March 27,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 6

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

House of Assembly fifteen Grade V students from Norman's Cove Elementary School

in the electoral district of Bellevue, accompanied by their principal, Mr. David

Osbourne and their teacher, Mr. Bill Smith.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have some questions for the Minister of Finance, on the

Budget document the minister tabled on Thursday. It shows a payment in the

amount of $77,200 into a sinking fund for the purchase of leased facilities and

there were similar amounts, I notice, in 1993 and 1994, for sinking fund for

payments of leased, or purchase of leased facilities.

Can the minister confirm that this is being set aside to

purchase the three medical centres at St. Lawrence, Port Saunders and Burgeo

after the 30-year lease expires and, can the minister also tell us if that is

true, is government required to make these sinking fund payments every year for

the duration of the leases as a result of the financing arrangements with Trans

City or its financial backers, Confederation Life? Would he explain this to us?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I was having trouble hearing the question and I would

appreciate it if the House would come to order so I could hear the hon. the

Minister of Finance respond.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will check into that specific amount, if he will give me

the information as to which page it is on and so on. It could very well be that,

and if it is, yes, Mr. Speaker, there is an arrangement whereby sinking fund

payments will be made.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I assure the minister he will

find that that is indeed what the amount is, $77,200, and that is what it is

there for; I am quite sure that's what he will find.

Would he tell us, Mr. Speaker, that being the case, does the

agreement call for any escalation of payments to this sinking fund? Will this

amount of $77,200 per year continue for the thirty years, will it increase

indeed, as time goes on? Would the minister like to tell us that, Mr. Speaker,

and if so, would he please table a copy of the complete

schedule of the annual

payments for that 30-year period?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, could the minister also tell

us: Is the government required, in accordance with the agreement with Trans City

and Confederation Life, to deposit those annual payments with Confederation

Life? Are we indeed paying up front for the purchase thirty years down the road?

Are we not only putting away this money, are we depositing it with Confederation

Life and who really benefits from it? Would the minister tell us what interest

rate are we earning on that money that is deposited with whomever, whether it be

Confederation Life or someone else?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answers are

almost as short as his Budget's Speech.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister also confirm that when the

government called tenders for these three medical centres, the intent of the

tender call and stated in that call was that government had the right to

purchase the facility at the end of the thirty-year least for one dollar? Will

he confirm that as a result of the financing arrangement now, government will,

in fact, pay out over $16 million at the end of that thirty-year period for a

facility that government asked and tendered to have a right to purchase for one

dollar? Will he table all agreements with Trans City and Confederation Life so

that we will find out the real truth to this scandalous deal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, a change was made from that

original direction, as the member realizes, because the method of financing that

was eventually worked out, was at a tremendous saving to the people of this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Environment minister: Does the

government have a written agreement with the new owners of the Come By Chance

refinery binding the company to clean up the site and reduce pollution from the

plant? Do they have a written agreement?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a compliance agreement with the owners of Come By

Chance to, over a time period, make improvements to the environmental problems

that are there. That agreement was initialled in August of '94 and we are

working through the process with the company. So the agreement, I believe - I

don't know if we tabled it in the House but we informed the House before

Christmas that we had the compliance agreement. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: The company plans to close down the plant

for several months this year because of market conditions. Will the market

conditions that may force a shut-down also affect the company's plans to clean

up the plant and reduce environmental pollutants?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, let me say this, that the new

owners have given a major commitment, have spent a lot of money, are doing a

very good job in cleaning up the problems that have occurred. Market conditions

have dictated they shut down the plant for a short period of time but there is

no lack of a commitment or no indication from the company that they will slow

down or not meet the commitments that they have already agreed to with our

department and with our government, to ensure that the environmental problems

are corrected there over the long term.

I emphasize that the company has been doing a good job. They

have been working with the local community in a very pro-active fashion and

right now we don't see any problems with that, and if we do we will certainly

let people know.

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

for St. John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, does the government have any plans of its own

to reduce emissions from the refinery if the new owners are unable to live up to

their commitments?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get into being

too negative and so on. I think we are into a pro-active exercise with the new

owners of Come By Chance. They have given us a compliance agreement which is one

of the best in the industry, and we are delighted with it so far. We hope that

we won't have to go into telling them what we want them to do, because they have

already agreed to do it; so, unless we see otherwise, the department and the

government is prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure that we see conditions

improve. Right now we are on a steady stream to see that happen and we look

forward to seeing what the results will be over the next few months.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was

about to yield to the Member for St. John's Centre, but on second thought I have

a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Last year, revenues for the Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador loan fund for the last fiscal year was $8.6 million.

This year it is projected to increase to $16.3 million, an increase of $7.75

million. Now, the Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador loan fund will now

include loan revenues that would have been collected by the Fisheries Loan

Board. I am wondering if the Minister could inform the House how much of the

$7.75 million increase will come from loan payments by fishermen? Can he inform

the House of that?

I don't think the minister understood the question, did he?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I did understand the question, but I don't have right

now the exact figure you are asking for. I will take it under advisement and

bring it into the House at another time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary

for the minister when he gets his information. Last year, a total of $6 million

was collected by the Fisheries Loan Board and the Farm Development Loan Board.

This year the amount that is projected to be collected has increased by $1.5

million. I am wondering, that $1.5 million projected additional revenues to now

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Loan Board, will that amount come from

fishermen's payments that would have been to the loan board that will now go to

ENL? Is that $1.5 million coming from the backs of fishermen? Could the minister

answer that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: No, I can assure you it will not come off the

backs of fishermen.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I wonder if the minister could inform

the House, Mr. Speaker, what if any extra measures Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador now will put in place to collect the money from fishermen. Will they be

hiring additional collections officers? Could the minister inform the House what

decision government has made regarding the licence buy out program? There has

been a bit of controversy about that over the last while. Could the minister

inform the House whether or not the monies that will be paid to fishermen for

licence buy out, will that be intercepted now by ENL to pay for loans that

fishermen owe?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Number one, on the

first part of the question, with the transfer of the Fisheries Loan Board and

the Farm Development Loan Board to ENL, the same individuals who have been

dealing with fishermen and farmers up to this point will continue to be dealing

with the fishermen and farmers. That is number one. There will be no change

there.

As far as the monies being collected, whether they will be

intercepted to cover off debts, whether money paid would be intercepted to cover

off debts, in most cases that will not be the case. In most cases.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Final supplementary?

MR. SPEAKER: I will give the Opposition House Leader a

further supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I noticed with interest the minister's

answer. Why in most cases? What circumstances would prevail that would prompt

the government to intercept monies that a fisherman should receive for selling

out his licence to the federal government? What is the difference? Why would

most not be intercepted and some intercepted? Could the minister explain that

for us, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our stance has been

that those individuals who have made a concerted effort to pay their loans off

over the years, every effort will be made to assure those individuals that the

money paid for a licence will not be intercepted. For those individuals who have

not made that concerted effort, a different line of thinking will be made.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. Just a little over two years

ago the town of Fleur de Lys was devastated when they found that their crab

processing licence would be moved out of Fleur de Lys. We have a delegation here

today again from Fleur de Lys, who for the fourth time have made the eight hour

trip in order to ask questions that still have not been answered as to why that

crab processing license ever did come out of Fleur de Lys.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister that I feel the same way

about it. As a matter of fact just two years ago I sat in at a meeting with the

delegation from Fleur de Lys and the then minister, the Member for Twillingate,

and the Premier stood and said we would have a full investigation into those

matters and it would be reported upon. I would like to ask the minister if he

could tell us the findings of that investigation that the Premier promised us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: I cannot give you that information today but I

will provide it to you separately.

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

Baie Verte -White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is two years later and the

same delegation is in here today after eight hours again and I am sure they are

going to come again next week, and maybe the week after, until they do get some

answers, I say to the minister. We were never notified of any findings of that

report, no written report, not even a phone call to me or anybody in the

delegation. We never did find out about an investigation. It is clear and

obvious, Mr. Speaker, that there was an injustice done in the community of Fleur

de Lys when that license came out of there. It should have never happened. It

was the hub of the peninsula for two summers prior to that, and for two years

since that we have seen people sit on the wharf in Fleur de Lys and watch truck

loads of crab go up the Baie Verte highway to some other plant.

Mr. Speaker, I think now is the appropriate time for the

minister to consider reinstating another license into Fleur de Lys. Has that

been considered?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That has been discussed, along with other scenarios, and at

this point in time I cannot give you a definitive answer as to how it will go,

but that is one of the things that has been discussed.

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

for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could say I am glad

there are discussions going on, but there are people living in Fleur de Lys, and

also a lot of other communities in that area who made a living off that plant,

and of course now that the crab processing industry right now looks very bright

it could make the difference in that community and a lot more on that peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the policy seems to

have changed on the transfer of licenses I do not think that the minister could

stand here today and tell us he would reinstate a new license in Fleur de Lys,

but I think the minister now, in his new portfolio, and the government has a

chance because it never did so in the investigation it promised, can now, with

the possibility of a proposal for the transfer of an already established license

to be transferred into Fleur de Lys. I think that opportunity is there and I

would like to hear the minister make a commitment to these people here today

that it will be highly considered, that a transfer of license will go back into

Fleur de Lys.

Would the minister respond to that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will give no commitment or no assurance here today as to

whether that license will be reinstated in Fleur de Lys at all.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is addressed to the Minister of Justice, or

whoever is taking orders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: It concerns the question of refunds for

damage deposits from slum landlords or other problems that tenants have with

landlords. It has to do with the procedure.

Tenants who move, often have great difficulty getting back

their damage deposits from their landlords, even where there has been no damage.

Tenants on social assistance who move must pay damage deposits to the new

landlord, often before getting their damage deposit back from their previous

landlord, and have to use the pittance they get for food in order to do so. Many

never get their damage deposit back, even though they should, because the

procedures are just too complicated. To get their damage deposit back from a

reluctant landlord, a person must go to the Residential Tenancies Board. To do

this he or she must first send a registered letter of intent to the landlord, or

deliver it in person, register the details of the complaint with the Supreme

Court, which costs $50, and then serve the landlord with a copy of the

registered complaint in person, which, if delivered by a bailiff, will cost

another $50 or $55. For many tenants who are recipients of social assistance

this is a formidable, fearsome and costly undertaking.

My question: Will the minister take immediately whatever

steps are necessary to introduce a simpler, cheaper and less intimidating

procedure so that poor people bullied by slum landlords can have easier recourse

to the Residential Tenancies Board for return of damage deposits and for

addressing other problems?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member makes a good point and points out a problem

that some people have, not only in this city but around the Province, and have

had for quite some time. I will certainly see that the problem is investigated

and will get back to the hon. member as quickly as possible. I agree that

perhaps we should have a closer look at this, the thing he points out, with a

view to making it easier and less intimidating for people to get their damage

deposits back.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minister of Social Services. The news of the cutbacks in the Department of

Social Services, needless to say, have not been very well received. Many people

are worried about their future and their ability to survive in a society with

their dignity intact. I would like to ask the minister: What exactly has been

the increase in caseloads from the 1994-1995 Budget time up until this year, and

what is expected to be the caseload in the coming year?

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

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry, I don't

have the exact figures for you today, but I can have them for you tomorrow.

With regard to the number of people that we are expecting to

come over to Social Services, probably from TAGS, it was estimated at 1,000 to

the end of March. So far these numbers have not shown up at our department. I

would like to point out that we do not have the accurate figures for the end of

March. I certainly will look into that myself to determine just where the

increase has come from.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to ask the minister if she

has planned for an increase in the caseload in her budget, keeping in mind that

last year she was unable to make a correct determination because she overspent

her budget by approximately $6 million, and also taking into consideration, Mr.

Speaker, that there has been a shrinkage of another $10 million taken out with

this new Budget.

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

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the member has the

facts entirely straight. Sometimes a little bit of knowledge is more dangerous

than having no knowledge. The amount of money that has been taken out of my

budget, I would like to point out for the hon. member, is not being taken out of

basic rates.

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

for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I talked about her budget,

not where it was coming from. Ten million dollars has been taken out of the

Budget and Mr. Baker's Budget Estimates here confirm that. I would like to know

if the minister really believes that by making people ride on the bus or use

second-hand furniture - is she actually alluding to her belief that the people

who are on social services, her clients, are second-hand citizens? Is this what

she is trying to tell us, Mr. Speaker? Is she going to ask these people to ride

at the back of the bus because she believes they do not deserve the same rights

and freedoms, since they are underprivileged and because they are caseloads in

her department?

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

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I

am not sure whether the question was: Do we consider social service clients

second-hand citizens or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. YOUNG: I would like to point out that they are

definitely not second-class citizens. I am aware that in my department we need

to look at a whole lot of things, and some of the concerns that we have are: Are

we spending our transportation dollars wisely - and I don't consider anybody who

rides a bus a second-hand citizens, and I am sure that a lot of the citizens of

this Province would be highly offended at the member's statement.

As well, using second-hand furniture, that is not what we

discussed - however, if there is a need to reduce our budget to ensure that

everybody can avail of furniture, when somebody is allocated money, if they feel

it is a wise decision to buy something that is in good shape and it is

second-hand, I have no qualms with that, and I am sure the taxpayers of this

Province - and I am sure our clients will have no problem with that as well. It

is better to be able to provide something than it is to take cuts right across

the board, and we are certainly not in favour of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Natural Resources. I would like to ask the minister, regarding the dividends

that Newfoundland Hydro is scheduled to pay the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to help pay the current account deficit, does the minister know exactly

where Newfoundland Hydro is going to get the money that it is going to pay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the dividend that Hydro is

paying is a dividend out of profit, the debt equity ratio will remain in the

area of about 80/20, and what they are paying us is just over and above that.

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

West, a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Hydro, as we all

know, is a Crown corporation. It is not subservient to the government to pay any

dividends. We understand that some dollar amount, a surplus that had been banked

for this year, is a result of restraint and cutback programs where workers have

been laid off and services have been compromised. This money, however, was

planned to be used to pay on the debt to equity ratio in an attempt to make the

company's position more equitable.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: Did Newfoundland

Hydro know ahead of time that they would be asked to pay this dividend?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't hear the latter part

of his comment for the noise around me. Could he repeat it, please, because I

couldn't hear it.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I asked him: Did Newfoundland

Hydro know in advance of the Budget that they were going to be asked to pay

those dividends?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I had some discussions in

general with Newfoundland Hydro, but until the Budget came down they didn't know

what was going to be in the Budget.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, what we have here is

confirmation that the minister is dictating to the managers of Newfoundland

Hydro how to run the company.

Mr. Speaker, since these dividends are planned for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, since these dividends are planned

for 1995-'96, and Hydro just happen to have this money, thankfully there will be

no increase, as the minister says, for this fiscal year.

I would like to ask the minister if the dividends are going

to continue to be paid by Newfoundland Hydro to the government each year, and if

the minister can tell us that there will be no further increases as a result of

this to the ratepayers of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have made a decision for

this year. We are asking Hydro to pay us a dividend out of its profits this

year. We also asked Hydro to pass over to us some of the dividend it was

receiving from Churchill Falls Corporation, again, out of its profits. We have

not made a decision at this time in terms of long-term dividend policy for the

future. Obviously, it is a thing that we can consider and will obviously

consider.

MR. SPEAKER: I will give the hon. member one more and

then I will go to the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a final question to the minister.

Would the minister confirm, as a result of all this and what is taking place now

regarding Hydro, the millions of dollars that government has spent to privatize

it, that the way to go now is to nationalize the other power companies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of

nationalizing other companies.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment.

It would seem from the minister's announcement before the

House opened that the major initiative in ending the mountains of litter, soft

drink containers and other containers that end up in landfill sites is to make

littering a ticketable offence, Mr. Speaker, along with the Minister of

Transportation who is going to ticket people for having .05. When is this

government, Mr. Speaker, going to stop its punitive approach to people and start

doing something constructive about littering instead of using the stick all the

time? Why doesn't it find out some constructive ways of promoting recycling, of

perhaps having returnable soft drink bottles and other things that will actually

promote recycling instead of just punishing people? because that seems to be

this government's attitude.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. AYLWARD: I may need some protection, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the member, I understand the member's

interest in this subject but I am assuming that he will vote for the change in

the amendment in the legislation when we bring it in to prevent littering. But

this is only part one of a major plan to deal with waste management in the

Province. We are wrestling with this issue, Mr. Speaker, in a major way. There

are major recycling efforts going on around this Province which maybe the member

doesn't understand or hasn't seen, but I have to tell you, Nova Recycling has

set up initiatives all over the Province. We have communities all over this

Province buying in - we have cardboard getting banned from a number of municipal

landfills, we have a whole range of initiatives. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that

we will be announcing a number of other things over the next few months that

will deal with the full waste management stream in this Province. But the thing

is, you have to have your eyes open, Mr. Speaker. I only say to the member that

it is time he opened his eyes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are aware of the struggling recycling efforts that are

going on across this Province. I am asking the minister if he is prepared to do

something to make these operations a little bit more viable by perhaps having

deposits, for starters, on Newfoundland Liquor Corporation bottles that they are

already using to - refilling. They can do that, and they can then insist that

soft drink bottles have a deposit on them or be returnable as well and that

would make these recycling efforts viable, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared

to do that?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to do a lot of

things and we are going to be wrestling with the problem very shortly. We have

been in discussions with the packaging industry for some time and we are going

to deal with the problem. You know, there is not another province in Canada that

has yet been able to get an agreement with the packaging industry. We have a

Cabinet committee that is meeting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I need some protection here, I

am having a hard time.

We are trying to deal with the problem, Mr. Speaker. This

government is going to deal with the problem. We have a strategy, we have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. AYLWARD: - a waste management plan which we will be

bringing in, Mr. Speaker. But I will say to the member, just hang on, we are

going to be dealing with the problem. We have a number of problems in this

Province, that is one of them, we are going to be dealing with it and we are

bringing forward some initiatives. I say to him, look around because there are a

lot of good things going on and they are a result of this government's policy on

recycle, re-use and reduce.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps the reason that this Province is the only one with an

agreement with the soft drink industry is because this is the only Province

where there is no returnable soft drink bottles of any kind, Mr. Speaker. These

are the kinds of agreements that this government has entered into. Is the

minister prepared, just as a start, to find a way to direct the Newfoundland

Liquor Corporation, for example, to start by putting a deposit on liquor

bottles, wine bottles, so that at least those bottles can be taken out of the

environment, Mr. Speaker, and have a practical solution and provide practical

aid to recycling efforts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will take that suggestion by

the member under advisement, as to what he just brought up, and it is an

interesting idea. We are looking at, as I said, a range of initiatives right now

that we will be bringing forward. So I will take his idea under advisement, and

I say to him, that on this side of the House, we are open to a variety of ideas

to deal with the problems of the Province. We will certainly take it under

advisement, but I also say to him, that this government is working on a whole

waste management strategy for the Province; there are a number of very positive

things going on; there are a number of other things that will be announced

shortly which will be very positive. We look forward to dealing with the

landfill problem that we have, dealing with a whole range of the waste stream

problems that we have. And we are reforming our legislation, Mr. Speaker, we are

doing a whole range of initiatives, and believe me, before we are finished,

people will know that we are very definitely concerned about the waste

management stream and where we are headed.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. CARTER: (Inaudible) have time to have debated on

Wednesday the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS lighthouse keepers have throughout our history played

an important role in saving lives and helping to ensure the safety of many

seafaring people; and

WHEREAS the decision to move towards unstaffed lighthouses

has been made by bureaucrats who know nothing of the important role of

lighthouse keepers; and

WHEREAS automated equipment is no replacement for the role

that a human lighthouse keeper can play in saving lives;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly does not support

the destaffing of lighthouses, and calls on the federal government to continue

funding for staffed lighthouses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a few more sheets of a petition

presented earlier in the House of Assembly with regard to the situation in

Jackson's Cove, a situation that is still ongoing, and no thanks to the

government is still unresolved. The sheets I have here contain some thirty-five

names and the prayer of the petition is as follows: We the undersigned petition

the hon. House of Assembly to have government call Memorial Hall in Jackson's

Cove, which was built by public funds for public use, to be turned over to a

publicly elected community board of directors.

Mr. Speaker, when I brought this forward in the House some

days ago the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs responded. At the time

he had a number of comments on the situation, and a number of comments regarding

my role personally. I faxed the exchange between myself and the minister out to

the locals and they were somewhat surprised and expressed a degree of

consternation as to the minister's response. In particular they were upset that

the minister had refused to meet with the now publicly elected committee that is

trying to run the hall, and the fact that the minister seemed to have, for

someone who had not met on the situation, have a number of details with regard

to the history of the hall, the shape it was in, the way it had been rented, the

rental rates, etc. It would have been very difficult for the minister to have

gotten that level of detail, although they dispute the accuracy of the detail,

it would be difficult for the minister to have gotten that level of detail

without having met, or at least talked to the chair of the unelected committee

who want to run the hall, namely Mrs Ruby Batstone.

Mr. Speaker, the locals in Jackson's Cove have their

committee, and as far as I know they also have a lawyer on staff now. The chair

of the unelected committee has a lawyer, and unfortunately this matter may end

up in the courts. What we have is a public building built at public expense,

through public works projects for the benefit of the community, being

controlled, and I guess the question is, owned, by a committee elected by no one

and answerable to no one.

The committee is chaired, as I indicated earlier, by one Ruby

Batstone and in March 1979, a short while before the former Member for Green,

Brian Peckford, became Premier, Mrs Batstone wrote to the local paper and said:

I am very pleased to announce that the community hall at Jackson's Cove has been

officially opened. It is not my hall, as Mrs. Batstone pointed out, the hall

belongs to the residents of Jacksons's Cove and surrounding areas.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the residents of Jackson's Cove and the

surrounding area have been looking to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, or some authority in this particular government to lend some sanction

to a democratically elected committee in the area. Right now we still have in

contention a committee elected by no one, answerable to no one, which seems to

have the inside track, have the ear of the powers-that-be in this particular

Administration. They have not yet availed of the powers-that-be to the extent

that the police or officials of the Justice department have seen fit to throw

the community out of its own hall, although there is considerable pressure on

the police in Springdale to so do. They themselves have not seen fit to do so

yet.

The citizens are standing by their commitment to keep the

hall open under a publicly elected committee. They've asked me again to ask the

minister to meet with them. They've asked me to ask the minister has he met with

the privately elected committee. Because the things he had to say in the House

the other day would seem to indicate that he has at least met with that person

or talked with that person.

I've got a number of sheets on this petition. I didn't

present them all at once, obviously, because I wanted to raise the matter again

in case the government failed to deal with the issue. I will continue to raise

the matter as long as I have petition sheets to present. Because ordinary people

in a small rural town deserve democratic treatment from a government and nothing

less is expected of such a government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the business of the day will be

to begin the debate on the Budget. In a moment I will ask Your Honour to call

Motion No. 1. Before we do there are three matters of housekeeping - no pun

intended, if I may.

The first is, may I take advantage of the occasion to confirm

that the private member's motion which will be debated on Wednesday is the one

of which notice was given by my friend and colleague, the Member for

Twillingate, with respect to lighthouses. That will save me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry? Let there be light, I say to my

hon. friend for Grand Bank. I also say, that while the light holds out to burn,

the vilest sinners may return. There is a place for him as well.

Mr. Speaker, a note to that end, we will not have in place by

Wednesday an amendment to the Standing Orders. The drafting is under way but

we've not come to that point. If the House is so minded, perhaps we could adopt

a motion now to put in place a procedure for this Wednesday comparable to that

which we had last Wednesday, with one exception. I think there is a feeling, at

least among members on this side, that the mover would have fifteen minutes, as

does every other person. If that is agreeable, I will move a motion that for

this Wednesday the rule be that every person who speaks has fifteen minutes,

that the mover have the right of response at the end of the day, that the motion

be put to the vote not later than the end of the day. If that is in order - we

will need consent, obviously - I would so move.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded as the minister says. Any discussion

on the motion?

It is moved and seconded, as I understand it, that the mover

of the motion on this coming Wednesday be restricted to fifteen minutes in

moving the motion and then finishing debate at the end of the day; that each

speaker have a similar amount of time; and that the question be put before the

end of session on Wednesday.

Anything further?

MR. ROBERTS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. ROBERTS: The motion is carried, I take it, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I was going to put the motion. I just

wanted to make sure I included everything. Is there anything else in the motion?

Motion carried.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) Hansard notes that my comment

was a question, Mr. Speaker, and not a statement.

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

MR. ROBERTS: I wonder if we could now go on and deal with

Motion No. 5, which is simply the motion standing on the Order Paper to refer

the Estimates to the standing committees so we can begin the process whereby the

detailed examination is done. I would ask accordingly, Your Honour, that we deal

with Motion No. 5, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5.

It is moved and seconded:

(

a) That the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to

the Government Services Committee:

Finance

Works, Services and Transportation

Employment and Labour Relations

Municipal and Provincial Affairs

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation

Public Service Commission

(

b) That the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to

the Social Services Committee:

Social Services

Education and Training

Health

Environment

Justice; and

(

c) That the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to

the Resource Committee:

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture

Natural Resources

Tourism, Culture and Recreation

Industry, Trade and Technology.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the

Chairs of the Committees that they are required to bring the reports of their

committees back, within I believe it is fifteen sitting days, I am just trying

to find the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: - yes, it is Standing Order 120, fifteen

sitting days back to the House. There is no law saying they must take the

fifteen sitting days, it is entirely up to the members of the committee when

they deal with these matters.

Finally, Your Honour, the House Leader on the other side and

myself have been having conversations which, at this stage have not produced a

conclusion, but in order simply to leave a door open, and I emphasize this, I

will move that the House not adjourn at five, but let me say on that, we are not

attempting to produce a marathon, it is simply, if my friend from Mount Pearl is

at the point at five where, fifteen minutes or half-an-hour would enable him to

conclude his remarks, fine, if he is not, then we will have to deal with that

but there is no suggestion the House sit very late this evening; we simply want

to accommodate my friend from Mount Pearl. There are no wagers this year I

understand although there has been an offer from his side, but should he be at

the point where he wants to conclude his speech rather than have a break because

we may be a week or two getting back to this given that we are going to do the

Interim Supply next, so I will accordingly simply move that the House not

adjourn at five, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House not

adjourn at five; any discussions?

All in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary-minded, `nay'.

Motion, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Motion 1, Your Honour, please.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

the Whole on Ways and Means to consider the Raising of Supply to be granted to

Her Majesty.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just received a note from the media saying that they

would like to speak to me outside. I regret they are going to have to wait;

unfortunately, I am not going to be available.

MR. BAKER: I will talk to them instead.

MR. WINDSOR: The minister could go out? If the minister

is going to tell them the truth, then I would be honoured to have him represent

me out there, it would be a nice change.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to respond to this Budget Speech

but let me say first of all to the minister, as I said to him earlier before

today: surely, he doesn't think he is going to get away with the sleight of hand

that is in this Budget document. Surely he knows that he cannot fool the people

of the Province, certainly he can't fool the House of Assembly and rest assured,

that he certainly hasn't fooled the fiscal agents or their credit rating

agencies in New York or in Toronto.

One can see through this Budget document just the same as if

it were written on glass. I get a kick out of the headlines: Grits balance the

books, Mr. Speaker, Grits balanced the books. Grits had absolutely nothing to do

with balancing the books, that is the bottom line here. The fact that the

minister has produced a document which appears to be balanced has nothing to do

with anything that this government has done or any economic policies that they

have put forward. It is simply -

AN HON. MEMBER: A well-thought out plan.

MR. WINDSOR: - a well-thought out plan, Mr. Speaker, yes,

simply a chance, Mr. Speaker, good fortune, not unlike winning the lottery by

some of our hon. colleagues, not unlike that, not appears to be the way the

minister proposes to deal with the long-term, financial problems that this

Province faces. Nothing in here to even attack the problem that the pension

plans are presenting to this government and to this Province, the unfunded

liability. The minister produced a document as part of the Budget documents

which we appreciate, it gives us a lot of factual information based, I assume on

actuarial studies that have been done so we have some idea of the magnitude of

the problem we are faced, but we have no idea any more than the minister does,

of how the minister is proposing to deal with that serious problem; nor has the

minister given us any indication of how he proposes to deal with a $200 million

shortfall he is facing next year, compared to this Budget as a result of lost

federal revenues next year, that the minister has predicted based on steps taken

by the recent federal Budget and by the loss of one-shot revenues that the

minister has in his Budget this year, and that is how he balanced the Budget,

Mr. Speaker, not on improved, economic performance, not on any great Strategic

Economic Plan.

The only thing the Strategic Economic Plan has done is gather

dust, Mr. Speaker, has not produced one job in this Province nor is it likely

to, nor is it likely to. There is no great increase in the strength of this

economy, Mr. Speaker, since that document was produced a number of years ago or

since the great Economic Recovery Commission was put into place. Outside of

creating jobs for themselves, they produced very little of benefit to this

Province, or to the people of this Province.

So the minister has produced a document this year that shows

a balance, approximately, a small surplus, in total, on current and capital

account, and if that were true I would be here applauding the minister and his

government, saying what a fantastic job they have done; they finally got back to

a surplus. We handed them a surplus, by the way, in 1989, which they quickly

turned into a $100 million shortfall that first year.

AN HON. MEMBER: That wasn't current and capital.

MR. WINDSOR: Wasn't current and capital, no, but we did

hand them a surplus. I say to the minister, he doesn't even have a surplus here

on current account this year - doesn't even have it - didn't have it last year.

He shows here that at the end of the 1994-'95 fiscal year he has approximately a

$25 million surplus - very proud of that, and so he should be, if it were true,

but he neglects to tell you that in that is $30 million that was paid by the

ferry service on the South Coast, for one, and $20 million that he took this

year from the sinking fund, so that is $50 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't take it from the sinking fund.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, yes; well, where did it come from?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Twenty million dollars this year from the

sinking fund, in 1994-'95.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, yes. I disagree with the minister. The

minister had better look again. He did, in fact, take $20 million, yes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Surpluses, but surpluses from the sinking

fund; yes, indeed he did. So that is $50 million gratuitously - `fortuitously'

as he says many times in his Budget document, a fine word, `fortuitously'

received $50 million, which brought him from the real deficit of $25 million to

a pretend surplus of $25 million for the last fiscal year.

The minister effectively came in on budget. He predicted last

year in his Budget a $25 million deficit for this year, which he was quite

pleased to do, and it was an honourable objective based on the deficits we had

been faced with in previous years.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said we would never reach it.

MR. WINDSOR: I said you would never reach it, and you

didn't reach it. You didn't reach it because of anything that you did -

fortuitously picked up these extra $50 million, which made last year's

performance appear better than the reality.

I say to the minister that his predictions for this year are

also better than the reality. The only reason that he is able to even show a

small surplus - or a big surplus on current account, $125 million - is because

of these fortuitous amounts that he is receiving this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Your projections are conservative? The

economic projections are conservative. We will have a look at that in due course

to see how conservative these projections are.

Let me say to the minister that, as I indicated earlier, some

of our colleagues have done well with the lotteries. The minister seems to be

waiting for the tooth fairy to come in to deal with his problems. The tooth

fairy is coming in to deal with his problems, but it is not the tooth fairy at

all; it is the South Coast ferry that has helped him - not the tooth fairy, but

the South Coast ferry.

There is a lot of concern about that. I would say that my

friend from Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir must be concerned about the funding for the

South Coast ferry.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you suggest?

MR. WINDSOR: What do I suggest? The minister is expecting

me now to say that we should take that $50 million or $51 million and put it

into a bank account, stash it away for the future, as has been suggested by

others, but I agree with the minister that that is not a wise use of government

funding. What the government has not done is one of two alternatives: either

utilize that funding for government purposes, whatever they may be, to defer

other borrowings, because those borrowings would be at a higher rate than would

be earned on this money if it were invested, most likely; or probably it is

better to pay off some debt that is already costing us quite a bit more. If the

minister were doing that, I would see some rationale to it. Or if the minister

were saying - and let's go back and use the example of the Roads for Rail

Agreement, the agreement, by the way, Mr. Speaker, on which hon. members

opposite when they were on this side of the House, lambasted the government of

the day for selling out the railway. The minister hides his head in shame, and

so he should. They lambasted us day after day for selling out our heritage, our

birthright, our railway service that was enshrined in the Constitution as part

of the Terms of Union of Confederation in 1949. We sold it out, the minister

said. The minister will recall that we did indeed take the payment of $850

million, I think it was, something of that magnitude.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, but it was about an $850 million

overall deal, as I recall.

Mr. Speaker, that money has gone into replacing rails in this

Province. We have been utilizing those funds to upgrade highways in this

Province. The present government, which lambasted us for making this deal, have

not hesitated to stick out their chests and crow when they announce new highway

projects using the funding that was made available. Very little funding is being

made available through provincial sources. If we took away the money that was

allocated in that Roads for Rail Agreement you would have pothole after pothole.

You wouldn't have any road, you would have a series of potholes in this

Province.

Those funds have been put to very good use, and our highway

system in this Province has improved substantially. Now, there are sections of

it that - driving across the Province yesterday, I can tell you that one would

wonder if there was ever a road built there. A couple of sections now are in bad

shape. Terra Nova Park still needs a tremendous amount of funds. It is time the

Federal Government stopped playing patchwork with it and did a complete

reconstruction of the highway through Terra Nova Park. It is time to stop

playing games and bring it up to the standards of the rest of the highway in

this Province now.

There was a time, I recall, when you got to Terra Nova Park

and you sort of breathed easily. You said: Isn't it great now, you have paved

shoulders and everything else. How good is it at all! Now we've by-passed the

standards of Terra Nova Park to the point where now you get in the Park and

there are no passing lanes, and the quality of the pavement, which was put there

a long time ago - I suggest it would have been back about.... Terra Nova Park

would have been paved around the mid-sixties, about 1965. It was part of the

drive to - or earlier than that, in fact, the early 'sixties. Because the road

was finished in 1965, to some standard at least. At least there was a road open

from Port aux Basques to St. John's. It would have been the early 'sixties that

that road was built. That is thirty-five years.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I say, The Evening Telegram

had a very interesting article, a little

article that says: `Don't dwink and

dwive, but it's okay to dwive a weck.' I don't know what that is supposed to

mean, but it is an interesting

article in The Evening Telegram . I found

it so good I can't bear to leave it, I can't bear to put it away.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you read that to me again.

MR. WINDSOR: I'm trying to figure - it says: `Don't dwink

and dwive, but it's okay to dwive a weck.' It sounds like Elmer Fudd, but the

caricature is not Elmer Fudd. Elmer Fudd is far more attractive than that. It

would be an insult to Elmer Fudd to say that this was Elmer Fudd. But it is an

interesting little cartoon.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We will deal with that a little later.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say again to the minister that we have

used the funds for highway construction wisely in this Province. Under

federal-provincial agreements the Province has indeed benefitted. I'm prepared

to say that the decision that was made in that agreement was a wise agreement.

Because within a year or two the rail service - well, it had been downgraded to

the point, but it would have been downgraded further to the point where nobody

was going to use it anyway and we would have lost it by attrition, simply, there

would have been no business, nothing to put on a train, and you would have lost

it. We would have had nothing for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I accept what the minister is saying.

So the wisdom of government at the time was take your money

and run now. This is a good deal, we can't keep the rail any longer. Modern

transportation technology, modern shipping methods, the demand for faster supply

of goods and services, transportation, particularly of fresh foods and

vegetables and things of that nature, and frozen product, demand, Mr. Speaker,

that the pressure be on the highway system.

The rail system, in Newfoundland at least, because of our

geography, because of the narrow gauge railway, we cannot compete. The service

is neither acceptable, nor is it any longer marketable, therefore the railway is

no longer viable. So we made an agreement which is now being seen to be, in my

view, Mr. Speaker, an extremely wise agreement. This Province has benefitted

greatly from it. But, now, let's compare that with what the minister has done

with the South Coast ferry, because the government has now sold or taken over,

responsible, in perpetuity, $55 million. Sold out in perpetuity for the sum of

$55 million and are now responsible for ferry service on the South Coast of the

Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister who is shooting off his

face down there has been quoted as saying that that money would be put in the

bank, will be put into a trust fund to ensure the ferry service. Now that

proves, Mr. Speaker, that he has no more knowledge about high level financing

then he does about what the Minister of Finance's intents were. The minister had

to, on Friday as quoted in The Evening Telegram say, `That is nonsense,

why would we ever do it?' And he still doesn't have sense enough to sit there

and be quiet, as embarrassed as he is, or at least he should be; if he had a

shred of decency in his body at all, he would be sitting there embarrassed that

the Minister of Finance has had to put him back into his place. Mr. Speaker,

what the minister has not done - and he asked me what I would do; I would do one

of two things. Because that ferry service is the lifeline for all of those

communities on the South Coast of this Province. Now, I suspect from what I am

hearing that the intent is, that government will change the ferry service on the

South Coast of the Province - and it frightens me to know who we have in charge

of this whole project. But the government will change the level of service on

the South Coast to provide transportation to the nearest road link, six days a

week instead of three. There are advantages in that, you will have ferry service

six days a week. That is a positive thing.

MR. BAKER: We may be able to provide some movement back

and forth.

MR. WINDSOR: You may be able to provide some movement

back and forth. Now, there is the real question, because that person in Burgeo

who is doing business with somebody in Grey River, if the Grey River ferry is

going to Port aux Basques and the Burgeo ferry - well Burgeo to have a road

link, or Ramea, say, is going to Burgeo and heading up towards Stephenville, in

order to do business between Ramea now and Grey River one has to go to Burgeo

and drive to Stephenville and back to Port aux Basques and take another ferry

back. The minister understands the concept I am talking about. Make it Gaultois

rather than Ramea - leave Gaultois and come back to Bay d'Espoir rather than

leaving Gaultois and going west to Grey River. In other words, what are the

personal inter-relationships? What are the community relationships? What is the

traditional relationship, from social points of view and business points of

view, of various communities along the coast? How many people are doing business

on the South Coast, people who travel down there to do business? How many of

them go down to Bay d'Espoir and travel the coast to Port aux Basques, perhaps

come back again or perhaps drive back from Port aux Basques?

Whereas now you

would have to go to all of these communities, make a little ferry service out,

come back again, drive to the next ferry and make another little ferry service

out - changes the whole way of life of the South Coast.

So that we will deal with in due course, I am sure, but these

are some of the concerns that the people of the South Coast, I am sure, are

feeling today. They are even more concerned that there is no commitment here of

the level of service, the $55 million is taken and is gone - no guarantee. What

is the guarantee that the government is prepared to give the people of the South

Coast that the ferry service will be at least as good, as safe and as efficient,

and at as reasonable a cost as it is today? There is no problem to provide a

ferry service, a luxury ferry service, if people are prepared to pay for it.

That is not the problem, but is this government prepared to commit to the people

of the South Coast that an equivalent ferry service at equivalent cost will be

maintained in perpetuity in return for this $55 million windfall that the

minister has trotted off to provide a surplus in his Budget?

MR. BAKER: I don't know what the nasty Tourism

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, you may rest assured, Mr. Speaker,

that in the not-too-distant future when this party takes back the government of

this Province, and when we sit on that side, then indeed we will have a Minister

of Transportation with a reasonable amount of intelligence who will make the

right recommendations to Cabinet and let Cabinet proceed with an program that is

in the best interest of the people of the South Coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and that will guarantee them transportation.

Now, there was another option, of course, perhaps not a

feasible option, but if the minister were taking that $55 million - he would

probably need far more than that, and if he were connecting all those

communities so that the need for the South Coast ferries would be eliminated,

then that would be a rational way of dealing with the problem, which is what we

did with the Roads for Rail Agreement. We have now provided a transportation

network in the Province, or we are getting very close to it, that basically

eliminated the need for rails. Now, if we could do that on the South Coast, that

would make some sense, that would relieve the responsibility from government and

the necessity of providing a ferry service, at least a ferry service as we know

it today, a passenger ferry service.

It would always be, perhaps, private enterprise providing

transportation of goods and services. Private enterprise could well do that if

there were a demand, if there were a market to move goods by water on the South

Coast of the Province. Private enterprise could move in and fill that gap. I

don't think the Province would necessarily have a responsibility unless there

were an absolute need that could not be filled economically by private

enterprise, but if there were a road link, Mr. Speaker, I think certainly the

responsibility would be greatly decreased. Government could be excused then for

taking this $55 million, not using it anywhere they want to, but if it were

earmarked, if it were dedicated and spent on providing road transportation to

these communities, then that would be a reasonable option.

There are two options that the minister has, but so far the

government has not given the people of the South Coast any reasonable assurance

that a level of service will be maintained in perpetuity at an equivalent cost

and equivalent efficiency. They may argue in fact that a lower cost and better

efficiency would be desirable, but certainly they can expect, Mr. Speaker, for a

government that sells out, such as this one has, a commitment from them of a

continued level of service at a reasonable cost on the South Coast of

Newfoundland.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is where some of our money comes from,

to give us this so-called surplus. Now, where does the bulk of it come from?

Well, $70 million comes from the sinking fund. Well, let's examine that. Is that

a wise use of this money? Now, the minister can argue that if we didn't take

money from the sinking fund and put it into current account, then we might have

to borrow that much.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Not if you are saying you have a $125

million surplus. You do not have a $125 million surplus. You are taking $70

million from a sinking fund. Now, Mr. Speaker, what is a sinking fund

established for? Obviously, it is there to retire a debt when it becomes due,

and this is surplus from those debts that require a sinking fund. Some

borrowings do not require them. Most borrowings do not require a sinking fund.

Only certain borrowings, because of their nature, require in the terms of

agreement that a sinking fund be established, similar to the sinking fund for

the building of three hospitals, so that the money is there at the end of the

term to pay off that debt. So, for various reasons, because of interest rates or

whatever, we have built up a surplus there, and that is to our advantage. So

what do we do with that $70 million surplus this year? The minister has chosen

to take it and make his current account look good - a one-shot deal. He is

fooling himself because he won't have that $70 million next year, so his current

account, in comparison, will not look nearly as good next year.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) I pointed out all of that.

MR. WINDSOR: The minister pointed out all of it.

MR. BAKER: I didn't try to hide it.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, but he shouldn't come out and say, in

his Budget Speech: We have been able to generate a $1.4 million surplus on

current and capital account.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: He did not. On paper it is there, but he is

just juggling the books, that's all, sliding from one page to the next.

So he has taken $70 million, and we are all concerned about

the $5 billion or $5.5 billion deficit, a debt that this Province has now

shouldered, that we have to pay back. We are all concerned about that. The

minister is concerned, and the government is concerned about that. They have

shown in previous statements and in past Budgets some concern about that and

say, `We have to turn the economy around. We have to get our financial house in

order.' I can hear the Premier, now, saying, `We have to have our financial

house in order' regardless of the pain that it might cause in the short term. It

is hard to argue that, and we support that with some moderation, with some

compassion for those who might suffer most from some of the cuts that we have

had over the last five or six years since this government came to power. There

has to be a balance of social conscience and fiscal responsibility here.

We may disagree to the level of cut and the level of fiscal

responsibility one should have, but overall, I don't think we disagree on the

general principle that we have to be fiscally responsible, and that we do have a

serious financial problem in this Province. If we are ever, though, to create a

strong economy, then we have to deal with the great deficit.

So, Mr. Speaker, instead of taking the $70 million surplus,

windfall, and saying: This was put here during hard times, during times when we

were putting restraint on the public sector and closing hospital beds and

schools and everything else -

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not advocating we spend it now?

MR. WINDSOR: I am not advocating we take it and spend it

- that's what the minister is doing, taking it and spending it. He put it into

current account, to make his current account look good.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, why doesn't the minister take the $70

million and pay off some of the debt that is coming due this year?

MR. BAKER: And then go off and borrow $70 million again?

MR. WINDSOR: The minister is borrowing $104 million this

year to roll over a debt that is retiring this year. He is borrowing $104

million simply to roll over that debt and put it back on the books again,

instead of paying it off. Why couldn't we pay off seventy -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: At least you are being honest - unless your

borrowing rate is less favourable, but that is effectively what he is doing. It

is effectively what you are doing, taking that $70 million instead of borrowing

another seventy.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, why doesn't the minister tell the

truth? Why don't you say: No, we don't have $125 million surplus; we have $70

million less because I have to borrow that $70 million to pay off debt that is

due this year. That is what it amounts to. That is cooking the books in the

worst order - clearly cooking the books.

MR. BAKER: You don't want a balanced budget, that's all.

MR. WINDSOR: I want a true balanced Budget. Anybody can

balance a Budget if they borrow more and put it in there and say: There, that's

borrowing; if they move it around from one to the other and say: There, it's

balanced -

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll get that next year.

MR. WINDSOR: We'll get that next year. We will get it

next year, alright; we will get it right between the two eyes next year, because

the minister has a $200 million problem to deal with next year, and he hasn't a

clue how he is going to deal with it - not a clue - let alone the $5.5 billion

deficit that this Budget does not address. It doesn't even consider it, no

effort, no attempt whatsoever to deal with our long-term debt in this Budget -

none whatsoever - and no indication that we will be in a position to deal with

it, absolutely none.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another windfall we have - we are not sure

it's a windfall per se - is the Offshore Revenue fund, $7 million. We are not

quite clear on what that is other than, there is money that has been held in the

Petroleum Directorate, I guess, under federal/provincial agreements, some

revenues that should have come back to the Province and we finally completed

some negotiations and got them back. Well, that is good, we are glad to hear

that we have gotten that $7 million, but again, it is a one-shot deal and then

the minister is talking about privatizing Holiday Inn and Newfoundland

Hardwoods.

Now, Holiday Inns, I am sure we can privatize it if the price

is right. Holiday Inn is a valuable asset in this Province, I wonder why, you

know; I guess it depends on the prices paid, because Holiday Inn have been

making money for this Province for the last number of years. We have actually

had a small return on that investment, not a great amount, a couple of million

dollars a year, I think?

MR. BAKER: It varies.

MR. WINDSOR: It varies, but it would be of that

magnitude, $1 million or $2 million a year, revenue from that investment, not a

bad investment, no reason to get rid of it unless you want to get a bunch of

money now, which the minister does, you see. We could leave that there and -

MR. BAKER: Why do we run hotels?

MR. WINDSOR: We don't run hotels, we have never run a

hotel.

MR. BAKER: Why do we own them?

MR. WINDSOR: We own them because nobody was prepared, I

say in defense of -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible), why we did then, why would we own

them now?

MR. WINDSOR: There's no need to own them now, there was

no need to own them then except that they would not have been there if we hadn't

built them. So the government, the Premier of the day, the former Premier

Smallwood, I give him full marks; one of the few decisions he made that was a

wise decision back in those days, and we wouldn't have the quality of

accommodation in these areas of the Province that Holiday Inn has provided for

so many years, had government not agreed, and there was a lot of money lost on

it; it was all cost plus projects, so the government's buddies of the day built

those buildings and made a fine dollar on it. They could have been built more

cheaply, nevertheless, the decision to do them I support, the way in which they

way were done left a lot to be desired. And why, do we indeed want to maintain

those buildings? Well, why do we want to sell them? They are not a cost to us,

they are providing us a small return, a small financial return so there is some

benefit in keeping them, but if the benefit is not as great as taking our equity

out - and it depends on how much the minister expects to get. Can the minister

tell us how much he expects to get for the sale of Holiday Inn?

MR. BAKER: I don't want to say.

MR. WINDSOR: Are we in negotiations now, can the minister

tell us? Are we negotiating with Atlific or are we inviting proposals?

MR. BAKER: We are going to invite proposals.

MR. WINDSOR: Proposals or tenders now? Let's get our

words clear because the court just told us that the government doesn't know the

difference between a tender and a proposal, so, are we talking about a tender or

a proposal call?

MR. BAKER: We'll get the best price we can.

MR. WINDSOR: We will get the best possible price we can.

Are we going to negotiate with some of our buddies as we did for the hospitals?

MR. BAKER: The highest price, (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The highest price.

MR. BAKER: If it is one of your buddies we will take it.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, we will; and how are we going to

determine the highest price, is it a public tender call? Is it the same as the

disposal of any other government asset, invite tenders for the purchase of this

property on the fair, open market? That's the question.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It is. That's what it will be. Well, we will

be watching that with interest. Will the minister tell us, where are we, I mean,

the minister says we are going to negotiate the best price, who are we

negotiating with, and what rights does Atlific have, having operated Holiday Inn

since the early 1960s, better than thirty years, Atlific has operated those

buildings? Hotel Holdings owned the buildings, Holiday Inn is simply a trade

name, Atlific are the operators, they are the company which operate Holiday Inn

in Atlantic Canada. Does the minister recognize that Atlific may indeed have

some rights in view of the service they have provided for thirty years? It will

be interesting to find out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Exactly, and Newfoundland Hardwoods is an

interesting one. There is not much left at the Donovan's - I don't think we own

anything now at Donovan's, in fact, Donovan's is all gone, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We still own the buildings?

AN HON. MEMBER: Got some real good bids on that.

MR. WINDSOR: I see. The real bid, of course, is for

Clarenville operation. The real bid is for the creosote operation at Clarenville

and the sale of creosote. Now, that is going to be interesting. Maybe if the two

ministers who are talking now would listen for a moment. Because this involves

the Minister of Naturals Resources, as well. I would just like to get their

attention for a moment. I know what they are dealing with is probably important,

as well, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology is going to wake him up here for me.

The sale of Newfoundland Hardwoods in Clarenville is

important from a petroleum management point of view, the sale of the asphalt,

because they have a monopoly. We could have sold that aspect of Hardwoods many

years ago. The problem is, it would give then a monopoly situation to one of the

petroleum companies. And who is the biggest buyer of asphalt? The Government of

Newfoundland, basically, unless the system has changed. We always bought the

liquid asphalt from Newfoundland Hardwoods and provided it to our highway

contractors, and I think that is the way it is still done. We buy it at a

reasonable price.

So there was a real advantage to government retaining the

ownership and distribution of liquid asphalt in this Province. Maybe the

minister would give me some detail on that when he speaks again. That will give

him some opportunity to research that a bit. I'm quite serious. I would really

like to know how the minister is proposing to deal with that monopoly situation.

I'm not concerned about the creosoting that is done for hardwood poles for

Newfoundland Light and Power and Newfoundland Hydro. That can be done by private

sector, and there are possibly other markets. But if we are going to give one

supplier or one oil company a monopoly on the supply of liquid asphalt in this

Province, we may find that we are going to pay considerably more for liquid

asphalt down the road.

The minister might consider that very carefully, as to

whether we indeed want to sell that component of Newfoundland Hardwoods, which

of itself, on a stand-alone basis, is a profitable operation. Because we are

then controlling the price of liquid asphalt to the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation. So that requires, Mr. Speaker, some very careful

thought and consideration.

MR. BAKER: That is being done right now. We called for

bids - they are being evaluated right now.

MR. WINDSOR: They are being evaluated. Well, I caution

the minister, before that is sold out to a private operator, how does he propose

to deal with that then? If he is proposing to sell it to whomever, how do we

protect ourselves against price increases in liquid asphalt?

It can be argued, I suppose, how do we protect ourselves now?

Newfoundland Hardwoods has to buy liquid asphalt on the open market, but at

least they can go to any number of suppliers and they can compete between

various petroleum companies and get the best possible price, anywhere in the

world market, for that matter. But if, for example, Ultramar were to come in and

buy Newfoundland Hardwoods and take control, well then Ultramar would have a

monopoly on the supply of liquid asphalt, not only to the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation, but to other contractors in this Province. Unless

something has changed in the last few years, to my knowledge all liquid asphalt

comes into this Province through Newfoundland Hardwoods at Clarenville. I don't

think that has changed, I'm not aware of it. I haven't been in the construction

industry for some time now, unfortunately. I would probably be a lot better off

if I were. But it has been twenty years since I was involved in the construction

industry. I don't think that has changed.

Mr. Speaker, so there is a $90 million or $95 million surplus

or windfall that the government has this year that it rolls into its current

account and says: We have a nice surplus. Now, there (inaudible) few new

revenues. The minister said: no new taxes, no tax increases.

MR. BAKER: Wonderful.

MR. WINDSOR: Wonderful. It is wonderful, Mr. Speaker. It

is wonderful if it were true. If only it were true that there are no tax

increases. When you tell Newfoundland Hydro that you are now going to charge

them a dividend of $20 million - this is on top of the $10 million guarantee

fee, or was that $10 million a year for three years, wasn't it? So it is a $30

million guarantee fee, and now a $20 million dividend - that's $50 million that

Newfoundland Hydro now has to fork out every year, over and above -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon? No. Ten million a year, $20 million

the second year, and $30 million the third year. Is that not right?

I think it escalated by $10 million a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: I don't think that's right. If I am wrong I

stand to be corrected and I will check that out again. It is only a matter of

going back to the Budget of three years ago and it will tell me what it says. I

think it was escalating by $10 million each year, phased in over three years, an

additional $10 million each year, and I feel fairly confident that I am right,

that it is $30 million a year by now, the guarantee fee. Whether it is $10 or

$30 million you add to that another $20 million dividend and you have a

substantial cost that Hydro has to bear. Now, what does Hydro do with it? They

produce electricity but they can't produce $30 million. They have to sell the

electricity to produce the $30 million.

Well, we know can't do much about the electricity that is

being sold to Quebec. The former Liberal government sold out our birthright in

Labrador and gave it away to Quebec for sixty-five years, the biggest scandal

this country has ever seen. So, where can Hydro get that $30 million, or $50

million, as the case may be? I believe it is $50 million, but even if it is $30,

it has to come from the ratepayers. It has to be passed along to Newfoundland

Light and Power because 85 per cent of the customers in this Province, I think,

are serviced through Newfoundland Light and Power, maybe more than that.

MR. TOBIN: `Baker' said this morning on Open Line

that the way to go now is to nationalize the other (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I would agree with that.

MR. TOBIN: I heard him.

MR. WINDSOR: I would agree with that. Did the minister

actually say that? Would the minister confirm that with a nod of his head? Did

the minister say that the way to go now is to nationalize Newfoundland Light and

Power?

MR. TOBIN: What did you say?

MR. BAKER: I can't remember.

MR. WINDSOR: The minister has another lapse of memory

like he had down in court.

I fear the minister may have early signs of Alzheimers or

other than that, selective amnesia, one or the other.

MR. BAKER: With the elimination of (inaudible) to

privatize but nationalize.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, that's it exactly, what he has just

said, and I agree with him. I agree with an

article that Mr. Abery had in The

Evening Telegram somewhere in the last few days. I have it here somewhere in

the midst of all of this. There it is. Mr. Abery, is very knowledgeable about

Hydro matters and the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. That is precisely

what Mr. Abery said, and he is quoted in The Evening telegram . He said:

Newfoundland Light and Power pays between $12 million and $15 million a year to

the Federal Government in federal corporate income taxes. Nationalize Light and

Power and they would not have to pay that.

They are now earning 13.5 per cent a year on equity, the

shareholders of Newfoundland Light and Power, and under a nationalized

Newfoundland Light and Power funds could be accessed, some debentures at 10 per

cent and some on Hydro's borrowing rate of 6 per cent, certainly far more

favourable than at 13.5 per cent. Mr. Abery predicts that it is good for $10

million a year. Then he says government is talking about the efficiencies that

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would have gained by being sold to Newfoundland

Light and Power worth $5 to $10 million. Well, the same is true in the reverse,

I assume. If there were $5 to $10 million in efficiencies of selling Hydro to

Newfoundland Light and Power, there is $5 to $10 million worth of efficiencies

in selling Newfoundland Light and Power to Hydro. When you add all that up, lo

and behold, the Province will gain $25 million a year in efficiencies, simply by

nationalizing Newfoundland Light and Power, $25 million that the Province could

take out by way of a dividend, if they chose to, or could leave in and allow

Hydro rates to go down by $25 million, either way. The same figure, Mr. Speaker,

as the Premier was saying - we sell Newfoundland Hydro and the Province will be

better off by $25 million a year. That was all-important last year, sell Hydro

and we will save $25 million a year in debt servicing and other things. Well,

now we can see from Mr. Abery's assessment, and I think the minister agrees,

that we can gain $25 million a year by nationalizing Newfoundland Light and

Power. We still have our resources, we still have Hydro, and we still have

control of development and distribution of hydroelectric energy in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: The best of both worlds and, better still,

we don't have 13.5 per cent interest being paid out to outside investors in

Newfoundland Light and Power. We had to borrow money, obviously, but there will

be opportunities to keep some of that in the Province, far more than there is

through Newfoundland Light and Power.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to save $25 million,

there is a way to do it far better than selling out our natural resources, which

this government wanted to do. And thank God for the people of Newfoundland and

for the Opposition, we put up such a fight that it was finally stopped, and the

government has to be saying now: Are we ever lucky that we didn't bull ahead

with that, that we didn't proceed with it. We didn't know that the Federal

Government was going to cancel the PUITTA clause, $40 million a year that was

going to be given to New Hydro to make them viable. Had they gone ahead, we

would have a serious problem now, wouldn't we?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) part of your policy.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

MR. BAKER: Part of your policy.

MR. WINDSOR: Part of our policy.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) policy.

MR. WINDSOR: No, part of my policy. The party has not

taken the position on it yet. I speak only for myself now, but I am getting a

response from my colleagues here that I suspect it is a good policy. It makes

sense, and our party's policy is to do whatever makes financial sense as long as

it is in the best interest of the people of this Province, and the Province

itself.

What this government proposed to do with Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro was not in the best interest of either one, not in the best

interest of the government, and not in the best interest of the people of the

Province. So thank God, then, they finally came to their senses because of the

tremendous pressure that was mounted by the people of this Province. Well, they

haven't come to their senses, but they had the decency, at least, to back down

in the face of huge political pressure. It proves that the political system can

indeed work, but it takes a lot of work sometimes for this particular government

to get them to see straight.

So there is your so-called deficit, Mr. Speaker. We have gone

from $125 million surplus basically to breaking even. When you take out the

Hydro dividends, and you take out the privatization of Newfoundland Hardwoods

and Holiday Inn, and you take off the $7 million from the Offshore Revenue fund,

$20 million additional this year from the purchase of the ferry service on the

South Coast, and $50 million from the sinking fund, there, you add to that $10

million in cuts of social assistance, $2.5 million from Memorial University, and

$5 million worth of lay-offs, approximately, maybe $10 million, and you have

your surplus - not a surplus at all. It is a charade; that is all it is. There

is indeed no surplus generated in this Province.

The minister says no new taxes or tax increases. What would a

cut of $2.5 million to Memorial University represent - Memorial University and

the other post-secondary institutions - if it is not a new tax? Where is it

going to come from? Are we going to close part of the university? Are we going

to admit fewer students? The minister says: No, we are not going to change the

access to the university of young people of this Province.

So how is the university going to absorb this cost? There are

very few options. One option, obviously, is to increase fees to students, and

other charges. How long will it be before we see that? Can the minister assure

us there will be no increase in fees to university students? He tries to give us

some comfort and say: There will be no increased cost or burden on university

students; there will be no restriction of access to education. Words are fine,

Mr. Speaker, but how can he back that up?

I have not heard the president of the University make any

such statement and we all know that the minister has no control over the

president of the University. Nobody has control over the president of the

University, thanks to this government. Thanks to the fact that they have now put

the president of the University in a position of enjoying a freedom that nobody

else in this Province enjoys - answers to no one and cannot be called before the

Public Accounts Committee. He refused to come before the Public Accounts

Committee and in response to that what did the government do? Change the act.

Every one of the ministers sitting opposite can be called before the Public

Accounts Committee but not the president of the university. The only person in

this Province that cannot be called before the Public Accounts Committee is the

president of the university.

Now what does that say to the University, that they enjoy

such a special privileged position in the society of this Province? What does

that tell them? What does it tell the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker? It is

- $255 million, I believe it is off the top of my head, in grants that goes to

Memorial University. Do they answer to this House of Assembly? They don't even

answer to the Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Speaker. To whom are they

accountable?.... Oh, we are accountable to our Board of Regents and our Board of

Governors. They are offended at the suggestion that they should come before this

House, as the people's representatives, and account for $255 million that is

being spent. The Minister of Education is accountable.

I can see the former Minister of Justice, or whoever he is

now, indicating - interesting sidelight, Mr. Speaker, we have a new item in the

Budget, it is called; `Salaries and Expenses for the Government House Leader.'

It was never in the Budget before. Never in the Budget -

MR. ROBERTS: I would be delighted if it was up there now

but it is nice to get a salary (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Nice to get a salary? I wish the minister

was earning it, Mr. Speaker. What does he do?

MR. ROBERTS: That is a good question.

MR. WINDSOR: We have an item in here now of $150,000, I

think, for the operation of the office of the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I couldn't find it, I am glad the hon.

gentleman did.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, it is there. Yes, it is there in the

Budget since the minister was forced to resign as the Minister of Justice and

Attorney General.

MR. ROBERTS: I wasn't forced to resign (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, he says he was not forced to resign.

He did it before he could be forced to resign. He was wise enough to get out of

there quickly. I don't know how long this thing is going to go on. Perhaps we

could ask the member now when we expect we might get some resolution of that

whole sordid affair.

MR. ROBERTS: I was hoping sooner rather than later.

MR. WINDSOR: When the courts might deal with it. I

realize the minister is not in control of it.

MR. ROBERTS: There were no charges laid (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, no charges laid. A strange set of

circumstances. Why would it take so long to lay charges I wonder? Good question,

I guess perhaps we should research that a little bit and find out what has

happened with that affair with pharmaceutical supplies. How come the police have

not yet completed their investigation, if they have not? When will indeed

charges be laid or a statement made that no charges will be laid if such is the

case? It would be interesting to find out just how that matter will be disposed

of, Mr. Speaker. But at any rate, the minister who no longer has a portfolio, no

longer has any major ministerial responsibilities or at least he is not supposed

to, now has a new sub-head in the Budget of $150,000 for salaries and costs

associated with the office of Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Little enough I'd say.

MR. WINDSOR: Little enough. I say to the minister - he

doesn't know where it is - it is here in the Executive Council -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The minister should have a look at page 15

of the Budget, of the estimates,

Section 2.2.02, Government House Leader:

appropriations provide for administrative support to the Government House Leader

as minister responsible for government's legislative agenda.

MR. ROBERTS: Sounds good to me.

MR. WINDSOR: Onerous responsibility, Mr. Speaker, ever

since the House of Assembly has been, the office has been fulfilled by one of

the ministers. It is hardly a separate responsibility that requires a separate

department and a separate Budget, Mr. Speaker.

But anyway, we have it this year and I will say though, there

was one case many years ago when the Minister of Forestry at the time, during

the debate on the Estimates -

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, Ed. Maynard.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Maynard, his salary was reduced to

$1.00. I believe the hon. gentleman opposite, the Government House Leader was in

the House at the time -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - and his salary was reduced to $1.00 by way

of a motion during the Estimates, Mr. Speaker, and I guess the government of the

day was caught short-handed and the motion was approved, and I think then we

appointed him President of Treasury Board and created a salary for President of

Treasury Board or President of the Executive -

MR. ROBERTS: I did see when I looked at the Estimates

salary for the President of Treasury Board (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Oh there is one there. There always was

because there has often been a separate Minister of Finance and a separate

President of Treasury Board but there is only one allocation there now I think.

It is there but there is no amount of money in it. Anyway that's an interesting

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well it is there, $150,000 to see that the

poor, hon. gentleman doesn't have to go to the welfare rolls and it is a good

thing he doesn't because there is less money available for those in need in the

Social Services department this year, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, the Minister of

Finance is gone, but there is where his so-called surplus arises, one-time

windfalls that will not be repeated and some additional tax increases that the

minister tries to indicate there were no increase in taxes in the Budget, but

next year, Mr. Speaker, where is he going to find this $90 million windfall that

he had this year, and where is he going to find the $110 million that he has

next year? That is $200 million in total that the minister will have to make up

next year. Now that is in addition to the problems of the deficit on the pension

fund and the $5.5 billion deficit that this Province is carrying now that is

debt, neither of which he has addressed at all in his Budget.

Mr. Speaker, the way to deal obviously, with the financial

problems that the Province, the government is faced with, that all the people of

the Province are faced with, is to strengthen the economy. Now we could look at

the economic performance for this year and the projections for next year and

that gives us some interesting insight, a real gross domestic product in this

Province grew last year by 3.4 per cent, which in itself looks a little higher

than I would have expected it to be, but it also tells us that the real gross

domestic product in Canada grew by 4.5 per cent, so again, we have slipped

behind in national average.

Personal income for next year is estimated to increase by 2.5

per cent. Where is that coming from, Mr. Speaker, when we know that there is

nothing going to change in the fishing industry; some increase in activity in

Hibernia but certainly the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker, is not going to

change. Personal income this year grew by only 1.5 per cent, only 1.5 per cent,

but the minister is predicting, and these figures are reflected in his estimates

of revenues here in personal income tax and things of that nature that I will

deal with in due course. All of these estimates are based on personal income

expected to increase by 2.5 per cent.

Retail sales are forecast to grow by 3.2 per cent. Where are

we going to find all of the disposable incomes, Mr. Speaker, in this Province,

to increase retail sales by 3.2 per cent? We are expecting some increase in the

forest industry and the mining industry we hope, I will guarantee you that.

Hibernia has already said employment will peak at 5,800 person years this year,

which is good and tourism is expected to grow, but overall, in spite of some of

these positive variances and some of the negative variances, the minister is

predicting the unemployment rate will still be at 20.2 per cent, just down .2

per cent from this year, which averaged at 20.4, so if unemployment is not going

to decrease, how can personal income, how can retail sales and all of these

other factors increase as markedly as the minister is predicting, when we

haven't seen it in the last several years, how can the minister predict with any

degree of confidence that the economy is going to perform that well this year?

Twenty point two per cent, Mr. Speaker, compared to the

average rate in Canada of 10.4 per cent, which is down almost a full percentage

point. Yet we are still double the national average of the unemployment rate.

Hardly acceptable, hardly something that the minister and the government should

be part of. Hardly something we should be proud of.

There is a number of issues that I wanted to deal with. A lot

of them have been dealt with. A lot of the items in the Budget will be dealt

with. I don't propose to take hours and hours, I say to my friends opposite,

going through the Estimates, as I've done in previous years, dealing with

individual small items in the Estimates. I am going to leave that for the

Estimates debates and Committee, let my colleagues who are critics for various

departments deal with their own departments and have comments on what is taking

place. I want to stick to the larger generalized topics.

MR. EFFORD: I guarantee you (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Maybe I should send a copy of this over to

the Member for Port de Grave. Maybe he would like to see this little cartoon.

Has the member a copy of this cartoon? Saying: Don't dwink and dwive, but it's

okay to dwive a weck. There it is. I could send him over a copy, I suppose, if

he would like to have a copy of that.

MR. EFFORD: I have one. I have the original.

MR. WINDSOR: You have the original? I don't know who it

is who is supposed to be there.

MR. EFFORD: I am the original.

MR. WINDSOR: You are the original? Is the minister saying

that this is a caricature of him?

MR. EFFORD: There is nothing wrong with that.

MR. WINDSOR: I never would have suggested it. I wouldn't

have insulted the minister, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the title on it? (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: There is no title on it. If the minister is

so informed of that, perhaps he would like to tell us, is he so aware of the

impact that his .05 per cent legislation has had on the hospitality industry in

this Province? Is the minister aware that we have lost hundreds of jobs in the

hospitality industry? Is the minister aware that hundreds of lounges and motels

that operate and depend for a small portion of their revenues at least on liquor

sales that are no longer there because of the legislation, is the minister aware

of that, Mr. Speaker? Is the government proposing to reconsider that piece of

legislation? Is it aware that it was ill-advised?

They refused to listen to us when we gave them the

information that was provided by the hospitality industry that showed very

clearly that lowering the tolerance level from .08 per cent to .05 per cent

would have such a negative impact upon the hospitality industry, and that in

fact it has done absolutely nothing to protect the travelling public. Statistics

show very clearly that the level of risk for those who are at .05 per cent is

not significantly better than those at .08 per cent. That those who have been

involved in accidents, particularly fatal accidents in this Province, all of

them, 100 per cent of them, at or above the .15 level per cent. Not only above

.08 per cent, but well above .15 per cent. That they are habitual drinking

drivers.

Those are the people who the minister should be targeting.

Those are the ones he should be dealing with. Not the responsible drivers, I

say. The responsible driver who stops in for a beer on his way home, for a happy

hour in many of the motels and lounges in this Province. Business in those

facilities has decreased markedly.

I spoke with one operator who told me that he traditionally

had anywhere from fifteen to twenty or twenty-five persons in his bar every day

from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., dropped in for a beer or two on the way home -

perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is one of them - stopped

in on the way home for a beer or two. Now, instead of anywhere from fifteen to

twenty-five he might have three or four. Now that is not going to bankrupt that

particular business, but it sure takes the top off it. It sure take the cream

off it; and his Friday night business that was always good for sixty and seventy

people in his lounge, largely based on the video machines that are feeding money

into the government hand-over-fist - the government has done very well by their

video lottery machines, very, very well, far better than they had ever expected

when the legislation was changed to permit them - now, instead of fifty to sixty

people in there on a Friday night he may have a dozen, maybe twenty. So the

liquor sales are down, but I suspect, at least in that establishment, so are the

lottery revenues, so the video lottery machine revenues have to be going down

there as well. So that ill-advised change to the tolerance levels for driving

has had a tremendous impact there.

It has had a tremendous impact on those who will attend

functions in the evening. It is all very well to say: Well, you shouldn't be

driving - and neither should you - certainly if you are impaired you shouldn't

be driving, but practice has not shown - statistics do not show - that a person

with an alcohol level between .05 and .08 is intoxicated, or is impaired, or is

in any way unable to drive. I am not advocating drinking and driving, far from

it, but .08 is a legal limit in Newfoundland; it is a legal level in Canada,

under federal law, but we have now imposed a second law that imposes a second

legal level, and it is not only, I say to hon. members, for people who are

driving on our highways.

I had a friend of mine who, three weeks ago, was driving a

snowmobile, and an RCMP officer apprehended him on a snowmobile - the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology will be interested in this; the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation certainly should be interested - he was stopped

by that RCMP officer and asked to take the test. He was .06, had been out doing

some ice fishing, had a toddy or two on the ice to keep him warm - who amongst

us doesn't do it, if you go out on a snow machine to go ice fishing - had a

toddy or two, a cup of tea, while ice fishing, and he was stopped by an RCMP

officer on a snow machine, and he lost his driver's licence for twenty-four

hours. Justice is well served, I am sure. He was a great threat on his snow

machine, fifty miles back in the woods, not even a danger to himself.

We have many cases where persons operating snowmobiles are

impaired and have had serious accidents, and they can, indeed, have very serious

ones. We have had people who have lost their lives. We have had a couple this

year who have lost their lives, very likely because of extremely high alcohol

levels while operating snow machines and, as an experienced snow machine

operator, I can tell you it is not a time to be drinking heavily - very, very

dangerous, not only from a point of view of operating a machine but, I think,

from a hypothermal point of view, because you generate false heat. If you stop,

then, if your machine breaks down, let me tell you, hypothermia sets in much

more quickly than it would normally if you had not been consuming high levels of

alcohol. So, Mr. Speaker, there is one area that the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation has, I think, served us wrong.

The second area was the cancellation of the requirement for

vehicle inspections. Now, if you want to talk about job losses, here is an area

where we have lost literally hundreds of jobs, and hundreds of businesses across

this Province, in rural Newfoundland, are closing. Now, it is not only the loss

of the revenue from the inspection itself, but from the repairs that are

undertaken as a result of it. As a result we now have thousands of vehicles

driving on the Province's highways which are not safe. There is a little

characterization of the minister: But it is okay to dwive a weck. It is not

funny at all.

In addition to which we now have the irritation of being

stopped for vehicle safety checks on the side of the highway. Twenty minutes, a

half an hour perhaps, held up having a vehicle check. I was told the story the

other day of a person who left here to drive to Argentia. As he turned onto the

Argentia access road there was a checkpoint. They checked his vehicle out. He

went to Argentia and as he came back they stopped him again. Wanted to check him

out again. He had only driven to Argentia and back. They were going to check him

again. I think after awhile he talked his way out of it. He said: Look, I was

here an hour and half ago. They finally agreed to let him carry on. Surely there

needs to be some system to deal with that.

Nevertheless, if you are on a schedule, as we all are - it is

a busy world we live in. We are not all out just for a casual drive down the

highway. We are generally, by far the majority of people who are driving, on a

schedule to get from point A to point B. A half an hour delay on the side of a

highway is something that can seriously disrupt your

schedule for the day.

One would also have to ask the question: Just how adequate

are the safety checks on the side of the highway? Unless they have a portable

hydraulic jack system and they jack up a vehicle, pull off a couple of wheels

and check some of the brake drums, check the wheel bearings, see if the tire rod

ends and the ball joints are in good shape. What training do these people have?

Are they qualified mechanics that the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation has now hired on to do these safety checks? I think not. They are

safety inspection officers, but I doubt if they are qualified mechanics,

qualified to judge whether that vehicle is safe. They are not doing that. Do

your headlights work, windshield wipers work, tail-lights work, indicator lights

work, does your handbrake work, and did you have your seat belts on? That is all

they are checking. Cars are lined up on the side of the highway while somebody

is checking that. Have you a windshield broken? Maybe. Superficial things are

what are being checked.

Most of us are responsible enough to want to maintain our

vehicles in a condition where we are going to check those things and have those

repaired ourselves. It is what is under the vehicle. Even as a responsible

driver we may not know that there is a potential hazard underneath that vehicle.

An exhaust system that is leaking, for example. We don't often think that is so

serious, but it can well be. Many people have been overcome by the fumes from an

exhaust system getting into the vehicle while they are driving.

So not only is it a nuisance, not only is the inspection an

inadequate inspection, really accomplishing nothing, the fact is that most

vehicles are not being inspected. I've seen vehicles driving on the highways of

this Province in the last month that have no business being outside of a junk

yard. I've had numerous cases quoted to me of people who had vehicles that were

turned down last year and the year before, that have been sitting in the yard

somewhere, and now, no problem. Go on out and drive down the highway. No

inspection is required.

I say again, even the responsible driver needs from time to

time to have an inspection which says: Here is your problem. We all tend to

procrastinate sometimes. We might know we have some sort of a small problem with

the vehicle. It could be too late when we finally get around to having it

checked, but at least once a year we were caused, we were forced, to have an

adequate vehicle safety inspection done.

These are the sorts of concerns that we have around the

Province. It is not only the concern for safety, but the literally hundreds of

jobs and the hundreds of businesses that have been impacted by that decision.

These are businesses again in many parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I

am sure every member opposite represents some people who have experienced these

types of problems, have come across that in their own districts.

Insurance, is an interesting one, Mr. Speaker, that has been

a big topic in this Province. Insurance, automobile insurance, home insurance, a

major problem with the Hyland Insurance bankruptcy that affected thousands of

people in this Province, millions of dollars were lost as a result of that.

Government has not yet fully answered, Mr. Speaker, for what happened with

Hyland Insurance; how was that allowed to take place? Why did we not have closer

control on what is taking place? Government has a responsibility to protect the

consumer here, a responsibility to ensure that companies doing business in this

Province, selling insurance, selling trusts, anything of that nature, are bona

fide companies with adequate financial security to support the debt and the

responsibilities that they are accepting, the liabilities that they are building

up by selling insurance or accepting trusts.

Caribou Investment and Loan is another example, Mr. Speaker,

and in due course, hopefully, we will find out how could that company be allowed

to continue for an extended period of time without even a license; their license

had expired, had not been renewed. Government has an obligation, Mr. Speaker,

when there are any danger signs whatsoever to ensure that these companies are

operating wisely and that they have adequate financial security to meet the

obligations they are accepting. In the case of Caribou Investment and Loan, the

information we have received and as far as we know, they extended beyond their

legislated limits, the level of responsibility they were able to accept.

Government, Mr. Speaker, should have been there to protect consumers from those

types of happenings. There are two examples.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have had numerous complaints from people

about the cost of insurance today. The cost of automobile insurance has

skyrocketed. Now a lot of that is due to abuse of the system. The system has

quite often been abused by those who purchase insurance and make false claims,

make claims in excess of what they are entitled to, all kinds of games and

tricks are being played and we think it is okay. People think it is alright they

can get paid from an insurance company, they can get a few extra dollars, they

don't realize where that insurance company gets the money; they get it from you

and me, from everybody who purchases insurance. They obviously are in the

business to make some money but the spread the risk, that's what insurance is

all about.

You and I purchase insurance knowing that some people will

claim on that insurance, most of us hopefully will never have to claim on

insurance if we don't get involved in an accident so the risk is spread but

lately, Mr. Speaker, the cost of insurance has skyrocketed, absolutely

abhorrent, the cost for insurance. Surely, it can't be only because of the

increased risk. I mean, I don't think our claims have increased that much, I

really don't believe that they have, so, what control do we have on insurance

companies? Is there any collaboration between insurance companies in setting

rates, and what controls do we have on them to ensure that these rates are not

out of line, that the insurance companies are making a reasonable return on

investment, but I can also go further and say that insurance companies now are

being greatly threatened by banks, because insurance companies can only accept

these liabilities if they have a fairly high level of investment to back that.

Banks now are competing with insurance companies for

investment funds, RRSPs are a prime example then; banks are out competing and

offering premiums to transfer your RRSP investments from insurance companies to

the banks. I guess we could say it's a free, competitive world, but the

insurance companies can't make the types of loans the banks can make, so I guess

we are moving very quickly toward a system whereby banks and insurance companies

are of one.

We have seen the trust companies and the banks all combined

now. They are all doing business as one. It won't be long, I guess, before

insurance companies are attached to each one of the banks so that all of your

financial requirements are controlled by these major institutions.

What control do we have? I don't know which minister is

responsible - the Minister of Justice, probably - for insurance companies, for

controlling the way in which insurance companies act, and the kind of protection

that is provided by policies; and are, indeed, the consumers getting the kind of

protection they are paying for?

I had a case recently where the company notified me that they

were not going to renew my policy. This is an interesting little tale. The

company had notified me they weren't going to renew my insurance policy because

of claims history.

MR. ROBERTS: Car insurance?

MR. WINDSOR: Automobile insurance - weren't going to

renew my policy because of claims history, and with two vehicles on this

particular policy. On one vehicle our daughter had an accident, an unfortunate

accident, at a traffic intersection, early morning at rush hour, but a clear

accident, one of those that happen quite frequently in and around cities, not

driving dangerously, not driving fast, not under any influence of alcohol or

anything else, but had an accident at a traffic light and damaged the vehicle, a

legitimate accident - unfortunate - but a claim was put in, obviously, and

fairly expensive. I think it was probably a total cost, the two vehicles, of

around $10,000 - not an expensive claim by today's standards, but there it was.

We had a second claim on that same vehicle, or the one that

replaced it, because the vehicle she was driving was actually written off so we

replaced it with another vehicle, and we had another small claim under the

comprehensive section. Some person, unknown, dragged a key, or a nail, or some

sharp object, across the bonnet of the car, scratched the bonnet of the car, and

under comprehensive the bonnet was painted. The cost was $257 under

comprehensive. Now I was always under the impression that claims under the

comprehensive

section of insurance don't impact on your insurability at all.

MR. ROBERTS: Ha!

MR. WINDSOR: Ha! is right.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman learned (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman lived and learned.

Now, we had a third claim, not on that same vehicle. We had

two claims on that -

MR. ROBERTS: The same policy, though.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: The same policy?

MR. WINDSOR: The same policy, two vehicles on it,

encouraged to combine the two - you get a 10 per cent discount because you

combine the two - so you figure, well, we have two policies, one on this car and

one on that car. So we had two claims on the first one, one a major one, one of

those things that hopefully happens once every fifty years. The second claim was

a comprehensive one. Somebody downtown one night scratched a key across the

bonnet, hardly would classify us as a risk.

Now the third claim was on the other vehicle, my vehicle. I

have been driving now thirty years, thirty-five years, I suppose - well,

thirty-three years, I guess - and never claimed a cent on any insurance policy,

never had an accident for which I was at fault. I have had a couple of minor

incidents that somebody else was at fault and had to pay damages, but I have

never been liable for any accident whatsoever in my thirty-three years of

driving, and I still haven't been. The third claim arose in December when we had

a major power outage in the city, and I was without power, in fact, for seven

days. During the course of that I transported a kerosene heater from my

brother's house to my house and, in the course of transporting it, some kerosene

leaked from the tank in the heater onto the seats of the car, and it smelled

like kerosene, which is very, very difficult to get out. The next day I had it

steam cleaned, at my own expense, to see if that would do it.

They said, we will do it for you - I paid them I think

seventy-five dollars to have it steam cleaned and it helped a little bit but

they said, you will never get it out. You have to have the carpets and the

coverings of your seats changed. You have to have new foam cushions put in the

seats and the covers changed. Perhaps cleaning the covers without the foam you

might get it out but the carpet certainly will have to be changed. They said:

your insurance will cover that. I said very well, another comprehensive claim or

in my view, the first claim, comprehensive or anything else on my vehicle in

thirty-three years. So I claimed it, no problem, no hesitation. The insurance

adjusters authorized it but it still has not been done. I have not been able to

get the carpets or anything for a particular vehicle that I have but they are

supposed to be on order. They were ordered at one time and the company that was

going to do it have gone into receivership I am told and so I still haven't got

the carpets or the seats done. So I still have the smell of kerosene in it, that

is since December.

Anyway I get this notification from the insurance company

that when my policy comes due, which it did three weeks ago or a month ago, they

will not be renewing. I thought this was a mistake so I called a local broker,

discussed it with the local broker and said you are making a mistake here. First

of all this is a claim of less than $1,000 or around $1,000, a comprehensive

claim because I spilled some kerosene. I am hardly a dangerous driver or a great

risk. The other one was where somebody scratched a key across the bonnet, it

cost $200 to have it painted. The first one, a legitimate accident, will cost

you some dollars. That is what I bought insurance for, that is what I have been

paying insurance for, for thirty years. For these two vehicles I think I was

paying $2,400 or up to $3,000 I think for these two vehicles in insurance and

now they told me they were going to cancel it. So I called the broker, I don't

understand it. So I finally got to the regional office in Halifax and talked to

a lady who I think was responsible for making the decision. She could be

replaced with a computer because she does not use her head the way God gave it

to her.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did she say?

MR. WINDSOR: She said: Well this is our policy. You have

three claims, the total risk is greater then we are getting out of you so we are

going to cancel your policy. I said: Well what the heck do I have insurance for?

I have insurance in case I have an accident. In my view I had one accident. The

other two were minor comprehensive claims that don't indicate in any way -

neither did the first one - did not indicate any dangerous driving - coming

through a traffic intersection, turned the wrong time, bang, we have two

meetings of minds, an unfortunate act. That is why I buy insurance, to protect

me from that but the minute I get a claim, now you are going to cancel my

insurance? Anyway I had this argument with her and got nowhere. So I called the

president of the company, Mr. Henry Rodriguez in Toronto, Continental Insurance

of Canada Limited, Henry Rodriguez, and I spoke to him I would say for

forty-five minutes or an hour and I got the same kind of garbage from Henry

Rodriguez as I got from his office in Halifax. The same kind of garbage.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't change the decision?

MR. WINDSOR: He did not change the decision, no. His

decision was that I have to support the people who work fo