March 31. 1992                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLI  No. 16

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't have a written statement for members opposite, I would simply like to stand, Mr. Speaker, and make note of the fact that later on today, tonight, in fact, marks the 43rd Anniversary of the date on which Newfoundland became part of Canada, the date of Confederation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: It is time, Mr. Speaker, for those of us who were around then and can remember, to think back to the conditions in Newfoundland at that time and the tremendous changes that have taken place in the last forty-three years.

Previous to Confederation, the social safety net was practically non-existent. The road network and the various services to communities in this Province were practically non-existent and there has been some tremendous progress made in these forty-three years. Mr. Speaker, we all realize that perhaps we would like to have seen a little more progress, but I think we all realize that the decision made - albeit a very narrow decision - the decision made on that fateful day has affected us all, has affected our services, has affected the way we live, has affected our educational institutions and has affected the total of the way of life of all Newfoundlanders. So I would simply like to make note of that very special occasion in our history.

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

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

I just want to say a few words in response to what the Government House Leader said. We concur with him in his remarks about our joining Canada. Some of us are too young to remember the great Confederation fight. Some are like my colleague for St. John's East Extern, who remembers it well and, Mr. Speaker, has become a convert, I guess, on just how much this joining Canada has meant to us as a people, to us as a Province.

I suppose it is somewhat ironic, but I guess, as well, significant, that on this very anniversary date, we have some of our people out on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, trying to address the very serious issue of foreign overfishing. And I hope, if they accomplish one thing, Mr. Speaker, on this anniversary date, it will be that they have enough impact on public opinion in Canada and public opinion in Europe, that this problem is dealt with. I only hope they have enough impact upon the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada that they don't waste too much time in addressing this very serious issue. We have come a long way, but we will go back very quickly, Mr. Speaker, if this fishing issue is not addressed in the near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East have the leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is, of course, a truism to say that Newfoundlanders are better off for Confederation. There are very few Newfoundlanders, except a few romantics, who would have us turn back the clock and be once again on our own. I think it is appropriate that on this particular anniversary it is particularly noteworthy that some of those things that we gave up in terms of nationhood and brought in Confederation in terms of our resources, we as a Province or we as a people have the inability to act on our own with respect to that.

It is quite remarkable that over the last year or so since I have been in this House, there have been very many resolutions, all-party resolutions, unanimous resolutions in this House, trying to get the Government of Canada to take action in doing what we, if we were a nation, might be able to do.

So we did give up something; it was the ability to control our affairs on the international level that we gave up. And I think it is ironic that on this very anniversary, we have people out trying to assert an international jurisdiction that we, as a nation, might have claimed were we such. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: This will be a very positive statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise this hon. House that Canada Bay Lumber Company and its sawmill operations at Roddickton, until recently owned by Chester Dawe Limited, have been purchased by Interholz Limited which is owned by an Austrian interest. The mill has been purchased entirely through private financing.

Canada Bay Limited had operated the mill only on a part-time basis. It had never fully realized its potential. The new company plans to operate the mill on a full-time basis. All its lumber production will be exported to Europe. It will, therefore, not compete with other local mills in the local markets. In the past, Newfoundland, besides newsprint, always exported round logs or pulpwood. This is significant, Mr. Speaker. It is the first time ever that Newfoundland will be exporting value added finished lumber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, this is good news for the economy of the Northern Peninsula, especially the Roddickton-Main Brook area. While additional jobs will be created, more importantly, these jobs will be more secure and long-term. It will also result in better utilization of the local forest resources.

The mill will require further investment in a seasoning kiln and other quality improvements to meet the export standards. The new owners will be evaluating the upgrading requirements of the mill in the next few weeks, and they plan to start up the mill as soon as possible this summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I want to first thank the minister for an advance copy of his release, and I want to congratulate the owners of Interholz Limited, I think is the name of the company, for taking this initiative of buying the Canada Bay Lumber operations in Roddickton. It is a good thing they didn't have to depend on this government for any assistance, because they would never get it, Mr. Speaker. It is very fortunate that they were able to finance this operation themselves, and I congratulate them very much for being able to take on this operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would say it is a good deal for the company to get it. I would be very interested in seeing some of the details on the timber rights that have been given with this, which would have to be. I would be interested in seeing how the operation ties in with the electrical generation plant in Roddickton. I imagine they have some affiliation with that, to supply the wood chips, no doubt.

Having said all that, this is certainly a good day for the Roddickton area, on the Northern Peninsula. I congratulate the company for taking on this project, and I wish them every success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced funding, some $65 million for municipalities, creating some 2,400 jobs in the Province. We are delighted to hear that activity is about to take place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Looking at the Budget documents it is clear that from the capital works projects that were approved last year in the Budget there was some $56 million of that amount that was not spent, only $14 million of which was provincial government expenditure. Would the minister like to tell us why last year he did not spend that $56 million which would have created some 2,200 jobs in this province last year, and would have only cost this Province $14 million?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will take that under advisement.

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

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) comment, Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that a minister has to take under advisement what he did last year. Just incredible.

This year government plans to spend $210 million on capital works, $17 million less than last year. Would the minister like to tell us why he is this year not going to spend that $17 million, which probably would leverage $50 million or $60 million of federal and/or private capital? Why is he not going to spend that this year and create a couple of thousand jobs with that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members were over there seventeen years running the budget of this Province and all they did was run her in the hole. We have now a responsible group of people in this Province who will look at the long-term future of this Province and not strangle us in debt.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has been in office four years and we have had a negative growth in the economy every year since that minister took office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister must know that for every dollar government spends on capital that he gets back forty cents at least in the provincial treasury. These numbers I have just referred to show that in fact the cost to the Province of these projects would be less than forty cents on the dollar. Why can the minister not see the economics of that and start spending some money, money that was already approved by the Budget last year, money that is being made available by the government of Ottawa? Why is the minister not using that money to create some economic activity in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, again the member is thinking only in respect to the short term. You get a little bit of extra money this year by borrowing, but I might remind the hon. member that next year you have to pay the interest, and you have to pay the interest, and you have to pay the interest and the interest and the interest - forever! So there is no long-term gain by doing this. There may be a little bit of pleasure this year, but unless what you are doing in the economy is building the economy so that it can support more people, just spending money one year and paying interest forever and subtracting what you spend, you must subtract from what you have available the interest you pay. Right now the interest cost in this Province is over $400 million a year, which would go a long way to do many of the things we want to do, but what we have to do is restrain our impulses to spend Santa Claus fashion in the short-term.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier I ask my question to the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader. The woman who complained to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary nineteen months ago that the Member for Naskaupi, then a cabinet minister, sexually assaulted her, subsequently spoke on a number of occasions to Simon Lono in the Premier's office in an attempt to get a meeting with the Premier. Would the minister confirm that Simon Lono left the Premier's office last week and would he indicate whether any involvement of Mr. Lono in the so-called Kelland affair had anything to do with his departure from the Premier's office?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is, absolutely nothing. There is absolutely no connection. The long answer?... I suppose I could go into the situation and explain once again for the fifth or sixth time in this House exactly what happened. All I can say at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, is that the Member for Humber East is trying to dig up a little bit of dirt again, and maybe that is the limit of what she can do.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask a new question. In the absence of the Premier, and given the fact that the Minister of Justice does not have a seat in this Assembly, I will direct my question to the acting Minister of Justice. I would like the acting minister to tell the House how the government can justify abruptly and totally terminating the Crimes Compensation Program and denying to all past, present, and future victims of crime, any reimbursement for their out-of-pocket expenses resulting from criminal injury, any compensation for lost income as a result of criminal injury, and any token compensation for their pain and suffering? How can the government rationalize this termination? Did the government consult any of the public about the termination, and did the government give any thought at all to scaling down the program still providing some compensation, albeit at lower rates?

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

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

In, I believe it was, the fiscal year 1990-1991, the federal government announced its complete withdrawal from this program. After years of encouraging the development of such a program, the federal government announced its complete withdrawal. Now, Mr. Speaker, since then the Province has been handling cases that have arisen. As a matter of fact, at this point in time there are 181 cases on the waiting list that will be dealt with, and in the Budget this year there is a certain amount of money put aside to handle the 181 compensation cases that we will still handle. But, Mr. Speaker, in view of the withdrawal of the federal government from this program we feel that the scarce provincial money that is available is perhaps better spent in victim services, it is better spent in providing help and assistance pre-trial and during the trial for individuals in this circumstance.

It is a matter of choice, Mr. Speaker. We feel, since the federal government pulled out of this program, that we have to spend our money, the scarce dollars that we have, in the most effective way, and we feel, Mr. Speaker, that is the most effective way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is strange that the government didn't make any public representations to the federal government to get federal support restored. It is strange that the government did not consult victims about their priority.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting minister about a crime victim, now a survivor, who was just involved as a witness in seven Mount Cashel trials. He made twenty-seven trips from Ontario to St. John's for the Hughes Enquiry Hearings, for preliminary enquiry hearings and for trials. He had planned to apply for crimes compensation following the final trial. That concluded with a guilty verdict this morning.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when I questioned the Premier on government's decision to remove from the Hughes Enquiry mandate the power to make recommendations about compensation, the Premier said in this House, and I quote, "That is -

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

The hon. member is on a supplementary, and the hon. member very well knows that a supplementary is not given the leeway of the main question. So I ask the hon. member to please get to the question.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the Premier said the Mount Cashel victims should go to the Crimes Compensation Program. I have quotes here from Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, would the acting minister explain to the House of Assembly how the government intends to honour the Premier's commitment to the Mount Cashel survivors to give them appropriate compensation for their pain and suffering, for the disruption they have experienced in their lives, and for their out of pocket expenses?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to be very careful in the way I answer this. First of all when the comment was made the Crimes Compensation Board was still in place and we are still proceeding with the program. It was a budgetary decision for reasons that I announced a moment ago that this government took and is putting its resources into victim services.

We have made representation to the federal government about the abolishment of the Crimes Compensation. I would like to remind the hon. member that the people who abolished that program are the same people she is going to be out campaigning for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Shame! Despicable hypocrisy!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in terms of this individual case that I know about I will have to look into what is happening and get back to the hon. member, but I would like to point out that I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that government make some kind of basic decision now that would preclude the possibility of these people going to court and suing for damages and so on, and who they would sue for damages. I have to be very careful of what I say here. I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that we simply jump in and commit tens of millions of dollars.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. In the Budget of last week the children's dental program was cut from $7 million down to $4.7 million, a cut of 32.9 per cent. Now last year the minister said that cuts in health funding would actually improve health care. I think the minister must have thought he was Houdini when he dreamt that one up.

Does he now say that a cut of one third in the dental budget will improve dental services for the children in this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we have a children's dental health program which we are making some modifications to. In looking at that program, Mr. Speaker, there are some procedures being performed which could hardly be described as basic dental programs. For example, stainless steel crowns and root canals are being done, and we are not absolutely certain that it was the intent of the program to get into that kind of treatment. Basically it was put in place as a basic dental program for children up to thirteen or fourteen years old, whatever the case might be.

We have advised the Dental Association that we intend to make some changes to that program. We are going to deliver a basic program, Mr. Speaker, and I would advise the hon. member not to get too torn up on whether it is $4.5 million or $5 million. This government is committed to delivering a basic dental health program to our children. As a matter of fact I am meeting with the Dental Association after the House closes this evening to discuss the wherewithal whereby we can deliver that program.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. A reduction of that size, Mr. Speaker, has to severely cut dental services to children. Now how does the minister intend to do it? Surely it is not all impacted wisdom teeth as the Minister of Finance would have us believe. Does the minister intend to reduce the age limit for dental services as well? Does he intend to have a means test, maybe, of some kind? Will he pay for only certain kinds of services? Maybe he would be willing to lay it out for us as to where the cuts are actually going to take place.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to forget the kind of Department of Health he is dealing with today. We do not ride roughshod over people, we co-operate with people. That is why I am meeting with the Dental Association this afternoon, to discuss with them how best to deliver this program.

Mr. Speaker, I will be in a better position to answer that question in a few weeks time after we consult back and forth and we work out a program that this Province can afford, and a program that meets the need that we intended in the first place, which was a basic dental program, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to make that decision on the spur of the moment just because the hon. member asked the question. We consult with professionals in the business and that is why we are making such great changes to the health system in this Province today.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, whether the minister wishes to admit it or not, he is tampering with the universality of the dental care plan for children. Now, is he testing the waters, Mr. Speaker, for changes to the Medicare plan? Do the changes to the children's dental plan foreshadow changes to Medicare, is that the next step in the minister's bag of tricks?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the hon. member does not have a clue as to what he is talking about. The dental program is not included in the Medicare program at all. The dental program is an add-on, which some provinces have decided to go with in the Canada Health Act. There is no reference made to a universal dental program, so the hon. member, if he hopes some day to be the Minister of Health, as well as the critic, he is going to have to get his act together and learn exactly what the Canada Health Act is all about.

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

MR. DOYLE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister aware that payments under the dental plan for children make up a very, very large portion of the income for rural dentists, and won't this cut of 33 per cent force dentists to abandon rural Newfoundland and leave tens of thousands of, not only children but adults as well without proper dental service as a result of that cut of 33 per cent?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty well an opinion of the Dental Association that the children's dental health program is what they refer to as the 'Bread and Butter' of the dental business in rural Newfoundland. However, if the hon. member were to look, he would see that a considerable amount of this in the stainless steel crowns and the root canals are actually performed as a surgical procedure within this city, so - I know it has been said by the dentists - I am not absolutely sure that that is the case.

Another point I would want to -


MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked a question and if he wants to pursue it, he would be entitled to ask again.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Mr, Speaker, the hon. member should try to restrain himself a bit. I know he is emotionally involved in this issue, but he should try to practice a bit of restraint in this House.

I tell the hon. member that that whole program has been giving me some concern over the past number of years. The previous administration had a co-pay of five dollars in there and that is still there, but I am not sure whether this co-pay is not actually deterring the people who should take advantage of this service, so, over the next weeks, when I am meeting with the Dental Association, I will be discussing ways that we can design that program so that it will actually reach the people who need it. The five dollar co-pay means that it is quite common for a child in rural Newfoundland to go to his dentist and have a bill of twenty dollars or twenty-five dollars. Now, I am afraid that has already proven to be a deterrent and I am not sure that program does not need a lot of changing and that is exactly what we will be looking at over the next few days.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The minister is aware, I am sure, of the recent suspension of four firemen by the Town of Witless Bay, and he is also aware that those firemen say that they have been suspended without cause. Could the minister tell the House if he has checked into this particular problem, and if he did, if there is any reason for those people not to be reinstated?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the department has checked into the recent suspensions of the fire fighters in Witless Bay and it is a dispute between the council and the fire department and it is something that the department is reluctant to, and does not wish to, get into with the particular parties.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister confirm that there has been an internal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the fire department and the town council in Witless Bay and if the contents of this investigation would have anything to do with the recent resignation of a councillor in the town of Witless Bay?

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

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker. The recent resignation of a councillor, to my knowledge, does not have anything to do with the most recent investigation. That is not to say that there was not an investigation previous to that. There is a current investigation under way. The report is with the department. It is being analyzed. When the department is ready to make recommendations they will be made public and also dealt with the council involved.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, on January 16, 1992 a letter was written to the then Minister, Mr. Gullage, and to the Premier, outlining a number of grave concerns pertaining to the council in Witless Bay, some of which contravened the Municipalities Act. Could the minister give an explanation as to why there has not been a reply from the minister or the Premier in almost three months?

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot account for what the Premier and my predecessor - I will start again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Can I have the protection of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, so I can answer this question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: A profound question.

MR. HOGAN: I forget the question now.

I cannot account for the response or nonresponse from my predecessor or the Premier. I doubt very much that it was not responded to. I cannot see either of them ignoring anything that was brought to their attention.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the event you did, (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Start again. Start again.

MR. HOGAN: I cannot account, Mr. Speaker, for any response or nonresponse that my predecessor or the Premier did or did not make in response to something from the residents of Witless Bay. I know that when these matters were brought to my attention, an investigation was initiated. The report is with me. There are some items there that probably would need the attention of the department. They are being analyzed. Attention is going to be given to those items and recommendations will be forthcoming.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Because the department has sort of set a precedent in dismissing the council in Cox's Cove recently for contravening sections of the Municipalities Act, can the minister tell the House if there is anything in the department's report that would warrant such actions in this case?

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

MR. HOGAN: I have not reached that conclusion yet, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice, and since he does not have a seat in the House, I guess the acting minister can answer it. Can the government confirm that the government has decided to close the courthouse in Brigus, which serves probably the most concentrated area in Newfoundland, outside of St. John's, the whole Conception Bay north area. Is it true that the government has decided to close that courthouse, and does this mean that it is shutting down the judicial centre of Brigus under The Supreme Court Act?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will check into the details of that question and get back to the hon. member. My understanding is that it will be handled from St. John's by circuit or something, but I had better check into the exact answer and get back to the hon. gentleman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and could I ask the acting Minister of Justice to also find out whether or not the consequences of a closure of this courthouse would result in an inability of residents of that area to file documents in the court, and to achieve justice there and not have to come to St. John's to file documents? If it is going to continue to be a judicial centre, which it has been for many, many years, or whether any other consideration was given - if they did not like that centre - of moving it to a more central location in Conception Bay north - perhaps Harbour Grace or Carbonear?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of any of the considerations that went into any such decision that was made. If I were aware of them, I suppose I would not be free to comment on them, because they would have been comments made in Cabinet or wherever, but I am not aware of the other considerations that were put in this. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the service offered by the justice system will be provided to all people in this Province on an equal basis. We try to make our justice system as good and as efficient as possible.

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. Since this hon. gentleman became the new minister some good changes have been made in that department. Because of one of the changes that his predecessor brought into being - the new MOG, Municipal Operating Grant system - I ask the minister today: because of the trouble that is causing to all municipalities in the Province, would he consider changing that system?

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

MR. HOGAN: It is the practice of this government, Mr. Speaker, that all programs that are either introduced by them or by anybody else - their predecessors or what have you - are under constant review, and processed in such a fashion that they would serve the interests of the public best. This program would be subject to the same type of review.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I think what the minister has said is that this government made a mistake. I want to ask the minister: does he think it fair - since this system came into effect - I will take one specific case. The Town of Torbay, which is a fast growing town, has increased their mil rate by 1.5 mils. They are still losing $200,000 in revenue. I want to ask the minister: wouldn't he consider this an intolerable situation? Wouldn't he consider that those people, this council, is being robbed of money which is rightfully theirs?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to correct the hon. Member. I didn't - at least, I didn't hear myself say it; I don't know if anybody else in the House heard me - say that this government made a mistake in the MOG program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: I didn't hear him.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if I heard myself say it or not, and I don't know if anybody else in the House heard me say it, but I didn't admit to making any mistake, or that the government made any mistake over the MOG program. I said that all government programs are under constant review by this government so they can best serve the public.

The second part of his question. Any council that finds itself in a deficit position - it's not a good position to be in, no more than if I was in a deficit position.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Flatrock received a grant and -

AN HON. MEMBER: No they didn't. Not a grant.

MR. PARSONS: - unless the minister changes the format they cannot afford to accept it without doubling the rate from 5.5 mils at least to 10 mils. How many more towns are in the same position as Flatrock is in?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the mil rate as it appears to me - I am not aware of the specific mil rate, but I will take the hon. member's word for it that it is 5.5. If the Town of Flatrock or any other town cannot afford a program, the only way they can do it is by increasing their mil rate or having a program that suits their particular needs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: I will start again, Mr. Speaker. The situation which the Town of Flatrock finds itself in with 5.5 mils is: if they cannot afford the program then the only logical way they can afford it is by increasing their mil rate. They should not enter into programs that they can't afford. That is being rather facetious but they should try and cut the cloth to suit the needs.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister understood what I said,. They are paying right now for dry pipe. If they accept the money that the minister offered yesterday then they will still be only halfway to the first house. It's been four years now since they received any funding. Now they will have to put the mil rate to eleven with no assurance, unless the minister again assures me that they will be funded next year to bring services to at least number one house, they will have to double their mil rate to perhaps ten or eleven mils, still with no services. The only service they have there is garbage pickup. Was that in reality an offer or was it an ultimatum?

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

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker. The initial part of the program that was introduced by my predecessor - I think it was four and a half years ago that they received the initial grant for that particular system - I hate to say it, Mr. Speaker, but it was spent in a political fashion and it was done arse foremost and that is why they are having the problem they have now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table a Lieutenant Governor's warrant in the amount of $3,329,300: For physicians' services, $1,274,000 million, and for grants and subsidies to hospitals, $2,055,300 million, for a total of $3,329,300.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would like to table an amendment to the loan agreement between Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and the government. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the loan drawdown period to enable Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to avail of a $4.3 million loan to help finance the expenditures under the capital modernization upgrading program which we agreed to do last week.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given


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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, the Member for Humber East asked me a question concerning the grants and subsidies paid to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd. I would like to indicate that Corner Brook Pulp and Paper have spent about $225 million modernizing the mill in Corner Brook and under the Pulp and Paper Modernization Agreement, this general agreement, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to give Corner Brook Pulp and Paper grants of approximately $45 million toward the cost of the modernization program. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's share of that $45 million was approximately $7 million, and then, as a one-time contribution, the government gave a $2 million grant to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to build access roads. This grant was given when they originally took over the mill. Then, Mr. Speaker, annually, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador share the cost of a silviculture program with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper on a 70/30 basis with the Province paying approximately 30 per cent of $2 million or $600,000. A similar program was extended to Abitibi-Price. Apart from the interest we just discussed on the loan - we discussed that last week - these are all the grants and subsidies that my officials could find that went to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the continuation of the Budget Speech.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, yesterday -

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a brief interruption? The Chair feels it has to do it. For the benefit of hon. members who have not sat in our previous House, I have mentioned on a number of occasions that the layout of this House, the space that we have here, is particularly conducive to a lot of noise. I find hon. members getting up to leave and not leaving, leaning over members' desks and carrying on long conversations. Our chairs are the type that swivel around, and hon. members are not aware that when we have ten or twelve going on like that, it is very difficult to hear a member who is speaking. Out of courtesy to an hon. member, hon. members should please keep the level of conversation down to a minimum. We have space over here and I have seen hon. members from time to time stopping over here. Here, we have a tendency on this side to lean over the desk and to be back on to the Chair. I have told hon. members about that. The procedure always is, in every House, that if a member wants a conversation we go outside, or we go behind the curtain. We do not have a curtain here, but I have noticed that the two House leaders very often go behind here and it does not create any disturbance. The Chair very often doesn't hear it. I ask hon. members, in courtesy to other hon. members and for the maintenance of decorum and order in the House, that they please remember the layout of our House, that it is not constructed to entertain these conversations and that hon. members please refrain, certainly, from carrying on long conversations that seem to multiply to the point where you cannot hear the hon. member speaking.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me thank you for your ruling. I was about to say, in fact, that yesterday there was quite a bit of disturbance in the House, which makes it very difficult to speak, as Your Honour has quite properly said. Hon. gentlemen opposite missed a great deal of factual information yesterday and I hate for them to miss all of the good things I had to say yesterday, so I feel obligated to hon. gentlemen opposite to start again. I think I am going to have to do that, particularly now that Your Honour has given me at least a 50/50 chance of having somebody listen to me today. Now, I am under no false allusions that the news media are going to be listening. They are gone, I suspect. I cannot see the press gallery from here, but once Question Period is over they usually fade into oblivion, and certainly, if you were to listen to CBC TV, you wouldn't know that I had made any comments on the Budget at all. NTV have been quite generous, kind, and fair on panels that I have had with the President of Treasury Board, the Member for St. John's East, and my good friend and colleague and bosom buddy, the leader of NAPE, Mr. March. We have had a couple of very pleasant debates on TV. I have had some very pleasant debates on CBC radio, in fact, over the Budget, both before and since the Budget, very worthwhile and very productive debates, I think. The Evening Telegram have been fine and VOCM radio have been good, but CBC TV seem to have a great penchant for doing interviews in the pubs on George Street. That seems to be where they get their views on the Budget, but we have not seen a lot of comment from this side recently. Anyway, sobeit, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is really a point of order, but I commiserate with the hon. gentleman and I understand his feelings, but I implore him, please, don't start again. I listened yesterday.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have great sympathy for the President of Treasury Board because there were several occasions, brief, albeit, yesterday, when he was paying attention. But I have to confess, Your Honour, that outside of yourself and the Pages in the House of Assembly yesterday that - Dr. Warren raised his hand. I think he did spend five or six minutes listening along with one or two others over there. I can't say that much for my colleagues on this side, I have to confess. There were periods yesterday when I saw more of the backs of hon. gentlemen opposite than I did the faces of them.

At least now, Mr. Speaker, having said all that, having gotten myself in trouble with CBC TV, I had their attention at least for the first five minutes.

I want to start off by saying, Mr. Speaker, that out of all the public comment that has taken place over the last four or five days, I have to confess, one thing that really concerns me is the amount of apathy I am seeing in the public - apathy, and I don't think it is apathy from the point of view that they don't care, I think it is apathy from the point of view of a severe defeatist attitude that the people of this Province feel.

MS. VERGE: Some people are scared. They are intimidated.

MR. WINDSOR: My colleague says, quite correctly, many people are scared to speak out.

I heard a good story today. Maybe some of you have heard it, but it was new to me. It was something that took place at the Liberal convention this year when there was a voice vote being taken on a particular issue. The Premier already had spoken very much in favour of this resolution at the convention and a voice vote was taken and it was very clearly against the proposal, very clearly against it. The Chairperson said: 'Motion is defeated.' And I am told that the Premier jumped up on the stage and said: 'Mr. Chairman, I believe on an issue as important as this we should have a standing vote,' and he stood on the stage with his arms folded and watched as the standing vote was taken, and I am told it was passed by a majority of eighty-three to seventy-eight. So there are seventy-eight free-thinking Liberals out there, contrary to my former belief. There are at least seventy-eight who are prepared to stand up and be counted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) something to do with this.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It has a great deal to do with this. It has a great deal to do with the whole methodology of governing the Province. It has a great deal to do with the fact that it is a one-man show over there, that hon. gentlemen and ladies opposite are not allowed to speak for themselves and have had no input into this Budget.

MS. VERGE: Members of the public are afraid of (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: And that is precisely why the Minister of Finance today couldn't even tell me why he hadn't spent $60 million last year. He has to take it under advisement to find out what he didn't do last year. Now, if that isn't gross incompetence, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is! - absolutely gross incompetence, Mr. Speaker.

But that is an interesting story that came out of the Liberal Leadership Convention that was related to me today. I think it is very indicative, Mr. Speaker, of the malaise in the Liberal Party today and the view that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have of this party, that it is a one-man show. I warned hon. gentlemen opposite that the one-man show will drop very, very, very quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: I have to find out if that is true. I will find out if it is true.

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman should find out if it is true. If the hon. gentleman can prove to me that it is not true - I don't hear a lot of his colleagues denying this, by the way. I don't hear a lot of denial on that side any more than I heard a denial when I told the hon. gentleman from Baie Verte that the Premier had stood up at the Convention and taken the microphone from him because he did not like what he was saying. There was no denial on that particular occasion either, Mr. Speaker. So I suspect my resources are relatively accurate.

Mr. Speaker, let me get back to what I am trying to say. I am concerned about the apathy, and I don't think it is apathy from the point of view that the people of this Province don't care what is taking place or what is being done to them, I think it is apathy from the point of view of a total defeatist attitude on the people that they have been beaten and battered so often, that they have seen this government act in this unilateral fashion, totally uncaring for the consequences of their actions, that they have become accustomed to. What they are saying now is, What can we do. They are going to do it, anyway.

Several people even suggested to me, Oh, you are going to speak all week. What for? Is it going to change anything? Of course it is not going to change anything. Is the government going to change their mind? Are they going to bring in amendments? Are they going to roll back the payroll tax? Are they going to reduce personal income tax because of what I say in this House this week? It hasn't happened in the seventeen years I have been here and it isn't likely to start this year. But I think we do have an obligation to the people of this Province to point out what is being done to them. We have an obligation to point out the actions of this government and what this government is up to. It takes a little digging, Mr. Speaker, to get into a budget document and fully understand the implications of it. It takes some time for private enterprise to take these changes and apply them to themselves. Not always. Some of them are very quick to respond.

I pointed out yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that the two main factors in this particular Budget document are the elimination of the school tax and the replacement of that with a payroll tax on businesses and personal income tax increase for individuals. This government has tried to pass this off as a trade-off, because it is perceived, and I think rightly so, that the majority of people in this Province felt that the school tax was not a good tax, or at least the administration of it and the impact of it. They didn't mind paying the tax but there had to be a better way, and it was an inefficient tax to collect. The administrative costs were high, although admittedly reduced over the past several years, and I have said that myself. I don't disagree. I am on record publicly as saying, I agree. We needed to look at the school tax system and make some changes to it. I didn't disagree with that. And I am not totally in disagreement with what has been put in its place, not totally.

What I don't like, Mr. Speaker, is that this government is saying, We simply took this tax and replaced it with that tax, $30 million, $20 million being school tax on individuals and $10 million being school tax on businesses. We replaced it with $20 million of personal income tax and $10 million on businesses through the payroll tax. That is true for 1992-1993, but both of those taxes increase by a further 50 per cent next year.

So what this government has done, Mr. Speaker, is, they have said, We are taking $30 million this year, and that is the same as the school tax. So we haven't added any taxes. But in this Budget they have announced an additional $15 million for next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are only nine months this year.

MR. WINDSOR: Okay. Well, you are still getting $30 million additional this year on an annualized basis with the additional 2.5 per cent on personal income tax. Next year you will raise $45 million in the place of the $30 million school tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, let's be honest about it. Don't try to hide it. It is clear. I can see the Minister of Finance next year standing there and saying, Mr. Speaker, I am not raising taxes this year. No, because he has announced them this year. He has announced his $15 million increase this year to take effect next year. That's what he is doing, Mr. Speaker. Let us be very clear about the implications of these taxes. Let us be very clear, Mr. Speaker, that this Budget does not provide any increase for pensioners in this Province, public service pensioners, but it increases income tax on them by 4 per cent. Those are the least able to pay it. It adds 4 per cent onto their personal income tax, Mr. Speaker. So the person on a public service pension has less disposable income this year than they had last year. That is a fact of life. The government tries to say: But businesses are better off, 10,000 businesses won't pay school tax this year, small businesses which have a payroll less than $100,000. They paid school tax last year and they won't pay any tax this year because the school tax is eliminated, and they won't have to pay a payroll tax. Because they have a payroll less than $100,000.

Well, I would suggest to the government, Mr. Speaker, that I don't know where 10,000 small businesses are. I would suggest to the government that the majority of them are paper companies that have no real property and paid no school tax last year, and I would suggest that most of the rest of them are in rental properties where the school tax was paid by the landlord. So there is no saving to those small companies this year!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is passed on.

MR. WINDSOR: It is passed on, is it? Well, show me one landlord who is going to lower his rent this year because he doesn't have to pay the school tax. Show me one!


MR. WINDSOR: So, Mr. Speaker, it is humbug to suggest that private enterprise - with a few exceptions. There will be some. There will be those who have fairly valuable property and very low payrolls who will benefit. People in real estate, property owners, will benefit, because they won't have to pay the school tax based on a property assessment now.

So I suppose I could turn it around and say: Well, that's positive, that might be something that will make it a little more attractive for private enterprise to invest in real estate and to build something. I suppose I could find that small bit of positive aspect to it. But I am grabbing at straws at that. But to try to pass this off and say that 10,000 businesses will pay less tax, that is just not true. It is being very, very deceitful.

Now, while I am on that, something else came to my attention this morning. My colleagues might be interested in this. Something else came to my attention this morning. Because I am still amused at the Minister of Finance's fixation on fees.

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

The Chair is going to have to insist on stopping the meetings. I ask the two hon. members please, if they want to have a meeting, to probably withdraw and have their meeting outside, not in the House.

I also want to remind the hon. the Member for Pleasantville who just a minute ago walked across in front of the Table without doing the appropriate courtesy. The Chair doesn't like to do that kind of thing but it is the Chair's duty to ensure that all of the rules with respect to decorum and dignity in the House are adhered to.

I ask hon. members, please, to co-operate. It is not appropriate for two or three people to crowd around a desk while an hon. member is speaking.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Once again, you are quite accurate.

Now, as I was about to say, I discovered something very interesting today. As I spent some time last night and this morning reading the documents again and searching for something that I might have missed, it came to my attention - I was somehow really amazed at the minister's fixation on fees and licences, he said, that we're eliminating. And why he would spend so much time at it. I thought I would have another look at this and just see exactly what the minister is doing.

I read his words. He says: "... I am pleased to announce today the continuation of a significant reform, namely the elimination of a number of fees and licences and the consequent reduction in the cost, inconvenience and paper burden...." I congratulate the minister for getting rid of cost, inconvenience and paper burden.

Well, I said: How much cost and inconvenience and paper burden are we losing? The minister says: Well, tourist establishment licence fees, and hunting and fishing camp fees, will be eliminated. He says: "The existing nine categories of food establishment licences will be reduced to four and the fees eliminated."

He says: "I am pleased to announce that not only is the only waiter's licence fee being eliminated, but also the licence itself, saving about 9,000 individuals the annual inconvenience of having to renew the licence and about 1,100 licensed establishments the nuisance of having to display them. This is an excellent example of what Government wants to achieve in reviewing the Province's fees and licences regime."

Now, that all sounds wonderful, but it's the old story. Have a look at the fine print, Mr. Speaker. Turn to Schedule B-1 in the back of the book - tourist establishment licences, travel trailer establishment licences. There are eleven of those counted as one, simply because one is nine rooms or less, and one is ten rooms or less. There are eleven of them, counted as eleven fees. Are they being removed? No. The licence will still be required. The fees are being eliminated, January of 1993. January of 1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I looked at it and said, well, the end of the tourism year, I suppose. It is an annual fee. I guess they are all renewed in January. They are probably renewed for this year, so I guess government is saying, We are not going to refund for this year, but next year you won't have to pay a fee. Alright, I will live with that. I can probably live with that, Mr. Speaker.

Then, right underneath it came education, high school certification, public exam registration fee, certified copy of marks, GED testing fee, GED test results, private training institutions, registration fee for private trade schools, evaluation of a course of instruction - seven more. Are those licences being - well, they are not licences, so it is not applicable. I think those are fees. The fees are being eliminated in September. I said, well, okay, the beginning of the school year. I suppose it is probably not too illogical. I can probably live with that, Mr. Speaker.

I turned over again, and came to the next one. A little further on I came to small game licences, August, 1992 - that is being eliminated, as well. I guess that is the beginning of the small game season, so why it would not be effective immediately I don't know. I don't think there is any small game hunting, unless there is a Labrador hunt or something over the summer. I am not aware of any hunting during the summer. Some of my hunting colleagues might know, but I said, Well, August, 1992 - what difference does it make whether it is today or it is August? When the licences come up for sale in September there will be no fee, so I guess that doesn't really matter. It is a little ways down the road, but there it is.

Then I see wildlife, trout, non-resident and individual trouting licence, non-resident family trouting licence. Those are considered two fees, by the way, that are being eliminated - done immediately - and those are actually being eliminated. You won't need a licence anymore. I spoke about that yesterday. I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: You disagree with that?

MR. WINDSOR: I disagree with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The elimination?

MR. WINDSOR: I disagree with the elimination of that, and the reason I disagree with it is because of my friend in Labrador who knows full well the problem that outfitters in Labrador are having with persons flying in from Quebec and fishing, and there is very little we can do now to stop them from flying in, or walking across the border - because there is a whole string of Quebec outfitting camps on the Quebec/Labrador border.

You know, until a couple of years ago when the previous government changed the rules so that we could go to Labrador and get a caribou licence, hon. members will recall that a resident of the Island could not get a licence to hunt a caribou in Labrador. We said, why not? There are 750,000 caribou up there. Why can't we go to Labrador and get a caribou licence if one chooses to spend that money to fly up there and hunt a caribou? But you know what I found out I could do? I didn't do it, but I found others had done it, is that I can book an outfitting camp in Quebec, pay my $2,000 to an outfitter in Quebec, go to a camp on the Quebec-Labrador border and I can walk across into Labrador and hunt a caribou under a Quebec license. That is what I found, and that was one of the reasons that we changed it and said: of course we can. But the problem we have with the fishing is that we have no control. We don't, unfortunately, have enough enforcement up there, but the bit of enforcement we do have - when you go in there you will find in front of a $500,000 fishing lodge, probably partly funded by the provincial government and the federal government, two or three Quebec planes flying in and people fishing and taking all the fish they want without any concern for bag limits or anything else, and now you can't even charge them for fishing without a license.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do disagree. It is not for the dollars. I don't care if it is five cents or five dollars, but the fact is now we have no control over out-of-Province fishing. I speak about Labrador, but the same is true on the Island, but it was never enforced before on the Island. I don't think anybody has ever been trouting and been asked: Are you a resident and, if not, do you have a license? I have never been asked, and I have never seen anybody being asked. I don't know if we have anybody to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever had one?

MR. WINDSOR: I don't need one, I am a resident. I have had salmon licences and I've been asked if I had a salmon licence on a salmon river, but nobody from out-of-Province has ever been asked or nobody from in-Province has been asked: Are you a resident and, if not, do you have a non-resident trouting licence? I suspect that very few people in Newfoundland even knew you had to have a licence if you were from outside. I suspect there are thousands of people who have come in to visit friends and relatives and have gone trouting and not needed a licence. Well, needed it but have not known they needed it, and never had any difficulty from it. So, it is probably not enforceable on the Island and not worth the cost of enforcing.

There are many situations where we see people coming in and raping the fish stocks, the freshwater fish, the same as the problem we have offshore, except these foreigners are foreign to Newfoundland and not necessarily foreign to Canada. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I came across that one.

MR. BAKER: By the way, you were wrong about your story.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

MR. BAKER: The story you told earlier was inaccurate.

MR. WINDSOR: Which one?

MR. BAKER: The one about (inaudible) and all that kind of stuff.


Now I came to a gasoline wholesaler's licence. Again that fee is being eliminated but the licence is still required. Now, you have to realize that for all these I have talked about so far, the licence is still required, except for the two trouting licences. So when we talk about paper burden and nuisance, so far we have not eliminated anything, except the fee. I began to get curious, so I read on. The gasoline wholesaler's licence: You still have to have a licence and it takes effect January of 1993, beginning the next year. So I said, well I suppose it is an annual fee again that has got to be renewed the beginning of January or something. I haven't researched that to see, but I just wonder what would happen if somebody was now establishing a service station and needed a licence. Would they have to get a licence and pay a fee now, starting this summer? The answer is, yes, they would, Mr. Speaker.

So I read on and I came to liquor licensing. A lot of those there. There are eleven licences under liquor licensing. I looked at those and I found that fees are all going to zero. The licences are not being removed. So there is no paper burden being eliminated there. Then I looked at the date, Mr. Speaker, April of 1993. When I stood in this House yesterday and congratulated the minister I said: I am really pleased to hear that 9,000 waiters will not need a licence anymore and that 1100 establishments will not have to display them. I had missed that in the fine print, April 1 of 1993, one year from tomorrow. Why, Mr. Speaker, are these licence fees and the licences themselves not being eliminated today? Why didn't the minister be honest with us and say: Next year I am going to eliminate these fees and licences?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: You read his speech, Mr. Speaker, and there is very little reference to it. I suppose a learned gentleman of the law might say, legally he is accurate, he has two references to dates on that section dealing with fees. He says: April 1, licensed establishments will pay only a 12 per cent purchase levy on liquor and wine, and that is accurate. He does not say anything about when the liquor licences will be eliminated except down at the bottom of the page, the last sentence he says: after March of 1993, the only Newfoundland Liquor Licensing Board fees will be for special events, licences and personal identification cards. In other words he is saying those are the only fees that the licensing board will have left and he slips in there - after March of 1993.

Now I think the average person reading this for the first, second and even the third time, would not say: oh, that means all of these that he talked about earlier at the top of the page are also only taking effect in 1993. Now, I do not see any rationale for this, Mr. Speaker, and I had a call today that tipped me off on this, from a gentleman who is renewing some licences for a Lions club, and he said: I had to pay $500 for licences for waiters and waitresses, volunteers of the Lions club who serve in the Lions club during the course of the year; $500 from one Lions club, the day after the minister announced these licences and fees will be eliminated!

Now, I have never seen a more dishonest statement in a Budget document, Mr. Speaker, than that. I have never seen a more dishonest statement, and by the way that licence fee, if I am not mistaken, was doubled last year by the minister, if my memory serves correctly. The bottom line is the government says that all of these changes will cost them $2 million this year, some of them obviously are not going to cost them anything because they are not going to take effect until next year, but the bottom line, fees and licences actually will bring more revenue this year because of the wholesale increases that this government put in place last year that are really only having impact this year, so all they are doing is taking away $2 million of what they gave you last year. I suspect they are not taking away $2 million, they are taking away $2 million of revenue but it probably cost them $2 million to collect it, so in effect, they are probably giving up not five cents, not five cents, Mr. Speaker.

Smoke and mirrors, Mr. Speaker, they hide it in the fine print of the appendices to the Budget document. Very, very cleverly worded I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker. As I read this over four or five times today and checked Hansard, because I was told this morning that the minister did not read the date when he read his Budget Speech, he skipped over that, but that was not true, I checked Hansard and the minister did read exactly as it is printed in the document, I will grant him that, but, Mr. Speaker, what a misleading thing the minister has done.

But then the bottom line, did you see this? Let me read it again: Consequent reduction in the cost, inconvenience and paper burden. Do you know how many of these 171 fees and licences are eliminated?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?



MR. WINDSOR: Seven are eliminated; seven only. The fees are eliminated but you still have to go and get the licences, so the only inconvenience in paper burden that has been eliminated - let us have a look it; let us have a look at the ones being eliminated now. The two fishing licences, if you can count to two, single nonresident licence and a family nonresident licence, those two are being eliminated, you do not have to get those any more. Seasonal vehicle entry and the daily vehicle entry to Provincial Parks, those are being eliminated. The waiters licences, a year from now will be eliminated - a year from now will be eliminated - and there are two more. There is another one that is April 1993, swimming pool inspections and unserviced land assessment. Why would those not be eliminated now? Can the minister tell me why he has to wait a full year, until April 1993, to eliminate the fees and licences for swimming pool inspections and unserviced land assessments in the Department of Health?.... a full year. The President of Treasury Board is over there amazed. I suspect the President of Treasury Board is hearing this for the first time. In fact I suspect the Minister of Finance is hearing it for the first time. Maybe the Minister of Health can tell me. Would the Minister of Health tell me why he wants to continue with swimming pool inspections and unserviced land assessments for another twelve months? Tell me why it cannot be removed today? Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the hon. member for thirty seconds if he will answer that.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deal with the specific question but I want to tell the hon. member that I had the privilege of meeting with a waitress in Deer Lake on the weekend who told me it was the best Budget we ever had in this Province. I asked her why and she said: because we do not have to pay that $15.00 fee anymore.


MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: I do not believe the hon. gentleman. There is nobody in this Province who said this was the best Budget. I do not know how the hon. gentleman is related to that particular waitress but I can be suspicious. It was like one time when I was making a speech and one person at the back of the hall applauded and I said, thank you, mother. That is about the size of this statement from the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, there are two more if I can find them. Oh, here it is: initial fee for mobile home development. That is a big one. That is a lot of paper burden. There are so many mobile home developments being initiated in this Province that that licence is being removed. Pulp wood trucks - this one might be of some benefit, pulp wood trucks operating on woods roads will no longer need a licence. Now, they use to pay $436 and it is about the biggest one here. It is the biggest one on this list. Why they are eliminating the fee of $436 and laying off wage scale operators -

MR. WOODFORD: They are going to hire more wage scale operators so they can catch them.

MR. WINDSOR: They are going to hire more so they can catch them and now they do not need to catch them. The President of Treasury Board should arrange a meeting between the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture and the Minister of Finance. In fact he should introduce them to one another because they do not know what each other is doing, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine this great announcement, seven licences have been removed, seven, and the minister says 171, 171 fees, yes, but even that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Another untruth, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WINDSOR: There are 171 fees.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you read it four or five more times you might understand that.

MR. WINDSOR: If the hon. minister had read it at all he might be interested in it. The hon. minister has not taken the time to read the Budget document yet. When you look at a tourist establishment licence, nine rooms or less, ten to nineteen rooms, twenty to thirty-nine rooms, forty to seventy-nine rooms, eighty rooms or more, the minister says that is eliminating five licences. I think we could honestly say, Mr. Speaker, tourist establishment licences have been eliminated, one licence. There are five categories but the minister counts that as five. It is the same thing with travel-trailer establishment licences. There are five of those. You really have to question the integrity of a minister who would try to put the likes of that into a Budget document, an incredible display.

Now, where was I when I was so rudely interrupted yesterday? I do not remember so I will go back. I know the hon. President of Treasury Board does not want to hear it again but he missed several pertinent points, and his colleagues missed most of it, so I really think that for their benefit we should really start again.

MS. VERGE: What about lottery revenues?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, we talked about that a little bit yesterday. The point I made yesterday I think bears repeating. Lottery revenues have gone up by $10 million from last year and I think the number from lotteries was an additional $8.5 million received this year if I am not mistaken, if my memory serves me well. Lotteries estimated at $20 million and went up to $28.5 million. I am accurate on that. The point that has to be realized there is that comes from total desperation, part of it, out of the state of the economy and the financial situation that so many people in this Province find themselves faced with. Absolute, total desperation. How many people have said to me: I have to go out and buy a lottery ticket, it is my only hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liquor revenues.

MR. WINDSOR: Liquor revenues have gone down. Also another good indicator of the economy. There was not that big an increase in liquor last year. Government took an extra $1 million last year as I recall, raised it from $79 million to $80 million, the revenue that they asked for from the Liquor Corporation. There were some increases from the wholesalers, obviously, who provide the raw material. But there is a switch to beer there, and I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why the government has changed the fees charged to licensed establishments, that they have reduced the amount charged for liquor purchased. They have taken off the premium that liquor establishments have to pay to the Liquor Corporation over and above what you or I can buy in a liquor store. We can go in and pay $20 for a bottle of liquor, a licensed establishment pays about $21.50 or $22 I think. I think it is 3 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: The more expensive stuff.

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon.

AN HON. MEMBER: The more expensive stuff (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: On the average about 3 per cent, I think, premium that they pay. They have eliminated that now I think, but they have increased the cost of beer to liquor establishments by 60 cents. So what they are doing, Mr. Speaker, is going with the trend of drinkers because of the cost, because we have reached the point of diminishing returns and starting to see it in liquor consumption. They are now saying that more people are drinking beer so we will move the burden to beer and away from liquor and try to get the liquor sales back up. I suspect you are seeing more wine being bought. I suspect you are seeing more revenues from wines now, for two reasons, one because they can perceive at least that there is lower alcohol content and that if they just sip on a glass of wine they will not get into the heavy alcohol.

MS. VERGE: How about aftershave?

MR. WINDSOR: A tax on aftershave might help your revenues.

Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that the people just cannot afford to drink as much. I am sure my colleague from the Burin Peninsula will confirm there is a roaring trade with St. Pierre.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I know my hon. colleague does not know anything about it. He would certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman certainly would not have anything to do with it, nor would my friend from Grand Bank have anything to do with it, or our colleague opposite from Burgeo. That is another prime point of entry. I am sure he would not have anything to do with it. That is about the only thing.

But the point is that the high cost of alcohol in this Province today is certainly an incentive for persons to bring more alcohol into the Province, and the same is true of tobacco taxes. Tobacco tax this year is going to net us $63.4 million. That would blow your mind, Mr. Speaker, $63.4 million dollars of taxes on tobacco this year. It has gone up $7 million from last year. That is a 15 per cent increase in the amount of tobacco tax collected by the Province. That is 15 per cent of what you collected before. Mr. Speaker, that has to have an impact on smuggling into the Province. We have always had a problem with tobacco being brought in from the mainland of Canada. You cannot fault somebody who is away on a trip and poking a few packs of cigarettes, or even a carton of cigarettes, in their suitcase when they come home. We are not talking about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) pay the tax on it.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, when they come in, yes. The minister told us yesterday that all of these consumers, when they come back from Toronto or from Florida, with their carton of cigarettes, immediately call the minister's office and say, 'I brought up a carton of cigarettes. Where do I send my $8.60 tax?' Pigs may fly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I do not think there has ever been a call to the minister's office, nor do I think there will be in the near future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You cannot fault somebody for doing that. That's not what we are talking about. What I am talking about are the transport trucks coming in half-loaded with cigarettes and tobacco, and a transport truck loaded with tobacco is worth a lot of money. I did not realize this until I had some association recently with the transportation industry, and I find out now that if you are hauling tobacco from St. John's to Port aux Basques, you are not permitted to stop. You go straight through. You are not permitted to pick up any passengers. The value of the cargo is such, and it is so easy to move - you don't need forklifts to start hauling off cartons of cigarettes - but it is the easiest target. It is one of the more popular targets. It is a high-value, low-weight commodity. When you have a truckload of tobacco, and you are heading for some point in the Province, you go straight there. You don't stop. If you need two drivers, you take two drivers.

I am amazed at the ends to which some people will go. We had a case last summer where some people decided they wanted to get into a truck load of tobacco, and if you drive past a warehouse you will see all the trucks are either backed up to each other, or backed up to the warehouse so you can't get in those rear doors. Well, a chain saw comes down through the roof of one of those trailers very quickly - and that has taken place in this Province. So you see the degree to which people will go today, and if they will do that -

MS. VERGE: Didn't they get rid of some of their inspectors?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh yes, we lost some of the inspectors last year. We lost one in Port aux Basques. One of the inspectors, and one of the tax inspectors in Port aux Basques was eliminated.

MS. VERGE: Tobacco and gas inspector.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right, whose job was to inspect vehicles coming into the Province to see if they were carrying tobacco or alcohol, and to see how much gasoline - some of these guys were coming in with extra tanks strapped to their trucks. We eliminated that, Mr. Speaker. We just opened the floodgates, and I am told that it is a pretty easy target now.

Capital expenditures in the Department of Municipal Affairs: the minister announced, yesterday, $65 million, which is $6 million more than last year. Is it $65 million?

MS. VERGE: $59.9 million.

MR. WINDSOR: $59.9 million, which is about $5 million more than last year, but he told us - at least the minister told us on that one - he said, that is to get things moving early this year, but there will be $5 million less next year. So give him credit; he was honest about that.

He also told us, and I do not know how many people noticed it, that we are limiting construction this year to roads, schools, municipal works, and projects already started. I am not sure how to read that. Does he mean we are going to have new roads, new schools, new municipal works and other projects that are already started, or does he mean roads and municipal works and schools that are already started? It will be interesting to see, Mr. Speaker.

He talks about federal/provincial review of personal income tax flexibility. I referred to this section yesterday with which I agreed. That is why I got off on a tangent with my friend, the Minister of Development, I think. I said it is important that the business tax climate in the Province not only be favourable to business, but that it be perceived to be favourable.

"One of the principle objectives of government's tax reform exercise is to ensure that the business tax climate will promote and compliment Government's economic development objectives." Noble words, Mr. Speaker, if they had any meaning to the minister and to this government. The words are good; the actions, unfortunately, belie the words.

Then I see the next sentences I just referred to: "federal-provincial review of personal income tax flexibility." Now that rings a bell. There is a warning note that comes from that. We are talking tax reform here again. We are talking now, and the minister has often referred publicly to his concept of joining with the Government of Canada. Admittedly, the Government of Canada would like to see sales tax harmonization across Canada. The minister is talking tax reform. He is saying that this fall he will be coming forward with his tax reform package. This tells me that perhaps he is also looking at getting into the income tax system here.

Flexibility in the income tax system. That, in itself, would be welcome, because we have never been able to get any flexibility from the income tax system. Maybe this is what the minister is saying, that the Government of Canada may be prepared to give us some flexibility in the income tax system in return for which we agree to harmonize RST and the GST. Perhaps that is what is coming down. But there is a flag that goes up automatically when I hear the minister talking about changing the tax system, taking any flexibility.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the next item that comes up is one that I can't help but refer to: Public sector salaries. The government took some very unusual action last year. The President of Treasury Board will confirm that the legislation that was introduced last year was highly unusual legislation. I don't know that it had been introduced in Canada before, to the same degree. Wage freezes have been implemented, but never retroactively. In fact, it is not just a freeze. In every sense of the word it was a rollback. Increases that had been approved and agreed and negotiated in good faith - some of them within a matter of several weeks, a couple of weeks before the Budget was brought down, those agreements were finalized and signed. Those agreements were not honoured. This government came to the House of Assembly and used its power in the Legislature to change those agreements.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The president of NAPE knew government was doing it. The president of NAPE did not know government was doing it when he signed the agreement two or three weeks before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, I'm not wrong. The government has come back this year and said: We're going to do the same thing. We are going to rescind Bill 16 and we are going to put in a new bill that freezes salaries for another year and will limit increases next year to 3 per cent. So public servants now who were told, who negotiated and signed agreements that gave them an average of 7 per cent last year, have now been told: No 7 per cent last year, no 7 per cent this year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - and only 3 - average of 8 per cent. (Inaudible). I stand to be corrected. Eight per cent, on the average, increase. So we will not get 8 per cent last year, this year or next year, we will just get 3 per cent next year. Or you can negotiate, it says. The minister says here that: "... collective bargaining can occur within these expenditure guidelines when existing contracts expire."

Existing contracts have expired. They are all expired. New contracts are in place but haven't been honoured. So I don't quite understand that terminology. If you signed a two-year contract that was supposed to start last year, or the end of this year, that two-year contract will have expired. That 8 per cent you negotiated will have expired. So you are saying that we can negotiate then up to 3 per cent at the end of that contract.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) compensation.

MR. WINDSOR: Total compensation. So that's not necessarily 3 per cent. Or is the President of Treasury Board telling us - and let him answer this question, Mr. Speaker, if he would - is the President of Treasury saying: We negotiated wage and benefit increases in a package that has never been implemented or have the benefits been implemented but not the wages? Have the terms and conditions of those contracts taken place?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They have, all except the wages. So the benefits have been enjoyed for this two-year period, all except the wage increases. Changes to wording, changes to vacations and sick leaves and all the rest of it, all of that took effect, the minister is telling me. I thank him for that.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister of Forestry finally speaks. It is too bad we can't get him on his feet to speak in the Budget Debate, Mr. Speaker. I hope he will when he gets his opportunity. I hope he will stand up and tell us just how much he supports this and how much this is doing for forestry in the Province. He wasn't long getting to his feet today to announce that private enterprise has done something. I couldn't help thinking, Well, so what? What did you have to do with it? I felt like saying to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was delighted to get the opportunity.

MR. WINDSOR: The minister had absolutely nothing to do with it. Private enterprise made a deal - not a penny of provincial money gone into it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, what a way to tie the hands of public sector unions. How do you negotiate with somebody when you are already told you can negotiate all you want but 3 per cent is what you are going to get. Why bother? Why waste the time? I can tell you now that there is not a person out there who has not had a salary increase for two years, who is prepared to say we will take anything less than 3 per cent in return for anything else. I mean, how foolish! I can't imagine, I could be wrong, but I can't imagine that there is anybody there saying: We have had zero increase for two years and we will take zero increase this year but give us another benefit that is worth 3 per cent. I don't think you are going to see it. I could be wrong.

MR. BAKER: You could work it the other way around, though. (Inaudible) negotiate, you could work it the other way around.

MR. WINDSOR: Could work what?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, okay. You could work it the other way around. You could give up 2 per cent in vacation benefits, or whatever -

MR. BAKER: Take home pay.

MR. WINDSOR: Take-home pay or whatever. What is the difference? Well, that provides a little bit of flexibility, but the bottom line is, it is 3 per cent. The bottom line is 3 per cent. So there is not a great deal of room for negotiations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: If they are creative there are some things that can be done, but no matter how creative you get it is still 3 per cent any way you cut it. Whether they all take a decrease in salary of 15 per cent and you give every public servant a car in place of it they are still only getting a net increase of 3 per cent.

MR. BAKER: I don't think that's up for consideration.

MR. WINDSOR: Not likely up for consideration. Only the ministers are given cars, that is all. Eliminate the car pool and give ministers money so they can buy their own cars and they will have their own cars and can do what they wish with them.

I am not going to waste a lot of time on that one. One thing that does, Mr. Speaker, is give ministers some flexibility so they are not always looking over their shoulder to see what they are using their car for. I do not disagree with that, I disagree with the concept that they were saving any money. The government tried to pass it off and say they were saving hundreds of thousands of dollars by eliminating ministers' vehicles. Nonsense! It is costing them more in the long run, but from the ministers' point of view they are probably better off, because now they don't have to answer for this type of car they are driving or whether they take their kids to the arena on Saturday morning in that vehicle, whereas previously, when we had government vehicles, everybody watched everywhere we went, what we used it for and who we had in it. So they are probably better off. What we find fault with was the methodology used in trying to pass it off as a saving to the tax payer, saving nothing, Mr. Speaker.

The minister expects these wage guidelines to be respected by municipalities. Well, good luck! Unless he is going to impose something, I doubt very much if you are going to see municipalities doing it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, while I think of it, it is probably a good time for me to poke in a little bit here about amalgamation, where government was going to save so much money and that is probably true, government is probably saving a little bit of money, but I will come back to that later when I get into the Municipal Affairs estimates, but I can tell you municipalities are not saving any money.

I was told today, I do not know if my friend here may have some knowledge, I am told that the town council of St. Phillips -St. Thomas, is maintaining both town council halls, both town halls and they are alternating meetings between town halls. Now that is a big saving, Mr. Speaker. My friend from Mount Scio is not here so he cannot confirm or deny that for me, but that is what I understand is taking place. The town council of St. Phillips - St. Thomas are holding their meetings in two town halls, they are alternating from one to the other. I am also told, Mr. Speaker, that there was a snow clearing contract awarded by the town without tender. We will find out some details on that particular one.

I am told, Mr. Speaker, that they had the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to do that, awarded a contract for $95,000 for snow clearing without calling tenders, the town of Portugal Cove. Maybe the former minister might recall something or maybe the minister had no knowledge of it, but it was approved by the department I am told, but we are going to research that some more before I go any further on that, but it would not surprise me one bit. When we talk about the cost of amalgamation though, Mr. Speaker, what savings are we getting? The town of Paradise is going to pay an extra $600,000 for fire fighting services -

AN HON. MEMBER: That has nothing to do with amalgamation (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - nothing to do with amalgamation? No, it has something to do with the former minister's stealings away from Mount Pearl, taking the fire department and giving it to the City of St. John's and giving them full authority. You are right, it is not amalgamation, it is abject annexation, Mr. Speaker, that is what it has to do with. It has to do with the dictatorship that the minister put in place, with giving the City of St. John's complete control over surrounding municipalities, that is what it has to do with. It has to do with giving the City of St. John's the right to send a bill to the town of Paradise, saying you will send us $600,000 for fire protection this year, never mind the fact that last year you spent $30,000, $30,000 last year in the town of Paradise for fire protection and this year they are expected to pay over $600,000. The town of Paradise, would have to triple their taxation rate from 4.5 mils to 12 mils or 12.5 mils, I am not sure-

MR. NOEL: What do they want, St. John's to keep paying for them?

MR. WINDSOR: No. They do not want to pay for services they are not getting.

MR. NOEL: What do you mean not getting (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: What foolishness, how can you expect a community to do that? And they were send a bill saying you will pay $600,000 this year for regional water and sewer service assessment. I suppose the hon. gentleman for Pleasantville agrees with that, they should pay for that too.

MR. NOEL: Who do you think should pay for their services?

MR. WINDSOR: They are not being serviced. They have wells and septic tanks and they are being billed $375 per unit for water and sewer by a Regional Services Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wake up boy.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Is that what you call fair?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Get your facts together before you open your mouth. $600,000 for people who are on wells and septic tanks, an assessment for regional water and sewer. Get serious, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not very nice.

MR. WINDSOR: Not very nice. Here are your savings from amalgamation, and what occupies the time of our city council?... what colour will we paint the Mount Pearl fire trucks that we have taken out of Mount Pearl and put in Kent's Pond, what colour will we paint them?

They have had three meetings now in City Hall debating that. Why paint them at all? Every fire department in North America is changing to the fluorescent green truck. Nobody drives around in a fluorescent green car, but there are a lot of red cars. So a fluorescent green fire truck is far more visible than a red fire truck. What difference does it make if they're purple, Mr. Speaker? Thinking about spending money to change the colour of the fire trucks.

Then, to add insult to injury, what do they want to do? They wanted to raise a flag in Mount Pearl. They wanted to show just how powerful the City of St. John's is now. They wanted to prove to everybody in the northeast Avalon that we have taken control. So we have to go in, we have to take down the Mount Pearl flag. Get it down as quickly as you can and get a St. John's flag up there. Funny, they did not have one on any other municipal building in the City of St. John's. Not a one. It took them a week to get it down. It took three phone calls to City Hall before anybody would finally take down the foolish flag. What an insult.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, indeed we do, I'd say to my hon. friend, indeed we do. But what an insult, Mr. Speaker. When is the City of St. John's going to realise that they do not own the fire stations? The regional council, whatever it is, it is a regional service owned by the region. What right do they think they have to raise a St. John's flag over a fire station in Mount Pearl? Better you put a swastika up there, as some hon. gentleman said. It would be more appropriate to put a swastika up there. It would certainly be appropriate to the action that was taken by this government, and the manner in which the St. John's Fire Department got into Mount Pearl. It would certainly be very appropriate.

No wonder the Minister of Finance referred to me yesterday as Gorbachev. Old 'Boris' himself. What foolishness for a minister of finance. I just cannot believe it. I have to say I was almost speechless yesterday. The first question after the minister's Budget asked to him, a fair, reasonable, logical question asked to the Minister of Finance by the Opposition finance critic, and what does he do? Calls him names.

Where are the television cameras when we need them? Let's get them in here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador see the performance of the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: They should be here now to see this one.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, I wish they were here to see this. I'd welcome it. I would speak for more than a week then, I'll tell you. There is so much that I would like to say. I realise I'm wasting it. it is falling on deaf ears here to hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Speaker. I wish I could have an opportunity to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the deceit that is being inflicted on them. I would love to have that opportunity.

I would love for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to see the puppets over there, to see how they are controlled by the Premier. I would love to see it on t.v. I would love to see the Premier's arrogance come forward on t.v. I would like to see the way he answers some of the questions. I would like the people to see the way the Minister of Finance refuses, or is absolutely incapable, of answering questions. I would love to see it in this House. Bring them on.

One mistake we made as a government. We hesitated as well to bring cameras into this House. Provisions were made though I believe when this House was designed for cameras, for the electronics. I do not think it will take too much to put them in now. We should have proceeded with it. We should have gone ahead with it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we will see what savings -

Now I spoke for some time yesterday. Earlier I referred to the deceit in this Budget as it relates to the fines and the forfeitures - for the fees and the licences, rather, let us talk a little bit about the school tax. I referred to the fact that public service pensioners will pay more. They will pay more personal income tax now because they did not pay school tax before. Anybody over sixty-five did not pay school tax but now those people will pay more property tax.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a few things that relate to the average individual in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have used the example already of a salary of $30,000, a couple with one wage earner, therefore paying one school tax previously in the St. John's area where we pay $150 a year, that family would break even because the increase in personal income tax would be about $150 so there would be no change in the total tax burden on that family.

The family earning $40,000 with one wage earner will pay $105 more and it goes up from there - $105 more for $40,000. Now, in rural Newfoundland it is a little different because the school tax assessment was lower. In some cases it was $100 and in the lowest case it was $85, so a person on the Burin Peninsula, say a teacher - I assume a teacher's salary would be about $40,000 on the average, is that reasonable? A teacher on the Burin Peninsula earning $40,000 would pay $255 this year instead of the $85 they paid last year for school tax, so that teacher, Mr. Speaker, will pay $170 more, exactly triple. A person with $40,000 in rural Newfoundland will pay exactly triple this year. That is only this year they will pay triple. Next year, Mr. Speaker, that same person will pay $408. A single person or a family with one income that paid $85 previously will pay $408 next year, increased personal income tax. Would the hon. gentleman like to question it because it is coming right off the hon. Minister of Finance's sheet? A family with one income of $40,000 a year, a couple with no children, this is an example that the minister's staff provided to me, with a total family income of $40,000 a year, living on the Burin Peninsula, paid $85 a year school tax last year, that same family will pay $255 this year and will pay $408 next year, so they will pay exactly triple this year. This is the school tax that was eliminated. We are going to pay triple, hardly a millionaire somebody earning $40,000 a year a family trying to live on it. Let us have a look at some others. How about a person in rural Newfoundland earning $20,000 a year? I think we are told the poverty level is $19,000 year for a family. Mr. Speaker, $20,000 a year is hardly living in luxury. It is just barely above the poverty level, if that. Last year they paid $85. This year they will still pay $85 - exactly the same. But next year, because it goes from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent increase, that same family will pay $136. The President of Treasury Board shakes his head. The facts are the facts. That family will pay $51 more. That is a family earning $20,000 a year. They are not driving around in Cadillacs. They are barely able to survive on $20,000 a year. So where are the real benefits?

A person in St. John's next year, and I know it has been said before in this House, if I were earning $20,000 a year I would sooner live in rural Newfoundland than I would in the heart of St. John's. It is a heck of a lot cheaper to live in rural Newfoundland. I can cut a bit of wood, jig a few fish, snare a few rabbits, and shoot my moose. Hon. gentlemen I am sure will agree that you are a heck of a lot better off in rural Newfoundland than living in downtown St. John's. That same family living in downtown St. John's trying to survive on $20,000 a year, which is the poverty level, paid $150 last year, if one person was working, will pay $85 this year. They are going to save $65 this year. That is a benefit. Next year they will save $14 - $14.

Well the President of Treasury Board shakes his head again. I would be delighted if he could tell me that I am wrong. The numbers that I am quoting are from the minister's sheet, provided to me during the Budget lockup - this year's figures. Next year's figures are a simple projection. I simply projected from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent. I multiplied by 1.6 - the difference - because the figure that the minister has calculated is the difference being paid by that person this year. So I multiplied by 1.6 for the total amount being paid. If that person pays $85 this year, based on 2.5 per cent, then that person will pay $136 next year, based on 4 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No? Tell me where I am wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well the mathematics is right. Eighty-five times 1.6 is thirty-six.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: What is wrong with it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: But tell me why it is not right. Is my theory wrong? I would love for the minister to show me that I am wrong. I would hope that I am wrong. Tell me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: 4 per cent is 1.6 times 2.5 per cent. You do not believe me? I have a calculator - and 1.6 times eighty-five is 136. So there is the difference. There is the great benefit of eliminating the school tax. A person living at the poverty level will save $14 next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the figures I am using are wrong, then the President of Treasury Board should speak to the Minister of Finance, because I am using his numbers.

MR. NOEL: What is your point, that they should not eliminate the school tax?

MR. WINDSOR: The point I am trying to make is that the minister deceived the people of this Province by saying: I am eliminating the school tax and simply replacing it with an equivalent tax. That is almost accurate for this year, but it is certainly not accurate for next year. It is a 50 per cent increase in the amount paid for school tax, or paid by an equivalent tax.

MR. BAKER: That is where you are wrong.

MR. WINDSOR: That is where I am wrong. Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board says: that is where I am wrong. Let me refer him to page 14 of the Budget, dealing with payroll tax. "Our revenue objective is to generate from the business sector $10 million in 1992-93 and $15 million in 1993-94."

That is a 50 per cent increase in payroll tax. The minister is telling me that. But the minister is telling me that 2.5 per cent increasing to 4 per cent is not going to increase by 1.6 per cent the different amount paid. Well, would the minister tell me where my numbers are wrong? When I asked the question in the lockup I said: how much will be gained next year? I was told: $30 million next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: From personal income tax, additional - $30 million additional from personal income tax. The minister tells me we are going to gain $15 million next year from payroll tax. Now, if $30 million and $15 million don't add up to $45 million, I will sit down.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) costing us $48 million.

MR. WINDSOR: School tax, what?

MR. BAKER: Forty-eight million.

MR. WINDSOR: I couldn't hear what the President of Treasury Board said. The school tax -

MR. BAKER: Forty-eight.

MR. WINDSOR: Forty-eight.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Last year, the School Tax Authority raised $30 million, is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Thirty million dollars. Government is giving the school boards, this year, an additional $30 million to replace the school tax. They are giving them an additional $8 million for equalization, which we welcome. But they are giving them $30 million or $31 million additional to replace the school tax. That is what we are trying to replace with personal income tax and payroll tax. The minister can deny it all he wants, but he is picking up $45 million next year.

The fact that government chose to give an extra $8 million equalization is a laudable thing. We welcome that, and the school boards welcome that. But that has nothing to do with replacing school tax. I am talking about replacing the school tax. Government is trying to get the people of this Province to believe that we are replacing $30 million school tax with $20 million personal income tax, and a $10 million payroll tax increase.

All I am trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that what government is collecting additionally is $30 million this year and $45 million next year. So they have increased by 50 per cent their taxation level which they put in place to replace school tax. That is all I am saying. The numbers speak for themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, after forty-five minutes of this, the President of Treasury Board says: We are not arguing that. Thank you, I say to the President of Treasury Board. We are not arguing it.

Government pensions, I have mentioned. People who are on pensions have not received an increase in four years, not since 1989. I think they received 2 per cent. We gave them 4 per cent in 1988, I believe this government gave them 2 per cent in 1989. They have not received a cent since, but they will be paying more now by way of personal income tax.

Let me now move on to the Strategic Economic Plan. Good stuff, Mr. Speaker, if we ever saw one, and the question has to asked: Why has it taken more than three years to get one?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It hasn't. How long does it take this government to do something?

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't take seventeen years.

MR. WINDSOR: It didn't take us seventeen years, either. We had our strategic economic plans, we had our Five-Year plans, updated every year. We had our Five-Year Financial Plan to deal with the deficit.

AN HON. MEMBER: After you lost your credit rating.

MR. WINDSOR: After we lost nothing. I say to the hon. minister, if he would like to look at the graph on page 6 of the document, Mr. Speaker, he will see that our financial management plan worked very nicely, from 1985 to 1989 - coming down very steadily, very consistently. It has taken a couple of bumps since this minister took over. But that worked very well, as did our Five-Year Economic Plan.

Now we are told we are going to have a Strategic Economic Plan. Well! Great stuff!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Never adopted what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Certainly won't, no. It was a five-year plan. Same thing. It's a five-year plan. It was produced and was updated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).


AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. Oh, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. Came in in 1980. In 1980 it was produced.


MR. WINDSOR: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we talk about economic plans, and I started to look. Let's have a look and see. What are we dealing with here? An economic plan. I said: We'll have a look at the Economic Recovery Commission. I see in the Department of Development budget $2.2 million for the Economic Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Two point two million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, well, $2.2 million this year, they were $2.1 million estimated last year. They spent $1.95 million. Big change. Ball park. Well, there's $2.2 million there.

I said: 'But I heard about this other group somewhere.' 'Oh yes,' I said, 'they are under Executive Council, aren't they?' I look under the Economic Strategy Planning Committee. There is $3.1 million there. That's the $3 million that I'm told the minister talked about in the Budget, saying: 'e are putting in place $3 million to implement this economic strategy plan.' I assume that is what it is.

While I was looking at that I saw another one: the Advisory Council on the Economy. They got another $411,000. That must be Harold Lundrigan. Yes. That's a new name. They didn't like the Economic Council, as we call it, so they eliminated the Economic Council and created this new Advisory Council on the Economy. That was a great step forward for humanity.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That created some jobs.

MR. WINDSOR: That created a lot of jobs. That was $411,000 there. So there is $6 million there. Economic planning. Then I said: Well, what about Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador? Where are they? There must be some money for them? Oh, there it is, Enterprise Development.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) saw them on NTV making some more ads.

MR. WINDSOR: But they only got $46 million.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Forty-six million dollars. Very few details of what it will be used here for. I noted the Newfoundland Stock Savings Plan is not funded at all this year. The Newfoundland Stock Savings Plan, which was a good lever to move private investment -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) Toronto. That would be nice (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, that's right.

- put in place a number of years ago, because I think the number at that time was $400 million that was going out of the Province every year in investments of one kind or another, going to other parts of Canada primarily. Four hundred million dollars a year. We wondered why we couldn't keep $30 million, $40 million or $50 million of that in the Province, invest it in Newfoundland companies. Good program. Then there was a venture capital tax credit program that is not funded this year. Another program that was highly rated by the financial community when we introduced it.

DR. KITCHEN: Huh! Hah!

MR. WINDSOR: Those are two intelligent comments the Minister of Finance has made today. 'Huh' and 'hah'. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad testimony when the Minister of Finance cannot contribute any more than that.

Two very good programs that could have been used to leverage some private money, totally gone. But I said: We have $46 million in Enterprise Newfoundland. I looked at it. Grants and subsidies, $32 million. I said: Well, surely that has to do something. We don't have an accounting here of much. I would like to see some of the projects. As the minister knows, I have had some dealings with Enterprise Newfoundland and I don't for a moment fault some of the people who are employed there. In fact, there are some very professional people there who can be very helpful.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. I just said: I wish this other $6 million were going into grants and subsidies to private enterprise. Because out of that $46 million, $32 million is grants and subsidies. Then I looked around and said: Whoops, $14 million is federal revenue. Fourteen million comes back from the feds. So there is really only $17 million provincial money going in there. But it leveraged $14 million federal money and that is pretty good, too.

Then there is a loan fund on capital of $14 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) - flows through. There is revenue of $6.5 million on that. So the total cost there is $7 million. So you have $17 million and $7 million, which is your $24 million. No problem. That is not the point that I am making, I say to the Minister of Development. I wish the $24 million was $54 million. I wish the minister had $54, I wish he had $124 million. That is what he should have had.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, I believe that to be true. But I wish the minister did have it. That is the point I am trying to make, that when I add up the $6 million that is spent in other areas on administration, on planning and strategy and Economic Recovery Commissions and Strategy Commissions and Economic Advisory Councils - I wish that $6 million was over with that $31 million in grants, subsidies and loans to private enterprise, where it could be doing some real good.

That is exactly the point I am making. Why did this government not take an opportunity? They saved $20 million last year under capital alone. They have cut back this year on capital again. I am not alone in saying that this government could have borrowed another $20 million or $30 million this year to give it to the Minister of Development and let him create some economic activity in this Province, and that would not have impacted on the Province's credit rating if it were done properly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: If it was spent frivolously, yes.

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance has nothing more to contribute to this debate than to wave his hands like a trained seal why doesn't he just remove himself from the chamber? I say to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, we are used to seeing him making his faces over there and making silly gestures, but it does nothing for the decorum of this House, and it does nothing for the image of a minister of the Crown of this Province. He may find this amusing, Mr. Speaker. The people of the Province do not find this amusing, nor do they find the minister very amusing.

Mr. Speaker, there are many opportunities available out there and the Minister of Development I am sure could list 100 projects that with some funding could create thousands of jobs in this Province, if he had the money to deal with it. The opportunities are there.

The minister in his speech, Mr. Speaker, talks about secondary processing, marketing, aquaculture and the development of underutilized species. He talks about the need to do something in the fishing industry to try to strengthen the fishing industry -

MR. MATTHEWS: He did absolutely nothing.

MR. WINDSOR: And he has done absolutely nothing. My colleague from Grand Bank is quite right.

If the Minister of Development had $20 million to spend on aquaculture, if he had $20 million to assist fish companies to get into further processing, we have been years and years and years fighting the tariffs, the trade barriers with the United States, trying to get into the United States market with finished product. Now finally because of free trade we have an opportunity to do that, and I do not think we have advanced very far in the last couple of years in that regard. A couple of private companies are trying to. Why, Mr. Speaker, can't we?

The last breakthrough we had, I recall, was at the seafood show in Chicago when we unveiled Fishery Products Fish Nuggets and they went like wildfire. It went like wildfire and they could not keep up with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They can't stop us now.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are trying (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They will try. They will try. And when are we going to start crying foul? When are we going to start saying to the Government of the United States: we put up with your tariffs for years, we sent hundred pound blocks of frozen codfish to Danvers, Massachusetts, to be processed and create three times as many jobs in Danvers, Massachusetts, producing fish products out of Newfoundland fish as there were in Newfoundland catching that fish, and the fishermen were getting $1 or $1.20 a pound and it was selling for $6.50 on the shelf in the United States. There is the secret to the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker. We can talk about overfishing. Yes, that has to be dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who set up in Danvers?

MR. WINDSOR: The Lake Company. A private company. Lake Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, when they (inaudible) they became part of FPI.

MR. WINDSOR: Became part of FPI. I am not going to waste my time with the hon. gentleman from St. John's South, he would not know a fish if he had one hit him in the face, Mr. Speaker.

The point of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that all of this fish product is going unprocessed. We can talk about trying to control the fish stocks and we must, but when we resolve all of that, Mr. Speaker, there will still be a certain sustainable yield of the fishing industry as there is with any resource. There is a certain sustainable yield above which if we catch any more we are only fooling ourselves, and that is what has happened in the past. When we establish that level, Mr. Speaker, we might as well realize that there won't be enough fish to satisfy all of the fishermen who are looking for licences and all of the fish plants that are looking for raw material. We have to realize that there will be available, no matter what the results of all these current negotiations, less fish than we would like to have available, and we have to start to utilize that fish properly.

The answer is not in getting more fish, the fish is not there to get. We have to use the fish, we have to put in the value-added. We have a product that the world wants, but we have to provide it to the kitchens not to the wholesalers. That is the difference. That is why the Minister of Development could use an extra $20 or $30 million, if he put it all on that alone. That is why I welcome it.

I have been saying for years - I did not say it very loudly - as it relates to the salmon fishery, that a salmon caught by a salmon fisherman from the United States is worth about $2,000 to this Province. A salmon caught by the fisherman in Petty Harbour is worth twenty bucks to him. It does not take very much to see that we are not utilizing our resource in the right direction. The Minister of Development should have some funds to develop aquaculture to serve the market.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I am still trying to fight on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the fights he is having because I had them too. It is not easy.

Those are legitimate arguments, the Minister of Health wants more money for health care and the Minister of Social Services wants more money for social services. Of course they do. But unless the Minister of Development gets more money to develop the economy there will be no money for the Minister of Health or the Minister of Social Services. So you have to have a balance, Mr. Speaker. That is the age-old argument. I am not telling anybody anything new.

Mr. Speaker, if we want salmon in our restaurants and on our tables let's grow them in salmon hatcheries, let's get aquaculture going.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you tasted the Bay d'Espoir stuff? It is really good.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, I have tasted it. I am not coming down on the government here for not developing aquaculture. Government can only go so far. We have had programs in place.

I visited a salmon hatchery in Denmark and Norway in 1976, and we have made efforts to bring aquaculture into this Province ever since. Where is private enterprise on this? They have to get moving too, but they need some help. I think if the Minister of Development had $20 or $30 million he could go out and say: Look, the opportunities are there. Government, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Development have done the research. We see the technology and we know what we can and can't do. We have had some experimental ones, Bay d'Espoir being one example with rainbow trout rather than salmon. Let's get on with it, Mr. Speaker.

We have had tremendous success with mussel farming in the Province. There are so many other areas where we can do that. Let's use that salmon resource for recreational purposes, and there will be literally thousands of jobs created for outfitters and guides and wardens and people who provide services. The economic activity from that will be just phenomenal. There is a real opportunity there for the future, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know we have a problem this year with the fishing industry. We knew it last year. There was nothing in the Budget, we had to come in halfway through the year. We know we have a worse problem this year, and there is no money in the Budget, no money for a fisheries emergency response program. The government can argue: Well, it is an emergency response program and we will bring in the money when we need it, when the emergency arises. What would be wrong with having a provision in the Budget now? Why do we wait until the emergency becomes a crisis before we try to do something? We know now we are going to have a crisis in the fishery this summer. Why do we not have a program in place now to deal with that fishery crisis? Let's not wait until September when it is too late to do many things that you would like to do. Let's not wait until the last minute, when people are rushing in with projects to create employment - probably less useful projects than we could have. If we know now that we are going to have to put $10 million or whatever it might be into the fishing industry, as an emergency program, why not put it in there now? Maybe it is $100 million. Let's put some money in there now. Let's put some planning money in there now.

The President of Treasury Board will argue with me that we will put the money in when we get some federal money to go with it, and we can justify putting the money in then because we are going to get back thirty or forty cents on the dollar, and we are only putting in thirty cents on the dollar, so we break even, and that is true. But are we prejudicing our case by putting money in the Budget now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We are? I do not believe we are. I think we could have the money there now and earmark it for a cost-shared program. Put the money up front and say: we will need $3 million or $4 million, or $10 million to go along with federal money, to deal with it. Let us put a million dollars in there now for planning. Why not have a million dollars in there now for planning for an emergency response program so that areas of this Province - I am sure we can identify where the biggest problem will be in this Province. We know where the fish plants are that are shut down for the next six months. We know where the trawlers are tied up. Why can we not now have some money in the Budget to plan some projects so that when the $100 million program comes, we are ready to spend it wisely and well, and on something that is useful - not making a job for a month or ten weeks, or twelve weeks, or whatever it takes. Make a job for twelve weeks that trains somebody, that gives them some experience that they have to use afterward, that builds something that is useful that will create a job, or that will help private enterprise, or help the economy in some way afterward.

Nobody likes to throw money at an unemployment problem, but if we have to have money being spent, if we have to create employment, let's do it wisely, and let's do it well. Let's create jobs that do something for the Province in the long-term. A little planning can go a long way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You managed to get $300,000 for a national and international public relations campaign. That will go a long way. It is something. If I did not think that most of that would be spent by the Premier doing his own political campaign across Canada, I might welcome that, but that is what we will see.

Mr. Speaker, we get into tourism now. That will wake the Minister of Development up for another minute or two. Funding is provided to expand the marketing program entitled 'Ours to Discover'. I hope, when the minister gets up to speak to the Budget debate, he will tell me a little bit more about that. I am aware that we have tee shirts with 'Ours to Discover'. I am aware that we use that logo, and that is fine. What are doing with the extra money that is made available? I do not know how much - I have not been able to - $200,000? I do not know what it will do. At any rate, I am anxious to learn more about that because I support, as the minister knows, any tourism promotion.

I do not support the additional funding for the Atlantic Canada International Marketing Agreement to promote Atlantic Provinces in Europe, the United States and Japan. I say to the minister, it is an absolute waste of money. It is an absolute waste of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, I don't know how much it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Ten million. The minister couldn't turn it down. I am not saying that, but I am saying it is a waste of money. Any tourism marketing that has been done to promote Atlantic Canada has been of great benefit to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI, and the minister must know by now, he has been in the department long enough to know by now, that all of the consulates, when they talk about Atlantic Canada, will give you a brochure on Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is shocking.

MR. WINDSOR: It is bad. There were a couple of exceptions that I found in my travels; invariably they were consulate offices where there was a Newfoundland posted, but there were not a lot of those. The minster has probably met some in driving around. You will find some Newfoundlanders in consulate offices and when you find them you will find a little more information on Newfoundland. I walked into the Glass Tower in Ottawa, I think it is on Slater Street, where the federal tourism minister's office is, the great building, all glass, a beautiful building with glass elevators going up the centre of it, and right on the bottom floor there is a kiosk, tourism information, staffed and run by the Canada Tourism, or whatever they are called. I went over and asked, 'What do you have on Newfoundland?' She said, 'Not very much, nobody ever wants to go there.' I said, 'Well, no wonder, my dear, with an attitude like yours I can see why nobody would go there. Let me introduce myself, I am the Minister of Tourism for Newfoundland, and the next time somebody asks you for information on Newfoundland you had better well have it ready.' I went straight upstairs, of course, I was going to a meeting with the minister. I was a few minutes early and making sure I would not be late. That is what she told me. 'Who wants to go there?' I don't know if she was dealt with or not. I know if it had been a provincial tourism office, she would be dealt with. But that's the kind of attitude: 'Who wants to go to Newfoundland?' she said, and she is promoting tourism in Canada and to international visitors who might be in the national capital. I say to the minister, but I am sure he has seen it, advertising jointly by the Government of Canada, advertising Atlantic Canada is of minimal benefit to this Province, and those people who are, as they will be, by that $10 million, attracted to Atlantic Canada, will fly into Halifax International Airport, most likely, and they will start their vacation and say, Well, we will see three out of the four provinces. It costs too much to go to Newfoundland. It is further, it is going to take a day over and a day back, and it will cost a few extra hundred dollars to fly over, or to drive over, whatever the case may be. We have seen three out of the four and that one cannot be much different. Now, that is the attitude. The only benefit we will get are historic resources, people who are interested in historic resources, like L'Anse-au-Meadow. People come from all over the world to see L'Anse-au-Meadow, because it is different. If you look at the guest book in L'Anse-au-Meadow or talk to the people up there, you will find that there are people who have come from France and Germany. All kinds of them, of course, come from Scandinavia, the Vikings' home. All kinds of them come from there. You will see people who come from California, but they didn't get it from advertising. I took the trouble when I was minister, before the centre was finished - it was back in the early days of advertising L'Anse-au-Meadow. I was there with my family on a sort of working vacation and I took the time to speak to twenty or thirty couples or families who were there. I had a pair of blue jeans, a tee shirt and a pair of sneakers on. I was Joe tourist. Nobody knew who I was. And I asked, 'What brought you to L'Anse-au-Meadow?' Of course, I looked for the cars with different license plates. Nine out of ten said, 'I read about it in National Geographic,' because there had been, six months before, a feature story on L'Anse-au-Meadow in National Geographic. And there is a tremendous market of people in this world who are very interested in that sort of thing and have a lot of money to spend. They are not worried if the price of the hotel room is $50.00 or $60,00, or what the cost of the rent-a-car is. They have a lot of money to spend and they want to go to see that. They don't want to see another Disney Land, they are all over the places. Pretty scenery is nice, it is different, but something like that is very, very, very attractive to them and they will spend the money.

As well, those who are interested in hunting and fishing; it goes back to what I spoke about, the salmon fishing. I mean, people in Germany and in France, particularly, represent a tremendous market for our hunting and fishing camps, but I would shudder to have hon. members go visit some of our hunting and fishing camps. There are some excellent ones but they are few and far between. The majority of them are shacks, hardly fit to bring anybody into, let alone a tourist from outside the country who has been charged, probably $3,000 or $4,000 a week or more for a licence to hunt, to be flown in, to be looked after there.

I looked at some of them, I visited them. Myself and a former Minister of Environment, Mr. Andrews, took a couple of hours one time when we were on the West Coast in Corner Brook, took a helicopter and spent two hours visiting about ten or twelve of the camps out there and I took pictures of them. Unfortunately, Kodak lost my pictures, I never did get them, but it is worth seeing. If any minister is out there flying around in a helicopter for other reasons, think about dropping down and visiting some of those camps and seeing what they are like.

We put restrictions on them and told them then, 'If you want your licence this year, you will make certain improvements,' and minimal improvements were made, but the Minister of Development knows full well that we have a long way to go.

Since that time, there have been some very excellent facilities built in the Province, both on the Island and in Labrador, some very excellent facilities, but there is a tremendous amount of room to improve those even further. The potential there, Mr. Speaker, to attract people to this Province is just incredible, and if you don't think that the impact is quite significant, just go to Goose Bay in the summer time and sit on the dock down at Otter Creek, where the float planes are loading up to take people to the salmon lodges in Labrador and see the people who are going through there, see the money that they are spending, see the items, you know, the food and the liquor and everything else that they are loading aboard. Go down to the sports shop in Happy Valley, downstairs, which probably has the greatest selection of salmon flies of any sporting store in the Province. Has the Minister of Education ever been there, is he a salmon fisherman?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You are a salmon fisherman?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) once every year.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, when you go to Labrador, go up to the place, I cannot recall the name of it; it is on the main road going into Happy Valley in the shopping district there; there are a lot of native crafts and everything there. Downstairs, they have a full wall of salmon flies that you have never seen before, most of them. A lot of them are designed for Labrador. But they have the best selection, and reasonably priced flies all tied right there in Goose Bay, and I have seen people go out of there with $500 and $600 worth of flies that they have bought because they have come from other parts of the world, and they ask: 'What do I need for flies?' 'Well, the best place to go is there, and here are the sorts of ones you want,' and they will go down and buy a full outfit and spend a lot of money on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - and catch one fish! They don't want the fish, these are true sportsmen, they want to catch them and release them.

Let me tell the minister, I took four or five of the most prominent sports fishing writers in North America, fishing in Labrador for four or five days one summer. We were very fortunate to get them, they were here on some sort of a national convention and we were able to get them to go up to Labrador for four or five days, and government paid their way and the publicity and the promotion that we got out of that, was returned one hundred times to us from the cost of that trip.

You should read the stories, I am sure they are on file with the department. The guy, actually, who was actually the chief advisor to K. L. Bean, the biggest sport outfitting company, he is the chief person who advises them on fishing and he was just amazing. I will take a minute to relate this story. He came there and he went out and caught some fish. We were up on Osprey Lake catching six and seven pound speckled trout. He would catch one and open the stomach - and he was quite a scientist in his own right, a marine biologist - and he would do a thorough analysis of the contents of the stomach to find out exactly what was in the stomach. From that he could tell what the fish was feeding on various times in the day. When you woke up in the morning at 6:00 he had already been up two hours and he was tying a fly for that day, a different colour, and he caught the fish, let me tell you.

He had an outfit that I found great, it was like a great inner tube that had a pair of rubber waders sort of sewn inside it, and it was factory made. He would sit down in his rubber waders inside that inner tube - he was quite dry. The inner tube and waders were all one. He would get down inside that and with a little short paddle he would paddle himself across the lake standing up, basically, in his waders inside this great inner tube, and fish away. It was incredible. I don't know why they are not more readily available. I said to him once: 'This might work well out here in the middle of Osprey Lake where you have a dead calm surface, but don't ever go out in the Humber River with that gear on. We would pick you up in Cormack.'

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible) tying the fly and the colour of it.

MR. WINDSOR: Tying the fly.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible) based on the contents of the stomach?

MR. WINDSOR: Based on the contents of the stomach, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is fantastic.

AN HON. MEMBER: Scott (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. Actually he analyzed some of the - Scott is a great one. (Inaudible) given me some of his effort. He is one of the better fly tiers in the Province and has one of the new outfitting camps, by the way, one of the better ones that has been built in the last couple of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should have done a clip on that.

MR. WINDSOR: I ought to do a clip on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will (inaudible) thirty seconds.

MR. WINDSOR: I will probably get National News on this. What I say about the Budget doesn't matter a darn, but I will talk about fishing and get great coverage.

AN HON. MEMBER: Scott will give you a thirty second slip on that.

MR. WINDSOR: Anyway, the point I have tried to make, the reason I started on that was that we get tremendous benefit from that sort of thing, and there is tremendous potential, that you can just see the amount of money that is left in this Province by people who come in for that purpose. As I said, those people are not here to take fish home. Most of those camps in Labrador have a rule that you can take home one trophy fish, that is all, and you can have one for the pot. If you want a fish to eat that day, you catch one, you keep it and you eat it, but that is all. You don't freeze any, salt any, can any or bottle any to take away with you. You can bring home one trophy fish if you want to.

I will never forgive our former colleague, Joe Goudie, who was with me on that trip. I picked up a six-and-three-quarter pound speckle, the nicest looking trophy fish if you want to, and I will never forgive our former colleague, Joe Goudie, who was with me on that trip. I picked up a six-and-three-quarter pound speckled - the nicest looking male - the most colourful looking fish you ever saw in your life, and he convinced me that I would get a bigger one the next day. Of course, I never did, so I came home without my trophy fish that I had been wanting to get to have mounted. There is a tremendous opportunity there for development of that resource, but it has to be done well, and it is being done in Labrador by private enterprise. It is being done by private enterprise, and these people are policing the lakes as well. It is these people that I referred to earlier today when I talked about eliminating the fee for non-resident trouting in the Province. These are the type of people who have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in some of these resorts, particularly in Labrador, who need protection against people flying in from Quebec. We need some control over it. We need to have some enforcement, because there is virtually no enforcement in Labrador. I think it would be money well spent by government if they were to put it in place. It would not be cheap, but it would be money well spent to put in place some fisheries enforcement officers and wildlife enforcement officers in that part of Labrador, and give them the resources to travel around. It will be expensive, because you would have to go by helicopter. There is no other way to do it, but that would be, I think, welcomed.

I see here, still relating to tourism, that funds have been provided for the 500th Anniversary Corporation to administer the activities in 1997, and that is welcomed. That needs to be done. It is a tremendous opportunity for us. As I said earlier, one of the greatest things we have going for us is our history. We have a tremendous wealth of history that can be capitalized on here in this Province, and the 500th anniversary of John Cabot is a prime opportunity for us to do just that. So I welcome that particular opportunity.

Money is going to be spent on Bull Arm and Cow Head. I am pleased to see that going. I wish we had more confidence that Bull Arm was going to continue, and that Hibernia was going to continue. Government has done what they can to assure us that it will be, and we hope they are right. Unfortunately, one of the problems today, with confidence in our economy, is the fact that people are unsure. They are insecure in whether or not Hibernia would indeed go ahead. I think confidence in our economy took a serious blow when Gulf pulled out, and I would hope that government is doing something. We do not see a big effort on the part of the provincial government. The Government of Canada seems to be going all out to try to find another partner. I do not see the Government of Newfoundland putting a big effort into it.

Mr. Speaker, the minister announces $25.5 million under the provincial roads program. As I said yesterday -

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the school milk program.

MR. WINDSOR: The school bus program?

AN HON. MEMBER: The school milk program, lunch program.

MR. WINDSOR: The what?

AN HON. MEMBER: The lunch program? The milk?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, the milk program.

AN HON. MEMBER: The school lunch program.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, what can you say? Is there anything negative about providing milk for schools? Is it enough? Is that enough to satisfy the needs of all schools in the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventy per cent (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Seventy per cent. Well....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, that's a good program. I compliment the minister. I hope he finds the money next year to expand it to all schools. But where is he getting the money? School busing is cut back by $1.5 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Is that where he got the money for his milk? would have to question. But the roads program, Mr. Speaker, I started to speak about, in the few minutes that are left today. Twenty-five and a half million dollars. Now, government spoke at great length about the Roads-for-Rails agreement when we put that in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the only reason we got the bit of capital works money for four years (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That's right. When you look at the construction of roads, Mr. Speaker, you find there is quite a bit of money going to be spent on roads this year. Overall, in capital, we are looking at - there is over $100 million I believe, altogether, being spent on roads.

You look at the estimates of the Department of Highways, and you look at what is being paid by the Government of Canada, (Inaudible) highways, Transport Canada, URDA, $7.5 million from the Government of Canada, $3.5 million provincial. Highways transportation initiative, $30 million federal and no provincial money. Regional roads transportation initiative, $20 million federally and no provincial money. There is a story there, Mr. Speaker. This Government that had such negative comments toward the Roads-for-Rails agreement now takes great pleasure in announcing all of the road projects being built in Newfoundland and Labrador this year, and where would we be without it, Mr. Speaker? Where would we be without all of that money? There is a chart here somewhere. I do not know if I can find it quickly, but there is a chart here somewhere on overall expenditure of the federal government. I cannot put my finger on it right now and I do not know exactly where I saw it, but it shows very clearly what is happening in capital expenditure. It shows how the funding from the Government of Canada has increased so dramatically over the past number of years. As a percentage of capital cost the Government of Canada has been providing an ever growing percentage of the capital cost, yet all we hear from Government are comments that Ottawa is reducing the funding. This certainly does not support that statement, Mr. Speaker. We will get into roads a little more. I mentioned the Fogo ferry yesterday. The Fogo Island ferry is something that was drastically needed by, not only the people of Fogo, but it would have had tremendous impact on the Marystown Shipyard this year. It was approved and then cancelled, I think, last year, the Fogo Island ferry.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was announced twice.

MR. WINDSOR: It was announced and cancelled twice. There is a political football if you ever saw one, Mr. Speaker. Funding is announced for wildlife protection staff. They did not find very much in there. They found about $100,000, I think, for wildlife protection, a major announcement in the Budget. There is $1 million to assist farmers in meeting environmental standards. That is good stuff, good stuff. Then you come to funding for employment programs. Funding for employment programs will be increased over that provided in last year's Budget. Yes, that is true., But it will be decreased from that actually spent last year. Funding for employment programs will be decreased from that actually spent. Ten million dollars less this year for employment programs than the government actually spent last year. More than was budgeted last year but less than that was spent. That is (Inaudible). Well.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to get into that depth. I will save that for tomorrow. I will start off with the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on Thursday, when I have had a good night's sleep and a good rest. Got the energy back, and I am over the frustration of arguing with the President of Treasury Board over whether thirty and fifteen equals forty-five. All of those things. When I have recovered from the vicious blows from the Minister of Finance, and he is shaking his head and waving his hands and ho-humming, then I will come back on Thursday and have another kick on labour and job creation, or the lack thereof, of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I adjourn the debate.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow, Private Members' Day, debating the resolution by the Member for Kilbride.

MR. DECKER: He is trying to bring back the school tax.

MR. BAKER: Yes, bringing back the school tax.

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