problem instantaneously, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: In our second year we talked about this re-organization, and the hon. members wanted to keep the status quo. They wanted to keep political hospitals, Mr. Speaker. They wanted to bow to the political whims of their own members, Mr. Speaker. We started to change the role of some of our hospitals, and as a result of that today in Bonavista there is an Alzheimer's unit ready for us to start moving the people of this dreaded disease into. That is what the hon. Minister of Finance announced, Mr. Speaker, in his Budget when he said: Mr. Speaker, we will be opening an Alzheimer's unit in Bonavista, because we recognize the necessity for such a unit and he was surrounded by a Cabinet of feeling members and a back bench full of caring, concerned members. We were able to put this through over and above the arguments of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, I only have a few minutes left, but let me also say that by opening these eighty-six chronic care beds, the Alzheimer's and other ones, we also opened eighty-six acute care beds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. DECKER: Where he says. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such an example of ignorance of the system in your life? We opened eighty-six chronic care beds which meant we opened eighty-six acute care beds. If the hon. member will listen I will tell him why. At any given moment there are about 200 medically discharged patients in our hospitals occupying acute care beds. Why? Because there were no chronic care bed for them to move in. They had to occupy an acute care bed. As a result of opening up these eighty-six beds we are now able to take people who are occupying an acute care bed where the acute care is no longer appropriate and move them into a chronic care bed. That is the kind of Budget that the hon. Minister of Finance brought down the other day. That is why I call it such a remarkable Budget, Mr. Speaker. Also, we do not blow our own horn enough. Sometimes I get sick and tired of members on this side who are so busy doing things that we do not take time to get up and shout about them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: We are going to though. We are going to tell the public.

MR. DECKER: I have a little rhyme, Mr. Speaker, and it goes something like this. The fish she does not cackle 'bout/Her million eggs or so/The hen is quite a different bird/One egg and hear her crow. Did you ever hear such a bunch of hens in your life. Did you ever hear them crow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, they were going to grow cucumbers and they crowed, and they crowed, and they crowed. $24 million worth of crowing, Mr. Speaker, and they never made enough money on cucumbers to pay off the interest, so I am getting sick and tired of sitting down and not crowing. It is time for us to crow just one tenth of 1 per cent of what the other members crowed when they did nothing, we should be able to crow that much for all the great things we are doing.

In that Budget the other day there are a whole lot of things I have to talk about but I do not have time, but we talked about a nursing access program. Now, hon. members heard me talk about how difficult it is for us to get nurses for coastal Labrador. Hon. members know all about this. In this Budget there is $340,000 allocated to take people of coastal Labrador right from L'Anse-au-Clair up to Nain, whether they be Innu, Innuit, or white people who moved there back in the 1700 and 1800s, all races. We have this nursing access program and we are going to recruit people into that program. We have said to the Western Memorial Hospital we want ten seats reserved for potential nurses from the Labrador coast. Here is what we are doing in that program, Mr. Speaker. This year when the Grade X11's write their exams we are going to try to find some people of that Grade X11 class and give them a six week course in Goose Bay, right in the community college in Goose Bay - the Minister of Education supported this, and we are going to give them a sort of upgrading to sort of familiarize them with the nursing program. We are going to bring them in. That is for the Grade XII's. In addition to the Grade XII's, we are also going to make this program available to people who only have Grade IX. This is for some of the people who have already dropped out of school, for whatever reason, have quit school - the mature student. Now we are not going to bring them straight from the coast of Labrador into the school because it will be a bit difficult. So what we are going to do, Mr. Speaker, is give them a nine month program right in Goose Bay, in the community college -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: - with the full support of the Department of Health, the Department of Education, the Western Memorial College, the School of Nursing, and Memorial University of Newfoundland. Why are we doing it? We are doing it because we care. We are doing it because we care. We have dedicated $340,000 to this program. It does not mean that tomorrow the problem will be solved, but it does mean that within three years -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Health, I felt, was too partisan. I just could not sit there and listen to it any more. After hearing that speech, I wondered where the sanity was?

The first thing the minister mentioned was how he went to Deer Lake. He flew out to Deer Lake, and the minister is known to be flying. I remember a trip down to Grand Bank when he -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. Lawrence.

MR. WINSOR: St. Lawrence, when he acquired the title of 'old werewolf'. He is known to do some flying. He rushes in and says that the waiter was so delighted -

AN HON. MEMBER: Waitress.

MR. WINSOR: The waitress, or whoever he met at the hotel, was so delighted that this 'nuisance fee' as he had called it, had been eliminated. That was just like the rest of this Budget. Next year it comes into effect.

The minister forgot to tell the friend of his that it was going to be a full year from the date of the announcement until it is implemented. We know the record of this government when we talk of doing things one year. We will look at Bill 16, that Bill 17 is going to be replacing. One year ago, just about, this administration introduced a piece of legislation called 'Bill 16' rolling back wages for one year. Now tomorrow or the next day they are going to introduce Bill 17, rolling back wages for a second year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: No rollbacks, the Minister of Labour says. That is as much as he knows about the department. No lay backs. Now, the only thing the minister did not know about was that the hon. Minister of Education spent so much time in university preaching the virtues of school tax and now, he could not go back there to teach any more because he would have to revise all his notes because everything he had there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: - no, I am not going to get into that. I am going to say that the minister would have to do some courses extolling the virtues of school tax, I do not know what he would do about it because that is how he spends his time.

MR. MATTHEWS: He had nothing to lecture on.

MR. WINSOR: In the little bit of time I have, Mr. Speaker, I want to address two or three of the burning issues. The Minister of Health talked about the great advances in health care. Now, if anyone should know of the thousands of people who are out there waiting to get routine testing done in hospitals - as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I had to go to the minister last year, to see if he could get a patient speeded up, moving in and I will say the minister did, yes, he had his officials to make a call because the person was under severe stress, in fact, he has since died and the minister had his officials call to see what was going on - yes, the minister did and speeded up the process considerably, so the patient could get tested and get a CAT scan done - you know what, the minister had his deputy do it, the minister did not do it himself, he contacted his deputy to see if this person could get a CAT scan done and it was good.

The person received treatment in a short period of time, unfortunately it was a little too late, but it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I will adjourn the debate.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that tomorrow we can shift gears a little bit and I intend to introduce second reading of Bill 18, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act", first, then, Mr. Speaker, if the printing is finished tonight, I would like to introduce for second reading Bill No. 17, "An Act Concerning Restraint In The Public Service".

This is my intention at this time. If, however, the printing is not finished in time or if it is finished and there are some mistakes in it and it has to be redone or something, then we will go back to the Budget debate after we deal with the Public Utilities Act. So that is my intention.

Mr. Speaker, in a spirit of generosity and good relations, and after what happened last Wednesday, which was sort of outside the norm, we have indicated we will allow the opposition to have their Private Members Day this week instead of last week, so, Mr. Speaker, whatever one they call, it's up to them of course, but I just wanted to point out how magnanimous we are being at this particular time. So, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just before the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do we stop the clock?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, stop the clock. The Private Members resolution, we would give notice of today is the resolution put forward by the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains dealing

with the federal seat and the change in the name.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), school tax, what happened to that one?

MR. MATTHEWS: We will do that later. After the minister opens up the hospital beds he closed.

The only other thing I want to say to the Government House Leader is you are expecting us to debate Bill 17 tomorrow. I think, in all fairness, that we should -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did we stop the clock?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: That was agreed.

MR. MATTHEWS: We should at least have some time to look at that. It's obviously going to be a controversial piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. MATTHEWS: I don't know why. You're only stripping contracts and other things, I wouldn't know why it would be controversial. In all fairness, we need some time for our critic for sure to have a look at it. I think it would be a bit unfair to bring such a significant piece of legislation - just see a copy of it tomorrow and then get into doing it tomorrow afternoon. I think we at least need -

AN HON. MEMBER: It's an insult to the public service.

MR. MATTHEWS: Is the Government House Leader saying it is not done now?

MR. BAKER: It will probably be ready it was sent to the printers about an hour ago.

MR. MATTHEWS: But we need to see something. It's a bit much to expect I think.

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

MR. BAKER: For members opposite, it is quite simple. What we are doing is freezing the total compensation package for this fiscal year at zero, and the total compensation package for the fiscal year after that at 3 per cent. So that is fairly simple. That is what the Bill is about. So it is not a complex Bill, Mr. Speaker. I will consider it. But what I would like to do is at least introduce it as soon as possible. There is no intention of finishing debate or anything, but I would like to introduce it at least tomorrow. We will see how it goes. We may then go back to the Budget debate. But anyway, these are the things that I had in mind and I just wanted hon. members to know.

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

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