April 2,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 18

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before going on to the routine business, on behalf of hon.

members I would like to welcome to the galleries today the following groups of

students: first of all, fifty-three students from Fatima High School, St. Mary's

- The Capes, with their teachers, Mr. Gordon Pike, Mrs. Patsy Dohey, Mr. Hubert

McGrath and Mr. Melvin Critch; also, forty students from Holy Cross School

Complex, Eastport, in the Terra Nova District, accompanied by their teachers,

Mr. Frank Finlayson and Mr. Robert Hiscock; sixty-three students from Valmont

Academy, King's Point, in Green Bay District, accompanied by five teachers and

three parents; and, finally, four students from H. L. Strong Academy, Little Bay

Islands, in the Green Bay District, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Wayne

Rogers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister

received a letter yesterday, hand-delivered to him just outside the House, by

the entire executive of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. Since we all saw

the exchange, I wonder if the minister would tell the House what was in the

letter?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, yes, I did receive a letter, and

I was asked to deliver the letter to my colleagues in government. I have done

that. The letter expressed the NTA's dissatisfaction with the decisions that the

government made with respect to the wage freeze and the negotiations.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister tell us if the letter was a friendly one? We

all saw the executive members refused to shake the minister's hand, and we know

how he loves to shake hands. I wonder if he will tell us if the contents of the

letter were as cold as the rejected handshake?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be well

aware of what it is to be on the wrong side of the NTA. I remember years ago

when there weren't any handshakes for the hon. member.

I got the feeling that the NTA were opposed to some of the

government's actions. I do not consider it unfriendly in the sense of a personal

attack. We understand the teachers' position on this, and I believe most

teachers understand the government's position today in these very difficult

times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations, an individual who will confirm that the NTA

never refused to shake my hand. The minister has a copy of the letter and, as a

former President of the NTA he probably received his own letter, anyway. I ask

the minister, what does he intend to do to address some of the concerns raised

by the NTA in that letter?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was no letter

sent to me directly by the NTA. The Minister of Education, as he has indicated,

circulated a copy of the letter to all members of government and there is no

role for me to play at this point in time. The NTA, as I understand it, are

dealing with the President of Treasury Board and will deal with the Minister of

Education. In their capacity, they don't need any help from anybody like myself

or the member opposite in pleading their case. They will do that just fine

themselves and they will do it through the proper channels.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, the contents of the letter mainly

dealt with labour issues. So I ask the minister, does he support using

legislation to break collective agreements and destroy collective bargaining? He

supported it last year. Will he support it again this year? Will he again tell

the teachers of the Province that their contract is not worth the paper it is

written on?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the time goes on

and we debate the full contents of the Budget I will have no hesitation

whatsoever in explaining to the House of Assembly and the people of Newfoundland

generally and my own constituents in the District of Exploits why I participated

in and support the actions of the government taken in this Budget.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Health. I want to ask the minister about a statement in the

Budget supplementary expenditures, the details. It says: 'All patients will be

required to pay the first $500 on their travel costs, as well as 50 per cent of

the cost thereafter. They will pay $1 up to $500; they will pay that portion of

the travel cost and 50 per cent of the cost thereafter, effective yesterday,

April 1, 1992. I ask him, Who now has to pay, and what category of patients will

have to pay this exorbitant fee?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is a program in the

Department of Health which assists patients who have to travel outside of the

immediate area where they live to receive medical treatment. Up until this

particular Budget year, the program applied to practically everyone who spent

more than $500. The first $500 they pay themselves, a certain group did, and

beyond $500 they paid half the expenses themselves.

Now, Mr. Speaker, prior to this Budget, certain people were

exempt. People receiving various transplants were exempt. If a person had to go

to Ontario for a transplant, the whole bill was paid. This will now be changed

so that transplant recipients will be treated exactly the same as other people

who require the care outside of where they live.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main, on a

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Let me correct the minister: transplants used

to be 100 per cent paid.

MR. DECKER: That is what I said.

MR. DOYLE: I didn't think that was what you said. Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. I spoke with an ambulance operator

today and he told me that a trip from Port aux Basques to St. John's now costs

anywhere between $1000 to $1,100, I believe. Before today, patients paid a basic

fee of $50 or $75, whatever it was. Does that change now, in effect, mean that

any patient, for instance, transported from Port aux Basques will now have to

pay the first $500 and half the remaining cost which will be $800, for instance,

whereas before he paid $50 to $75. Would the minister confirm that?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the hon.

member is coming from. He is talking about two totally different issues. The

ambulance program has not been touched. Whether the actual cost of moving a

person from the Northern Peninsula to St. John's is $1.00 or $1 million, the

patient still pays the $75 or $80, whatever the fee is. This is a totally

different program, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member should try to get his act

together and at least know what he is talking about. They are two totally

different programs.

MR. DOYLE: Maybe the minister, then, could explain, Why

does the Budget say 'all patients'? It doesn't say some, one, two, ten, or

twenty, it says 'all' patients will be required to pay the first $500 of their

travel costs, as well as 50 per cent of the cost thereafter, effective April 1,

1992. That is what I am asking him to explain. It is a simple question. Why do

all patients have to pay it? If the minister is saying only some have to pay it

why is he saying all?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the hon. member

were to go through the Budget, he would find the word 'all'. It probably turns

up in about 500 places in the Budget, and in different places it is in a

different context. The context in which it is mentioned here refers to a

specific program where the government used to pay the full shot for people who

were receiving transplants, and after $500 would reimburse a portion of that

money, so that is the context in which all this is explained here. There are no

exceptions to that particular program now. A person who has to go outside the

Province for a transplant will now be required to pay the first $500.

Now when that program was first brought in a transplant was

almost an unique operation; it was so unusual to have a transplant that

government felt at the time that it was necessary to pay the whole shot. But

today kidney transplants and liver transplants have become just as common as

cardiac surgery, so it is felt that we have to treat all our people fairly and

to make the program apply to everybody. Everybody who takes advantage of that

program now will be treated equally, whether you spend $500 to have heart

surgery or whether you spend $500 to have a kidney transplant, you are treated

the same and, Mr. Speaker, that is only in keeping with the way we treat our

people and in everything else we do.

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

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

My question is to the Minister responsible for Mines and

Energy. Yesterday, one of Quebec's daily French newspapers, La Presse, reported

that negotiations had broken off between Newfoundland and Quebec Hydro on the

development of the Lower Churchill. I wonder if the minister could tell us if

this story is true. Have the negotiations been broken off?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Not to the best of my knowledge, Mr.

Speaker. I think something has been lost in the translation here. As he said, he

is referring to a French newspaper. The translation that I have in front of me

says that: a representative of Hydro Quebec said that talks have been frozen for

three weeks. Well, the last meeting was March 3, and there has not been a

meeting since March 3 and we are waiting. I guess Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro is now waiting for the Hydro Quebec negotiating team to complete its

analyses of the proposals put on the table at that time and in due course there

will be another meeting.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe I did lose

something in the translation, I have had it translated by the Association De

Francophone Du Labrador, and they translated it as ngociations rompues, that

is: broken off, not frozen. But, Mr. Speaker, La Presse got its information from

Quebec Hydro's Executive Vice-President, and according to Mr. Bolduc,

negotiations broke off over the distribution of cost. Is the minister now

prepared to tell the people of the Province, what the differences are between

this Province and Hydro Quebec on financing the development of the Lower

Churchill and the price for selling this hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat what I have

said. To the best of my knowledge the talks between Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro and Hydro Quebec have not broken off. I would assume that the Hydro Quebec

negotiating team is still in the midst of its review of the latest

counterproposals, and we do not talk about the details of the negotiations. To

date, I believe the last meeting was meeting number thirty in the last two and a

half years and I am sure there will be other meetings. I personally do not want

to put a time frame on it as to when they may end.

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

Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, again the translation - the

story that was in La Presse, if you translate the whole thing - part of it was

covered in The Evening Telegram, but if you translate the La Presse story, part

of the story says: the dispute which brought about the breakup of negotiations

is centred on the distribution of costs.

On March 19 the Premier in this House said, and I quote: "I

undertake to make the information fully available to the House at the earliest

possible opportunity. Discussion of that kind of detail would not, right at this

moment, be opportune." He was talking about the development of the Lower

Churchill and the cost of the development in response to a question from the

hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Now, recognising that, and given the series

of events that have taken place over the last few days with regard to the

quagmire that Hydro Quebec has found itself in with regard to borrowing on the

bond market, I wonder if there is any doubt being expressed on Hydro Quebec's

ability to proceed with the project, and will he make a full disclosure to the

people of this Province now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is no disclosure to be

made. We are negotiating. There are a lot of details in that negotiation, and at

an appropriate time, if we reach an agreement that is satisfactory to us, we

will make all the details available. As the Premier said in response to a

question earlier, there would be some type of public review of any contract that

is agreed to, when all the details will be carefully scrutinized by everybody.

So to the best of my knowledge we have not seen any affect from what is

happening with the matters concerning Great Whale.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. minister is

aware that the bond rating agencies have placed Hydro Quebec on a credit watch.

Quebec Hydro is already paying a 1 per cent premium on all its loans. Of course,

we all recognize that is driving up the cost. Now is this a time to be

negotiating with Hydro Quebec? Shouldn't we wait until Hydro's problems with the

financial and credit positions are improved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Hydro Quebec is not a partner

in this development that we are talking about. Hydro Quebec is a customer for

the power that is surplus to the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not

think the matters that the hon. member has talked about are really relevant to

it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government

legislated wage freeze through Bill 16 expired on March 31. This legislation

says in

Section 7 that all collective agreements remain in full force and in

effect for the term of that agreement or, if an election is made under

section

6, for the extended term.

My question is for the President of Treasury Board. Can he

tell the House whether the government intends to honour those existing

collective agreements which are declared to be in full force and effect as the

government prepares its next payroll? Or has he instructed officials in the

government to violate those existing agreements and given advice to other

organizations, such as hospitals and universities and other groups which are

covered by this, to violate those agreements and not give the increases that are

in the existing collective agreements?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon.

member has been for the last six months but we have described time after time

for the public, and in this House, what we have gone through in terms of contact

with the public sector unions to try to solve the financial problem, or to give

them some input into a solution for our financial problems, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman, I seem to remember, was in the House when

the Budget was being read, or I think he was. In that the explanation was made

quite clear that there has to be one more year in which we cannot increase our

total compensation package, because of the difficult financial position that the

Province is in and because of some extraordinary things that have been

happening, Mr. Speaker. He also recognizes that those same unions, rather than

being part of the solution, have deliberately chosen to be part of the problem.

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This same legislation, which was passed into law by this

government last year, permitted employees to elect to extend the terms of their

collective agreement for a further year. Can the minister advise the House how

many different bargaining units went by that, gave notice, as provided under

section 6 of that legislation, to extend the terms of their collective

agreements, and will the government be honouring its commitment made in this

legislation?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing, as announced

in the Budget, is allowing collective agreements to end on the date that they

were negotiated to end. That varies depending on the collective agreement. We

are saying that in the interim, in this fiscal year, there will be a zero

compensation increase. In the next year, the year after that, we don't see any

magic pot of money anywhere and, therefore, we have to, at best, slowly move

ourselves out of this situation. So we allowed for a 3 per cent total

compensation increase the year after. That, Mr. Speaker, is what is going to

happen, and I would advise hon. members that very shortly a bill will be

introduced into this House to give effect to that decision already announced in

the Budget.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, on a final supplementary, since

the President of Treasury Board did not answer the question about the extension

of collective agreements, will the minister not admit that not only did the

government break its word after signing collective agreements one day and then

introducing legislation to wipe them out, did they not again break their word by

passing legislation to agree to extend collective agreements, and they are now

going to break their word again and take back that agreement?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, government's planning is done on

many bases. One of the bases on which we plan is in the revenue that is

generated within the Province and generated from the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, again I do not know where the hon. gentleman has

been for the last couple of years, but he should realize that something has

happened in this country. Something has happened in this country. Something very

basic and fundamental has happened in this country and revenues are not

forthcoming. The amounts of money that we get from Ottawa that we could have

expected to get from Ottawa are not forthcoming. Mr. Speaker, he will also know

that as soon as we knew this we started consultations with the unions. Two years

ago we started consultations with the union - a year and a half ago - we started

consultations with the unions to allow them to be part of the solution to this

very serious problem.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we had choices to make. Do we lay off 5,000

people or do we say: I am sorry, we cannot increase your compensation. These

were the choices. We had choices to make between paying 7 and 8 per cent

increases or keeping hospital beds open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: I would say to the hon. gentleman that the

people of this Province are indeed fortunate that the Member for St. John's East

is not here to lay off 10,000 people and to close hospital beds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions about

the Department of Justice. Since the Premier has departed from accepted

democratic practice and appointed a Minister of Justice who does not have a seat

in this House of Assembly, I cannot ask my questions about the Department of

Justice to the Minister of Justice as I should be able to do, so, Mr. Speaker, I

will address my questions to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, fifteen months after this government disbanded

the Ombudsman's Office they brought down a Budget providing for $100,000 for a

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Police Complaints Commission. My questions are,

number one: why hasn't the government yet tabled in this House draft legislation

creating the police commission? Why hasn't the government explained what mandate

it intends to give the police commission? Will the government be introducing a

bill in time for legislation to be passed in this Spring sitting of the House of

Assembly? And when does the Premier propose to have the RNC Police Complaints

Commission established, functioning and serving the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker. I have just a comment on her

commentary before she asked the questions. It is established and well known

practice that when you have a particular purpose in doing so, a Premier may well

go outside the elected members and invite somebody to become a member of the

Cabinet, and the normally accepted convention is that within a reasonable time

they acquire a seat in the House. That, I can assure hon. members, will be

followed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the questions, if the hon.

member has any reluctance to ask me questions, she could write the Minister of

Justice, because all those questions are not of such urgent pressing importance

that they needed to be answered right at this moment. With respect to the

variety of questions, they dealt with the police commission. The government is

going to bring forward legislation to provide for the police commission in

respect of which money has been provided in the Budget. The legislation has been

drafted for some months, I think, at least I saw a draft of it earlier. Some

months ago I think I saw a draft of it. I do not know if it is in final form

yet, so I will inquire as to when it is in final form. I don't recall if the

Cabinet has approved it yet. To the best of my knowledge it has not yet come to

Cabinet for approval. Now, they had a Cabinet meeting this morning and I wasn't

there, so it may have happened.

So it has not yet come to Cabinet for approval. The normal

process is that after it comes to Cabinet for approval and receives approval, it

will be tabled in the House. When it is tabled in the House all of the powers

that are proposed and exactly what it is going to have or not have or what its

limitations might be, will all become apparent when one reads the bill. If

members of the House have different opinions as to what adjustments should or

should not be made on it, there will be an opportunity during Committee stage to

propose those changes.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I note the Premier did not answer my question about whether

the legislation establishing a police commission will be presented in this House

in this Spring sitting. Neither did he answer my question about the date he

proposes to have the police commission functioning.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier whether the real reason he is

so vague in answering my questions is that he really did not plan on having the

police commission this year, but after I asked some very probing and

embarrassing questions about the nineteen-month delay -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: - in the police investigation of a sexual

assault complaint against the Member for Naskaupi, at the last minute the

Premier slipped this into the Budget as part of his damage control campaign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I probably didn't answer all

of the questions asked. There was a battery of them. I thought there was

supposed to be one question. I don't have a secretary here to write down the

questions. Maybe the next time what I will do is take it as notice and provide

answers, if that is the way the hon. member intends to ask questions. Yes, Mr.

Speaker, we intend to bring in legislation, and always did.

The hon. member puffs herself up unduly if she thinks her

question ever had one iota to do with the police commission. It had nothing

whatsoever to do with it. And that legislation had nothing whatsoever to do with

the new minister. That legislation was planned before the new minister was

appointed. So, all of that was part of the proposal from the beginning and it is

in the process of being implemented, and the hon. member should not attribute to

herself such a significant impact on the running of the government of the

Province.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting to see how the Premier always resorts to a

personal attack against me rather than answer my questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: It is very interesting and it is very

revealing about the real character of this Premier.

Now, Mr. Premier, will you please answer my questions about

when your police commission will be functioning, when your legislation will be

passed, when you will present us with a draft bill, and you might add the real

reason this suddenly appeared in the estimates?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are all embarrassed, look.

MR. TOBIN: No, we are certainly not embarrassed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, answers to questions are

determined directly by the questions. If questions are focused and directed in a

personal way, the only way they can be reasonably thoroughly answered is to

respond in a personal way. Now, if the hon. member wants to ask questions in a

normal, responsible way, dealing with public issues, I will be quite prepared to

answer them in that same manner. But when the hon. member puts every question

she has ever asked in a personal attack position, she has got to expect that

kind of a response. Now, if she cannot stand the heat, she should leave the

kitchen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: What is in every answer I will give is

largely determined by how the question is asked, and if questions are asked in a

civilized, sensible, responsible way, they will get treatment in kind, I can

assure all hon. members of the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House that we -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

PREMIER WELLS: I have already told the House that we will

be bringing forward legislation in this session. The hon. member has already

pointed out to the House the money is in the Budget. Now, as soon as the

legislation is put in place and the proper provision is made for it, action will

be taken to implement the police commission. Now, whether that will be April 23,

May 18, July 16 or some other date, I don't at this moment know. So the member's

question, I don't see the point of it at this stage.

But the legislation will be brought before the House this

session. Money is provided in the Budget for it, and the idea of a police

commission, Mr. Speaker, originated with this side of the House, not that. The

hon. member sat as Minister of Justice for five years and we never heard of a

police commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At least we had an

Ombudsman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that

the Minister of Transportation is not here so I will direct my question to the

hon. the Premier. Every year we get a letter from the minister indicating: what

are your road priorities? Four budgets in a row I have indicated: finish the

paving on the road to Harry's Harbour - Jackson's Cove. Can this administration

tell us, can the Premier tell us, why, for the fourth budget in a row, no

pavement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can only assume, Mr. Speaker - I do not

know the specifics. I do not know the specifics about any road or any district.

I can only assume that in the overall priorities as they were assessed, that did

not rank at a level that was comparable with other roads on the normal basis on

which it is judged. Now I operate on that assumption. If he wants me to I will

take notice of his question and seek the specific answer in respect to that

specific road.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier a very

simple, and direct question. Is this administration still under the impression

that the roads in Green Bay are paved with gold because it formerly had a

premier as a member?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If that were so, then you surely wouldn't

want the gold torn up and replaced with asphalt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Surely nobody can operate on that kind of

an assumption. I cannot imagine that any government would be so disdainful of

the public good of the whole Province as to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice I will

on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Extend Restraint

Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province," Bill No. 17.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow introduce the following resolution.

"WHEREAS seal meat was always part of the diet of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;

AND

WHEREAS present economic conditions make it imperative

for many residents to find ways to supplement their food supply;

BE IT RESOLVED that no Newfoundlander or Labradorian, being

of legal hunting age and having passed the Hunters' Capability Test where

applicable, be deprived of the right to kill a seal for food purposes."

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the

Minister of Justice, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act," Bill No.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion number 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion number 1. The adjourned Budget

debate.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I started out on

Monday. I have been speaking now on this motion for two days. The first day I

had nobody on the opposite side listening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true!

MR. WINDSOR: Except for very brief occasions - very

brief. The second day, Mr. Speaker, a considerable number of hon. gentlemen

opposite paid attention and we got into a good debate. Of course I had to, on

Tuesday, go back over everything I had said on Monday, for the benefit of hon.

gentlemen opposite. Now today I have a gallery full of young people who missed

both opportunities, so I am going to have to start again, because I am sure they

do not want to miss a word of what I have had to say about the Budget, so we

will go back to the beginning again.

MS. VERGE: Just give us the main points.

MR. WINDSOR: Give you some points on it, yes, Mr.

Speaker.

MS. VERGE: About the smoke and mirrors and the hypocrisy

- that is the best part.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, my colleague says I should talk about

smoke and mirrors and hypocrisy. That is all I have to talk about. That is all

that is in this Budget, Mr. Speaker.

When I finished the other day I was into an exchange with the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and I was making a point that the

Budget has tremendously decreased the amount of funding that is available for

job creation this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Say again?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. WINDSOR: That is not true? Well that is exactly what

the minister said on Tuesday, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is saying

everything he said on Tuesday as well, so I do not feel so bad. I am not

repeating myself any more than the minister. He says it is not true so - I was

about to get into the Budget, but it was five o'clock - so I said, we will stop.

We have to look on Page 266 of the Budget. That is Social

Services. We will start there. We will start off in the Social Services of the

Budget and have a look at the

section under Employment Opportunities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: In Social Services? I will get to the

minister's department. Have no fear. Have no fear.

When we look at community development projects, which is

probably the greatest vehicle that has ever been put in place, to give persons

on social assistance an opportunity to gain some useful employment, to feel some

self-worth, to get back into the work force if they have had some difficulty and

have been unable to find employment. It is a tremendous program to get people

off public support and get them back into the workplace, doing something useful

and productive.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt you please?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course.

MR. SPEAKER: I would not normally do this, but the hon.

member is probably going to carry on for a little while. The Chair just wants

to, on behalf of hon. members, acknowledge the presence in the Speaker's gallery

of Mr. George Billard, the Deputy Mayor of Stephenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me add my voice, and the

voice of this side, to welcome the Deputy Mayor.

Community development projects have been tremendous projects.

Not only have they created thousands of jobs across the Province, and given

people an opportunity to work, but there has been some very, very good community

projects developed as well. A lot of this money has been very usefully employed

in putting in place infrastructure in communities; in giving people the sorts of

things that they could probably never have hoped to get in a long, long time

without that particular project. It gives them an opportunity to do something

for themselves, to build something in their own community. We have often heard

lots of complaints that a lot of the money was wasted painting the fence for the

third time. I believe that is greatly decreased from where it used to be years

ago. I think that has improved tremendously. I think we are, to a large measure

now, taking great advantage of that money - if the projects are well planned.

Unfortunately we have seen some cases where the projects have been put forward

on an emergency basis, when it is too late to usefully use the money. So you are

throwing the money - what you are doing is throwing money to create jobs, and

not getting the best utilization of those dollars, and last year was probably no

exception.

The Budget last year held $9 million for that program in the

estimates, and we see that by the end of the year the government spent $13.75

million. $4.25 million were added last year - $4.75 million - were added during

the course of the year to increase that program. I recall full well that during

the Budget debate last year we said to government: you know you are going to

need more. Why not put the money in the Budget? Why not have it there so that

the department can properly plan; that communities can come forward with some

worthwhile projects? But instead of that, halfway through the year the Budget

was increased by 50 per cent. Perhaps the first $9 million may have been spent

relatively wisely, but I would suggest that last $4.75 million was spent

hurriedly, haphazardly, and without proper planning.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true, none of it.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, we will see, maybe not. I hope I am

wrong.

MR. GRIMES: You are wrong.

MR. WINDSOR: But I am not wrong in saying that if the

money had been put up front it could have been spent more wisely than it was,

and that is true, that is absolutely true.

MS. VERGE: They would not know because they have not

experimented with planning yet.

MR. WINDSOR: Planning is a novel concept to the hon.

gentlemen opposite, a novel concept that they have not gotten into. They have

been in office for three years and are now just realizing that they had better

come up with a three year economic strategy or something, a great economic

strategy plan. It is about time. It has only taken three years for them to

realize that. They have been sailing down a course without any charts for the

last three years. I say to the minister this year there is $9.5 million in the

Budget. Now, that is more than was in the Budget last year, but that is less

than was spent by $4 million, $4.25 million less than was spent last year. I

could live with that, I could understand that, if the minister's economic

projections said unemployment is going to decrease by 3 or 4 per cent this year.

We are going to go from 18.4 per cent down to 15 per cent, so we are not going

to have such a great need for community development projects.

I can understand Government saying: therefore we will not

need as much money and we will cut it back a little bit, but here they increased

it by $500,000. If that scenario were true they could decrease it by a couple of

million dollars perhaps and be justified. You could understand that and it would

make some sense, but when the minister's own documentation says that

unemployment is going to increase by 2 per cent how does this Government justify

decreasing the amount of money to be spent by $4.5 million? Where is the logic

in that, Mr. Speaker? Does this Government not realize the desperate situation

that is out there?

MR. GRIMES: Do you want the answer?

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman will have lots of time to

answer. I have lots more questions for him yet. We will save them up and maybe

the Premier will loan you his secretary so he can write down the questions and

answers, too. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no logic in that kind of thinking

whatsoever. This Government should know now, and should have known last year,

and we told them last year but, of course, they choose not to listen to us, we

told them last year that they were going to have to put more money in there.

When they came into office a few years ago they said they were not going to use

that kind of program at all. Never mind the short-term make work projects. It is

going to all be in the long-term economic development. Well, what did they think

we were suppose to do for three years while they were coming up with their great

economic strategy plan? Where do they think people are going to be, starving to

death?

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. Premier was going to bring

30,000 home.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right, bring thousands of

Newfoundlanders home. Every mother's son was going to come home. The daughters

are going to go away but the sons are suppose to be brought home.

MR. TOBIN: We thought we were going to get to build

ferries to bring them home.

MR. WINDSOR: We figured Marystown Shipyard would be going

full time building ferries to bring Newfoundlanders home. The housing industry

was going to boom, and the population was going to rise by 100,000 in no time at

all. They were going to bring every mother's son home.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier said they wanted to kiss his feet.

MR. WINDSOR: There are more Newfoundlanders living in

Ontario today than there are in Newfoundland.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier said one woman wanted to kiss his

feet because he was going to bring her son home.

MR. WINDSOR: He will get a kiss alright, he will get

kissed good-bye the next time he gets the nerve to call an election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Everybody thought it was wonderful. Mr.

Speaker, just down on the same page in vocational services, and here is a

Government that talked about long-term planning, vocational services, I say to

the President of Treasury Board. I am not exactly sure what sort of things were

funded in that but I have a fair idea, vocational services, there was $2.4

million in the Budget last year for vocational services.

MR. TOBIN: That is a social services component.

MR. WINDSOR: Now, that is for training people if I am not

mistaken. That is providing funding for people who are on social assistance

while they are getting some education. There is nobody going to deny that the

secret to improving the Newfoundland economy is in improving the educational

standards of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so that they are in a better

position to support themselves and to make a meaningful contribution to our

economy. What better program could one come up with than a vocational services

program that helps people who are on social assistance become gainfully

employed? A tremendous program - $2.4 million was in place last year, this year

it is $138,000. What happened to the program? It is gone. One hundred and

thirty-eight thousand dollars is absolutely nothing. There is absolutely nothing

left except the administration of the program. There is no program now.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is $4.5 million under community

development projects, $2.2 million under vocational services, for a total of

$5.9 million in the Department of Social Services alone. Less funding for

employment opportunities, $6 million less.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Say that again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You are going to transfer it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: From one heading to another. Well, I don't

see any increase. Under total employment opportunities, the total for all of the

headings is $16 million. Last year it was $22 million. That is $6 million less.

You can take it from one hand and put it in the other, but that does not put any

more in your pocket. You still have $6 million less in the Department of Social

Services under the heading Employment Opportunities.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong there.

MR. WINDSOR: I am wrong. Well, Mr. Speaker, I should take

advantage of vocational services funding and go back to school because I can't

read. I am quoting from the Budget document, page 267 the eighth or tenth line

down, I say to the minister. He should have a look at his own budget. Six

million dollars less, he has to work with this year for employment

opportunities. The only one that stayed the same was Employment Enhancement

Initiatives, $4 million right across the board. Four million estimated last

year, $4 million spent, and $4 million in the Budget again this year.

Departmental support services is down one-third the funding

that was available last year for that small program, whatever that does for

employment opportunity. Even Administration is much the same. Mr. Speaker, that

is $6 million in social services, and the Minister of Labour tries to tell me

that there is no difference.

Then I had a look at the Department of Labour. The minister

tells me he hasn't lost any money this year. So let's have a look at it. Youth

Employment Strategy, $1 million less in the Budget this year than the minister

spent last year.

MR. GRIMES: What page?

MR. WINDSOR: Page 191. The minister doesn't even know how

to find his own department in the Budget document. Well, I will tell him, it is

page 191. That is the page I am reading from now. His department starts a few

pages earlier, if he thinks he is missing something. Page 191 - Youth Employment

Strategy, the minister can see that there. See total: Youth Employment Strategy,

1,898,600 for this year. That is exactly the same as was budgeted last year. But

the minister spent $2.8 million last year. He spent $1 million more because

there was money added during the year - obvious.

MR. GRIMES: Do you want the answer?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, tell me. I will yield for a moment, Mr.

Speaker, to let the hon. member tell me.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon.

member for allowing me just a minute to add some information to him as he

continues in a most worthwhile debate. I think the hon. member recognizes and

probably would like for everybody to understand that this is one of the headings

in the Budget that in the fall of last year, actually, on October 4, the

government announced an Emergency Employment Response program, a total of $13.5

million, because of the deterioration in the economy due to the collapsed

fishery and other factors, and that we chose a number of appropriate headings in

the existing Budget in which to funnel new emergency monies that were not voted

in the Budget last year. This happened to be one of the headings under which an

additional $1 million was put into that program because we wanted to have a

wide-ranging program with more than one aspect or facet to it. One of the areas

where we wanted to concentrate some of our effort was in the area of youth

employment, and an additional $1 million out of the $13.5 million total was

voted in the area of youth employment services to deal with the linkages program

which allowed a lot of young people to be put to work for a period of time by

sponsoring agencies.

We are not sure this year, as we indicated in the budget, and

has been in questions before, but there probably will be some kind of a program

later on this year. We are now working on what it may or may not be, and this

may or may not be one of the headings where additional funds might appropriately

be placed when the crisis is dealt with, if and when it arises. So I just wanted

to point that out for the information of the hon. member.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for

that information, but that doesn't change a thing. The point I am making is, if

we had a crisis last year - and what the minister told us, in fact, only

strengthens my argument - that this government was forced to respond to to the

tune of $13 million. We told them during the Budget they were going to have a

crisis and they should have had programs in there and planned to deal with it

and not wait for the crisis. But the minister has just said: We are going to

wait for the crisis again this year. We did not learn anything last year. We

will learn again this year. We will wait until the crisis comes and then we will

poke money in again. That is too late.

Why are we going to wait until September and October when

people are starving to death and don't know how they are going to put clothes on

the childrens' backs to send them back to school? Why are we going to wait until

the best construction season is over and put people to work in October and

November in the cold, miserable fall weather when they could be working in the

summer far more productively, far more efficiently? We are going to wait, Mr.

Speaker, until the end of the year, until we find out that there is no other

alternative.

Again, Mr. Speaker, you could be excused if economic

indicators showed that the economy was going to improve, but the minister tells

us the economy is going to decline by half a per cent. He tells us unemployment

is going to go up by 2 per cent. I mean, this government chooses to ignore their

own factors. That's what is amazing about this document, that the first part of

it seems to be put together so well. The research has shown exactly what is

happening. Why bother to do that research, other than to fill up the first four

pages of the Budget, if you are not going to use those factors to influence

where you spend your money to deal with the problems? The minister has just

confirmed that this government's strategy is to let the problem get worse and

then we will panic, Mr. Speaker, as we did last year. That is what the minister

is saying.

Why not tell the youth of the Province? And if it is not that

program, the minister has had a year to come up with another program, if he is

saying that this is probably not the best program. Come up with a better program

for youth, but put some money in there so the youth of this Province will have

something to look forward to.

This is April. University students are two or three weeks

away from getting out of university. I have a daughter who will be graduating

from business school in three weeks time, and the hopes of her finding

employment in this Province are somewhere between zero and nothing. A very well

qualified, very capable young lady who would be an asset to any business, but

there is not a business out there that can afford to hire her or any of her

classmates who are graduating from business school. That is the real problem we

are facing. The opportunities are not going to be there.

Now, the minister has a program, the Graduate Employment

Program, which, hopefully, will deal with that specific type of problem, and he

has increased the funding by $700,000, from $1 million to $1.7 million. I am

glad to see that, because there are so many of our young people out there in

university who are absolutely frustrated, and I know, because I see them

spitting out fifty and sixty applications for employment and getting back fifty

or sixty form letters. I see it every day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) payroll tax.

MR. WINDSOR: Payroll tax is a big factor. I am going to

get back to that one before the day is out.

I see it every day, but the opportunities are not there and

we can put all the money we want into education and into post-secondary

education, but all we are doing is educating Newfoundlanders to go elsewhere in

Canada to make a contribution to the economy of other parts of Canada. That is

what we are doing. Education alone will not solve the problem, we have to

educate people but we have to have business opportunities and employment

opportunities for them when they have their education. That is what we are

talking about, Mr. Speaker. We have to do both.

I could forgive the minister cutting back on his employment

opportunities if I saw $20 million, $30 million, $40 million going into creating

economic activity, so that the private sector was going to create job

opportunities, but we don't see that either, Mr. Speaker. The Student Employment

Program: $60,000 less than we spent last year; they budgeted $600, and $600

again this year but we actually spent $660. The Employment Generation Program,

is improved, I am glad to see that, it is doubled from $1.5 million to $ 3

million this year, but is that enough to do what needs to be done, will that

replace the millions that are being removed in other places? The adjustment

program for fishplant workers is in the same category, an emergency program put

in place last year, but does the minister think, or does the Minister of

Fisheries sitting next to him think that fishplant workers are going to be any

better off this year? Does the minister not think he is going to need $7 million

to solve that problem?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: He will not do it.

MR. GRIMES: That has nothing to do with the (inaudible).

That was a one-time program that was done to try to keep the three plants open

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You think you are not going to have to try

to keep some open this year?

MR. GRIMES: That has nothing to do with the programs that

are in place, that in case a plant closes and you have to give some assistance,

that is already there.

MR. WINDSOR: I realize that, but does the minister not

think he is going to need that kind of funding this year? Of course he is. You

are going to have more fish plants close this year, not just three - you are

going to have thirty fish plants closed this year, so $7 million may have to be

$70 million. This is smoke and mirrors, Mr. Speaker, this document, and the

President of Treasury Board said in the House the other day: Well, we don't need

to worry about that, because any program that is put in place to deal with that

crisis will be a cost-shared program, anyway. It will be 70/30 - the federal

government will put in 70 per cent and we will put in 30 per cent. It doesn't

change the bottom line, because any money that is cost-shared 70/30, any money

that is spent, we get thirty cents on the dollar back, anyway, into the

provincial treasury through taxes and other economic spinoff. So we are not

worried about having to put in an extra bunch of money for an emergency program

because we will get our share of it back, anyway. Of course you will!

But why didn't they spend the $65 million that was there last

year that would have only cost this government $14 million? They could have

spent that $65 million on capital works, created 2,400 jobs last year and they

would have gotten $20 million back, they would be money in the good. What kind

of economics is it, Mr. Speaker? Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, $65 million of

capital funds were left unspent, mostly cost-shared funding, and the real cost

to the Province was $14 million. That is what they saved, that is the only

difference in their deficit, their capital borrowing requirement.

If they had borrowed another $14 million - they came to this

House last year and argued and used their majority to get the Budget approved,

saying we need to borrow all this money and then they left it there, they didn't

borrow it. It is not as if the Opposition is saying, Go borrow more money. They

came to the House with their Budget, saying, 'Here is what we would like to

spend, give us the authority to spend it.' They were given it, then they didn't

spend it.

Twenty-four hundred jobs would have made a big difference in

the unemployment rate in this Province. We wouldn't be looking at 18.4 per cent

last year. We wouldn't be looking at 20.4 this year if that money was spent last

year and if the capital budget was not cut back by $17 million this year again -

another 2,400 jobs gone this year. Twenty-four hundred jobs last year and 2,400

jobs this year would have made a big difference. If the Minister of Development

can create 2,400 jobs as easily, then he should get on with it. Because it is

not that easy. We all know that. But it could have been done by that means.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Response programs - there was

a $2 million allocation there under that heading, that gets into the $13 million

the minister referred to. In all, on the bottom line, under Employment Services,

I say to the minister, in his own budget on page 192, halfway down the page,

decreased from $15.5 million to $10 million. So the overall funding under

Employment Services, I say to the minister, is down by $5.5 million. In Social

Services it is down by $5.9 million. That is $11.4 million less this year for

employment projects.

The minister tells me I am wrong. The minister should get

together with the President of Treasury Board. He tells me that thirty and

fifteen don't add up to forty-five.

MR. GRIMES: He's been telling you for two days that it

does.

MR. WINDSOR: He's been telling me for two days. He has

not convinced me yet.

MR. GRIMES: No, he's been telling you for two days that

he agrees with you, that thirty and fifteen does add up.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, it does add up to forty-five. Yes. But

he says I am wrong.

MR. GRIMES: He says your

interpretation was wrong, he

said nothing about your addition. It's just the way you interpret it.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, my

interpretation is wrong. You tax me

$30 million this year and you tax me $45 million next year, and that is not a 50

per cent increase. No.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well then, I'm wrong. I had better go back

to school again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, that was the President of Treasury

Board, who handles the finances of the Province. It is not the Minister of

Finance who handles the finances. All the Minister of Finance does is read the

Budget. The President of Treasury Board actually controls the finances of the

Province. The Minister of Finance is responsible for taxation, and not a lot

more, Mr. Speaker.

So there is your great employment program. The government

says: What could we do? Well, maybe talk to their Liberal buddies in New

Brunswick. I am not advocating totally what the Liberal Government in New

Brunswick did. But they took a different approach. You see, their economy is

just as bad as Newfoundland's economy and their unemployment rate is just as

bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: No it's not.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, getting close to it. No, there is

nothing as bad as Newfoundland. I stand corrected on that. But in relative

terms, the problem they are facing in unemployment, compared to what they

normally have, is just as severe as what we are facing compared to what we

normally have. In fact, we are used to unemployment. It is the only thing that

saves us in this Province. We don't know we are in a recession because we have

never been out of one. We don't know what it is like not to be in a recession in

this Province. But we are learning this year, I'm telling you, we're learning

the hard way.

What does the Minister of Finance in New Brunswick do, Mr.

Speaker? He cuts taxes. His consumption of liquor and tobacco was declining. So

he cut taxes.

MR. FUREY: He had to. The federal Tory policy (inaudible)

cross-border shopping crippled him.

MR. WINDSOR: It didn't. No, he did not have to cut taxes.

MR. FUREY: You think cross-border shopping didn't hurt

him?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, sure, it hurt him.

MR. FUREY: Well, that's why he dropped the taxes.

MR. WINDSOR: And you think it's not hurting us?

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You think it's not hurting us?

MR. FUREY: What else did he do? Did he (inaudible)?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, sure, he cut back a bit.

MR. FUREY: Was that correct?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, he is about two years behind the

government here.

MR. FUREY: That's right. And are we (inaudible)?

MR. WINDSOR: And he is about one year behind the

government here in laying off some public servants and putting a wage freeze on.

So he is finding all of the things that the government is doing here. That is

not all he did. He said: we will give the people a break. We will cut the taxes

on wines so that the restaurant and bar business -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We all need to get drunk in this Province.

We should take the RCMP away from Fortune so that we can get everything we need

from St. Pierre - the only reason that we would want to stay here.

That is what the minister did in response to a poor tourism

industry. Of course he has competition from across border - no question - but he

has lowered by 30 per cent the tax on wines. He said: we do that to stimulate

the restaurant and bar industry and the nightclub industry because they were

dead, as they are here.

AN HON. MEMBER: And slapped them with a payroll tax then.

MR. WINDSOR: We did here, oh yes. I am talking about the

minister in New Brunswick who did that. Oh no, the minister did not give any

cuts here. Liquor prices have gone up this week. Did you know that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fifty cents.

MR. WINDSOR: No, a dollar.

AN HON. MEMBER: A dollar?

MR. WINDSOR: A dollar on a quart of spirits. Yes. Nothing

announced in the Budget because there were no increases, but there were

wholesaler increases.

The minister does not bother to tell us that the Liquor

Corporation marks up by a percentage, so if the wholesalers take an extra fifty

cents, the Liquor Corporation gets an extra fifty cents. Aha! And everybody had

sympathy. We all ducked the question because there was $7 million less in the

Budget this year for revenue from the Liquor Corporation than there was last

year. So we said, this is terrible. Liquor sales are really declining because of

the price and because of the economy - not so! Liquor sales in Newfoundland are

declining less than anywhere else in Canada.

MR. EFFORD: No fish, no drink.

MR. WINDSOR: Aha! That is right. That is what we all

thought, I say to the hon. gentleman from Bay de Verde.

MR. EFFORD: Port de Grave, boy!

MR. WINDSOR: Port de Grave. That is in Bay de Verde, or

Bay de Verde is in Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Where did they (inaudible) with? St. John's?

MR. WINDSOR: Bay de Verde is where?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It is not. Bay de Verde is in Port de Grave.

No it is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) miles away.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. So it is. It is up the point.

I am getting Bareneed mixed up with Port de Grave. Bareneed is in your district

- a very beautiful part of the Province, too.

I say to the hon. gentleman, because he is under the same

misconception that most of us were, that liquor consumption has dropped

drastically. It has dropped less than 3 per cent in this Province. It has

dropped more across the rest of Canada than here, and that drop is more as a

result of increased surveillance on our highways, fortunately, than anything

else. That is why consumption is dropping - not because of the cost as much as

the increased surveillance on the highways, which is a good thing to see.

We looked at the Budget and said, $73 million this year; it

was $80 million last year, so the question was, why did you not lower the taxes

on liquor? Maybe that would stimulate sales. You wonder if that is a good thing

to do. Do it on wines to try to help the restaurant business a little bit, but I

found out the reason that there is $7 million less this year is not the sales at

all. It is because the minister was pulling money from the Liquor Corporation

the last couple of years, because there is money that has been there in the

kitty ever since we had the beer strike and the Liquor Corporation brought in

American beer. Do you believe that we can bring American beer into Newfoundland

more cheaply than it can be produced locally. Here is where my friend, the

Minister of Development is going to have to be very careful, and I know he is

aware of it, because if we lower the tariffs, and if we allow them to come in

and set their own rates, then we would have a great problem because you can get

American beer here. We can buy it now more cheaply than we can buy it from local

breweries, so when the beer strike was on, the Liquor Corporation did not lower

the prices for beer, because if they had, the breweries would never get back

into production.

The Corporation made tens of millions of dollars during the

beer strike four or five years ago, and they have held that as retained earnings

in the Corporation's account ever since, and they have been giving back a few

million dollars to the minister each year, but they have run out. They do not

have any more left in reserve to give back to government now. That is why there

is $7 million less. So we find that it is not the cost at all. It is the

minister playing with the numbers in the books that made it look better last

year - made it look a lot better last year. Maybe the minister could have looked

at it. Maybe he could have said we will lower it. The minister probably does not

even know it, but in fact some wines actually are decreasing slightly in price.

The minister does not know it, but they are, because some of the wines we have

been able to get better shipping rates on so the prices are going down a little

bit.

What else did the minister in New Brunswick do? He lowered

the price of tobacco, seventy-seven cents on a package of twenty-five, the same

time the minister here raised it by twenty-five cents. So that is $1.02

difference. Admittedly New Brunswick prices were higher before and he has the

cross-border shopping, but we have just reversed the roles. It is again

something to help stimulate the economy and to give people a break to leave a

few more dollars in their pockets to do other things with.

Gasoline, Mr. Speaker, do you realize that the consumption of

gasoline in this Province is dropping drastically? I think our revenue from

gasoline in spite of the increases this year will go down. Gasoline, in fact,

will go down by $2 million this year in spite of the fact that gasoline taxes

are increasing because the price of gasoline is increasing and on an ad valorem

basis obviously as the gasoline goes up so does the ministers cut, which is a

percentage of the cost to the gasoline.

So we are charging a higher tax this year, even though the

minister does not announce it, because he does not have to in the Budget,

because it is on an ad valorem basis it automatically goes up. Only if he

changed the percentage that he was going to take would he have to announce it.

But because the price of gasoline is going up then the tax on the gasoline is

going up as well. Nevertheless we are getting less. We are gaining $2 million

less, 2 per cent less on the $100 million that gasoline raises because of

utilization, consumption. That has to tell us, Mr. Speaker, something about the

state of the economy as well. That has to tell us a great deal.

So the minister could have had a chat with is his friend, the

minister in New Brunswick, his political buddies in New Brunswick. Maybe he

could get some ideas from them on how he could have done something differently

in his Budget to try to get some things moving in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the payroll tax again. Not

only, Mr. Speaker, has this government done nothing to help business, but they

take more money away from them under the payroll tax. Now the president of the

NTA says: education in an excuse for a tax grab, and he is quite right. He is

dead right, absolutely dead right. Health and education, Mr. Speaker, have been

used for a fraud in this Budget and in the last two years since this payroll tax

or health and education tax was introduced.

MR. BARRETT: The best tax we have ever had.

MR. WINDSOR: The best tax we have ever had. Let the

record show, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Bellevue says it is the best tax

we have ever had. Let the record show. Now we know where he is coming from.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I said I would review it with a view to

eliminating and I probably would have eliminated it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said you would eliminate it.

MR. WINDSOR: I probably would have eliminated it. I do

not deny that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I do not deny that. I am not quarrelling

with the elimination of the school tax. I am quarrelling with cancelling a $30

million tax and replacing it with a $45 million tax and trying to say it is all

in the name of health and education. It is a tax grab and nothing else.

DR. WARREN: Would the hon. member let me explain what is

really happening?

MR. WINDSOR: I know what is happening.

DR. WARREN: Why the $43 million?

MR. WINDSOR: You are taking $15 million from the pockets

of Newfoundlanders. That is what is happening.

DR. WARREN: Would the hon. member permit a comment,

please, to explain the misinformation that he is perpetrating on this House?

MR. WINDSOR: The minister will have lots of time to

explain, Mr. Speaker.

DR. WARREN: We are levelling up.

MR. TOBIN: You are not. You are robbing money from the

people.

DR. WARREN: We are levelling up around the Province.

MR. WINDSOR: Levelling up what?

MR. TOBIN: You are rogues. You are a bunch of rogues.

DR. WARREN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, because that

is misinformation, incorrect information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, that is misinformation. I won't

accuse the hon. member of deliberately lying or misleading the House, but the

government is collecting more than enough to replace the school tax because the

government is putting in this year $9 million more to level up, to provide

equality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: And $12 million next year, Mr. Speaker, $12

million a year more so that people in rural Newfoundland will be treated fairly.

This government is not going to tolerate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. minister was on a point

of clarification, I guess, if a point of anything.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, what I said to the minister, if

he was listening, was that we have eliminated a $30 million school tax and we

have replaced it with $45 million worth of taxation. Now, the fact that this

government chose to put another $8 million equalization in there does not alter

the fact that they are publicly on the record as saying: We are eliminating the

school tax and we are replacing it with an increase in the payroll tax and an

increase in personal income tax. And it gets you $15 million.

DR. WARREN: We are levelling up.

MR. WINDSOR: You are levelling up! I don't care what you

are doing with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Who is paying for it? The people are paying

for it. And you try then to bluff your way through and say: Oh, it is not

costing anybody. There are 10,000 businesses that are not going to pay anything.

That, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it is a lie, but whatever the alternate words

are, that is what it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a lie.

MR. WINDSOR: - because it is not true.

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

MR. WINDSOR: You can check, and you will find out, Mr.

Speaker, that the 10,000 businesses the minister talks about are proprietorships

that either have no property, or if they had any small amount of property -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a lie. That is not true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is

saying I am lying. He said: That is a lie.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I can slap it back, just as well as you can.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Mount Pearl is saying that the hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs used some unparliamentary language.

The Chair did not hear the hon. minister, but, if he did, I would ask him to

retract it.

MR. HOGAN: If I did, I withdraw it. If I didn't, I don't

withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Oh, Mr. Speaker, what a disgrace to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, that is a hardly a qualified

withdrawal, but I don't want to waste any more time with the minister. That is

fine.

The point of the matter is that you have 10,000 businesses

that the Minister of Finance tried to convince the people of this Province will

now not pay any tax, that were paying school taxes before. The fact of the

matter is, I say to the Minister of Social Services, that the majority of those

companies were proprietorships that had very small amounts of property, if any.

They were paying a property tax based on their property, which was less than the

$150 poll tax, and because they had a proprietorship they did not have to pay

the poll tax. So most of those businesses paid less than $150.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are wrong. That is wrong,

MR. WINDSOR: That is not wrong. You go check with the

School Tax Authority, as I did, and you will find out it is absolutely right.

How about looking at the facts, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOGAN: A couple are worse off, but hundreds are

better off.

MR. WINDSOR: Hundreds are better off.

How about senior citizens, Mr. Speaker? Does the hon.

gentleman from Placentia think they are better off? How about the public service

pensioners, Mr. Speaker? Are they better off? There are 55,000 people, senior

citizens in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: One-third of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense! Nonsense!

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, there are not 55,000 senior citizens in

the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you are going to say that

they are going to be worse off (Inaudible) -

MR. WINDSOR: One-third of them are. One-third of them are

paying personal income tax, yes. Now if the minister can prove me wrong, I'll

sit down. But if not, put up or shut up!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, Mr. Speaker, there are 20,000 senior

citizens out there tonight that are glad to hear from the Minister of Finance

they do not have to pay personal income tax. They would like to get back what

they paid last year. The fact of it is, they are going to pay 4 per cent more as

a result of this Budget. They didn't pay school tax, because over sixty-five

years of age they were exempt. So there are 20,000 senior citizens who are going

to pay more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong!

MR. WINDSOR: Wrong! The minister is wrong! The minister

is too stunned to realize what he is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Somebody over there, Mr. Speaker, made a

comment that he must have been drinking at lunch. I assure whoever was ignorant

enough to make such a comment that I was not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you drinking water?

MR. WINDSOR: I am drinking water, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They're obviously hurting now, Mr. Speaker,

if they have to get down in the gutter like that. They're really worried now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. WINDSOR: They're hurting now. Twenty thousand senior

citizens will pay more personal income tax this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I would say there are students who will pay

school tax this year.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh yes. There are students who will pay more

personal income tax this year. That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very few.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Oh. I have news for the hon. gentleman.

MR. TOBIN: No wonder the teachers don't shake the

minister's hand (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No. There are students who will pay more tax

this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very few.

MR. WINDSOR: Very few. There are a lot of students out

there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll pay a lot more.

MR. WINDSOR: I'll pay a lot more. I won't pay any more.

MR. TOBIN: Work term students will pay a lot more. No

wonder they do not shake the minister's hand.

MR. WINDSOR: I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister of Finance would actually say that there is not 20,000 senior citizens

who are going to pay more. It is an absolute untruth and the minister knows

that. It is not anybody's calculations, as the Minister of Social Services said,

it is straightforward fact. That one-third of our senior citizens do indeed pay

income tax.

AH HON. MEMBER: But they're not just getting old age

pension.

MR. WINDSOR: They are getting old age pension.

AN HON. MEMBER: But they are not paying - they are just

getting old age pension. They're not paying income tax.

MR. WINDSOR: There is no senior citizen today, or very

few of them, who are living on just their old age pension. If they are in a

senior citizen's home or something, yes. But there are 20,000 of them out there

- and these are the facts, I say to the Member for Bellevue. Twenty thousand of

them who are paying income tax.

MR. BARRETT: Does that mean that somebody over sixty-five

with an income of $150,000 should not contribute to the education of our young

people?

MR. WINDSOR: I'm sorry, I can't hear the hon. gentleman.

MR. BARRETT: A senior citizen, sixty-five years of age,

with an income of $150,000 a year, should not contribute to the education of our

young people?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. WINDSOR: There are not a lot of them making $150,000

a year. Those are not the ones I'm worried about. How about the senior citizens

with incomes of $15,000 a year? They are paying enough.

MR. A. SNOW: It is only cabinet ministers who are retired

and making $150,000 a year.

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

MR. WINDSOR: A senior citizen with an income of $15,000 a

year is paying about $1,200 a year income tax.

MR. TOBIN: Retire the university professors.

MR. WINDSOR: $1,200 a year income tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: They get $150,000 a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members on both sides of the House for their

co-operation and help in maintaining some level of decorum and some integrity in

this House. There is too much shouting, there is too much noise; the Chair has

recognized the hon. Member for Mount Pearl and all other hon. members will have

an opportunity to take

part in this debate and I ask for their co-operation to

maintain some decorum.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the hon.

Member for Bellevue, that a senior citizen with an income of $15,000 a year will

be paying around $1,200 on $15,000, income tax, and that person did not pay

school tax, if they are over sixty-five years of age, and so they will now pay 4

per cent more personal income tax as a result of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, whatever it is the fact of the matter

is, it is more.

MR. TOBIN: The senior citizens are paying school tax.

MR. WINDSOR: Now, how about the family with an income of

$20,000 a year? The hon. gentleman might not know that the poverty level in

Canada is $19,000 a year, I think that is the figure that is established as the

poverty level, and there are a lot of families in this Province who are existing

on $20,000 a year. The hon. Minister for Employment and Labour Relations agrees

and he is right. There are lots of them - not very well, thank you, but they are

surviving somehow on $20,000 a year. If that person or that family lived on the

Burin Peninsula where they were paying $85.00 dollars a year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Under? Well there are places where it is

$85.00, I am using the minister's two examples of $150 and $85.00 dollars, but

if that person or a family was living in an area where the school tax was

$85.00, I would say down in Burgeo area where it is $85.00, am I right, I ask

the Member for Hermitage? Where is it $85.00, somewhere in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of them are $85.00 and a $100.

MR. WINDSOR: $85.00 and a $100, yes well $85.00. Anyway

the minister used the example of $85.00 so I use his numbers. I am using his

numbers.

That family which is living on $20,000 a year will pay $51.00

more next year. Now $51.00 may not sound like a lot of money and it is not in

real terms a lot of money, but if you are living on $20,000 trying to raise a

family, it is a lot of money. It is a lot of money when the minister tries to

tell us that half of the people will be better off, some will pay less, some

will pay the same and only a few rich people are going to pay more.

Well a person with $20,000 as a total family income is hardly

a rich family, they are at the poverty level, so what we are saying is here is a

family living at the poverty level that will pay an extra $51.00 next year,

personal income tax, for what? The Member for Mount Scio is amazed, he has not

bothered to take a pencil -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do

not want to waste my time arguing with the Member for Mount Scio, he is just not

worth the time, but let me say to him, ask the minister for a copy of the

document that the minister gave me. Have a look at the minister's own numbers. A

family with $20,000 income will pay $51.00 more next year in personal income tax

than the school tax they paid this year-

MR. WALSH: $100 less than last year, $100 less than last

year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be so stunned.

MR. WINDSOR: How can you pay $100 less when you only paid

$85.00 last year?

MR. WALSH: In St. John's you paid $150.

MR. WINDSOR: It is no wonder the chicken business is in

trouble, Mr. Speaker, I tell you. No wonder their chicken business is in

trouble, the big chicken is sitting in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: I have lots of time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Seventy-five hours.

MR. WINDSOR: I can start again. I say the Member for St.

John's South has been here long enough and he should know the rules, that there

is no time limit. There is seventy-five hours on the debate of the Estimates but

there is no limit on the Budget Speech, and I have unlimited time. I can take

seventy-five hours myself if the hon. member cares to listen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman can think again. I have

reservations for nowhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will tell nobody which one of your

colleagues told me.

MR. WINDSOR: I do not care which one of my colleagues

told you. I do not care who told you, but I tell you now I have reservations to

go absolutely nowhere other than to my great historic district of Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are already here.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, I go there every night and I will be

going there for a long time. Let me put a rumour to sleep for you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me put some rumours to bed because my political opponents in Mount Pearl who

want me to retire are putting rumours on the street that Windsor is not going to

run again. Let me put that one to bed now, there is absolutely no question that

when the next election is over I will be right here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: But I will not be over here I will be on

that side of the House. What a glorious day it is going to be, Mr. Speaker. The

Member for St. John's South will be fixing potholes down on Water Street. He

will not be in the House anymore. He will be gone. The Member for Bellevue will

be sweeping the floors on the senior citizens home out in Come By Chance. He

will be gone. The Minister of Finance will be stoking the furnace at the

University. He will be gone. The Member for Mount Scio will be up plucking

chickens. There will be nothing left of him. They will be all gone, Mr. Speaker.

We have a job for the Minister of Labour out on the Exploits River, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: A golf pro.

MR. WINDSOR: A golf pro. Oh, there is going to be a big

change, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: The Member for Bellevue is going to run

against you out in Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: The Member for Bellevue would not have

enough intestinal fortitude. If the Member for Bellevue would like to run

against me, and if the Premier would guarantee that the Member for Bellevue will

have the Liberal nomination, if the Premier would guarantee to call a

by-election I would resign now and let us have at it. Come on, let us have at it

right now. The Member for Bellevue or a misplaced judge, I do not care, Mr.

Speaker, put the two of them out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am waiting for Randy.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, you are waiting for Randy. Randy will

get you. The member is worried, too. Oh, is he worried. The people of Paradise,

St. Thomas, and Portugal Cove cannot wait either.

AN HON. MEMBER: He cannot get a candidate.

MR. WINDSOR: He cannot get a candidate. Mr. Speaker, the

embarrassing thing about being part of this party now is that there are not

enough seats for the candidates to run who want to run. That is the truth. I

have never in all my years in politics seen so many people who want to run for

our party, even when we were in Government. I say that in all sincerity. The

President of Treasury Board does not believe me. I have never had so many people

express so much interest in running for our party, and I do not think it is

because of us. I think it is because they are so determined to get rid of the

Premier first of all, and his colleagues second, but the Premier most of all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The Premier at the same time is both the

most loved and the most hated, all at the one time.

AN HON. MEMBER: They love him when they are around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: There will be a big change the next time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The most loved and hated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, it works.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: While you are moving it over there. Yes, you

are right. You need not worry. We are quite capable of moving all of our things

over to that side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: There is going to be a big change, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) introduced now the former

Member for Mount Pearl (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: There is no former Member for Mount Pearl

and there is not going to be for a while because there has never been a member

before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: You are spending too much time down talking

to your lawyer.

MR. WINDSOR: And the Member for St. John's South, Mr.

Speaker, should get a pair of sneakers on and start knocking on doors. The

member for St. John's better start moving. He better get on the hustings.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is once again calling on all hon. members to

co-operate in having a smooth flow of debate in this House. Hon. members have

been asked on two occasions this afternoon. Again I say that all hon. members

should know the rules of the House. The Chair does not make the rules, the Chair

is here to see that the rules are carried out and the Chair needs the

co-operation of all hon. members in doing that. Again I ask for your

co-operation. Let's get on with the debate and have a smooth flow of debate here

this afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was having so much

fun taking shots at him. It had a certain appeal to me. I will try to get back

to the subject. I was having a great exchange with the Minister of Education on

educational funding. The minister was telling me that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - we eliminated the school tax. We raised an

extra $21 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well then somebody is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

There must be a mistake in the Budget. It says $21 million raised from personal

income tax this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Twenty-one million dollars from personal

income tax additional this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Because of school tax.

DR. WARREN: (Inaudible) tax replaced the money and level

up so that the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador got equality.

MR. WINDSOR: Ten million dollars additional payroll tax

(inaudible).

MR. WARREN: The rest of Newfoundland deserves equality of

opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: So the minister says that raised the thirty

and we put an extra $5 million - $9 million into equalization.

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible) million in the operation of

schools and $12 million next year.

MR. WINDSOR: Nine million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister likes to ignore

the fact that he cut $7 million out of school construction.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No he did not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes you did.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, well the Budget is wrong again, Mr.

Speaker! We have to get the printer up here.

AN HON. MEMBER: They do not even know what is in the

Budget.

MR. WINDSOR: The Budget says there is $20 million this

year and not $27 million. The minister says, Mr. Speaker, $20 million will be

provided in 1992 to build new primary, elementary, and secondary schools. There

must be something wrong with the printer. Get him up here. In the Budget

highlights in the back, Mr. Speaker, under education - where is it here? Oh,

here it is, right in front of me. The school construction program has been

reduced from the previous three year commitment of $27 million to $20 million

annually. Somebody, Mr. Speaker, is giving wrong information here!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: How can you explain?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the explanation?

MR. WINDSOR: Explain it to the minister and tell him to

put an addendum onto his Budget because he got something wrong. Sit down. I

listened to him making his speech the last time he wanted me to listen to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The truth is coming out. That is why they

are hurting so much over there. They thought they could cover it up, Mr.

Speaker. They thought they could put this fraud over on the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is not going to work. People are starting to

see through them, Mr. Speaker. Any way you cut it, Mr. Speaker, they eliminated

a school tax of $30 million and imposed $45 million of additional taxation. Now

whether you spent additional money on equalization, whether you did anything

else with it is irrelevant. You cannot change the fact that you replaced the

school tax with $45 million of additional taxation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you expect?

MR. WINDSOR: What did we expect? We expected the

government to be honest and come out and admit the truth, and not try to hide

it. A little bit of honesty would go a long way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: That is what people expect. That is all they

ask of their government. Be honest with us!

The minister tried to tell us, 'Well, we eliminated 171 fees

and licences. ' Seven licences, he eliminated - seven.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Seven - exactly seven licences, I say to the

President of Treasury Board.

In the Budget Speech he even read out: 'We are going to

eliminate fees for 9,000 waiters and waitresses.' And I, foolishly enough, on

Monday stood up and said, 'This a great thing. I congratulate the minister for

eliminating it,' until I looked in the back of the book, and it is next year he

is going to do it - a year from yesterday. Why does it take a year? Is there any

rationale for that, or is that another typographical error? We ought to get the

printer on the carpet here, Mr. Speaker. I know they rushed the Budget back the

last minute because there was a page missing out of it. Maybe there is another

page.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which page?

MR. WINDSOR: I don't know which page it was. Maybe there

was a page too many in it and they had to get it out, but changed their mind the

last minute.

The minister wouldn't let me see the Budget until twelve

o'clock in the day, Mr. Speaker. The news media were invited in at 9:15 a.m. for

coffee and donuts, and told they would get their documents at 9:30 a.m., and

when we asked the minister to allow us in at 10:00 a.m. so we would have a

reasonable period to review it, he said, 'Don't be so foolish. Twelve o'clock is

long enough.'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. Twelve o'clock was long

enough. And when I left there at 1:55 p.m. to come to the House of Assembly,

they wouldn't even let me take my documents with me, with the notes I had in the

books.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WINDSOR: They wouldn't let me take the notes with me.

No, no, no, the minister might be embarrassed if you walk into the House with

the documents before he tables them in the House. Well, what childishness! What

childishness, Mr. Speaker!

It was 5:30 p.m. before I got my documents back with all my

notes in it. How am I supposed to respond to questions from colleagues and the

news media on the Budget when I am given less than two hours to study the

documentation. The news media are given four hours, and we are given less than

two. That is the kind of childishness - I shouldn't be too amazed by it. The

Minister of Finance is over there yawning and making faces and saying all kinds

of foolishness.

DR. KITCHEN: I am totally bored.

MR. WINDSOR: Totally bored. Well why don't you remove

yourself and do the Province a favour if you are bored?

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't even know you are the Finance

critic.

MR. PARSONS: The hon. the Member for Pleasantville is

amazed that all these truths have been spoken. He is amazed. He is

flabbergasted.

MR. WINDSOR: I wonder, has the minister sent out a notice

to all the public servants in the Province of how much less they have to work

with now? I wonder if the minister is prepared to send a notice out to the

public servants? The average salary for public servants is $33,000.

MR. BAKER: That is close.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. The President of Treasury Board agrees.

I thought I was going to have to send him my calculator again -$33,000. I will

give him an exact figure - $33,611 if you simply take the total salary package

and divide by the number of upper civil servants listed in the Budget document.

If you apply a 6.1 per cent inflation rate for the last year,

because that is what inflation was last year, if you reduce it by 6.1 per cent

for last year, and you reduce it by 1.8 per cent for this year, you will find

that that salary now that was $33,611 two years ago is worth $31,119 this year,

and $2,500 less is what the average public servant has to spend. If you say,

well, the average public servant at $30,000 is going to break even this year -

if he lives in St. John's - on personal income tax, he is going to pay $90 more

next year, so that is another $90 less he has. But if he happens to be a public

servant out where the school tax is $85, he is going to pay $65 more this year

and he will pay $155 more next year. These are our wealthy public servants who

are living on $33,000, who have not had an increase for the last two years. In

effect, they have less than $30,000 now.

AN HON. MEMBER: More in total or is that with the school

tax?

MR. WINDSOR: I'm sorry, what was his -

AN HON. MEMBER: More in total or is that with the school

tax?

MR. WINDSOR: They pay less than school tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are going to pay less than they did

on the school tax.

MR. WINDSOR: They will pay more than they did on school

tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that amount more?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. This year, the first year, at 2.5 per

cent increase in personal income tax, a person living in rural Newfoundland, a

public servant who was paying $85 last year, will pay $65 more this year. Next

year, because it goes to 4 per cent, that person will pay $155 more.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's with the $85 subtracted.

MR. WINDSOR: That's with the $85 subtracted. One hundred

and fifty-five dollars more than they paid. Now if you lived in St. John's and

paid $150 this year, you'd pay the same. Thirty thousand dollars is the

break-even for this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: The rural fisherman making $10,000 will

pay a lot less.

MR. WINDSOR: A person will pay $65 a year less, this year

- not next year, they pay the same next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: A person making $10,000 will pay the

same?

MR. WINDSOR: A person making $10,000 will pay the same

next year as they paid last year.

MR. NOEL: How do you figure that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-five less this year.

MR. WINDSOR: Pass the calculator over to him again, Mr.

Speaker. A person, as I said, earning $30,000, a family person, will pay $155

more next year in rural Newfoundland.

MR. GRIMES: Do you realize that the majority of people

other than those living in St. John's and Mount Pearl out there beyond the

overpass, can't dream of making $30,000 a year?

MR. WINDSOR: That's right.

MR. GRIMES: Can't dream of making it?

MR. WINDSOR: That's right.

MR. TOBIN: Because of this government!

MR. WINDSOR: And the family making $20,000 a year, which

is the poverty level -

MR. TOBIN: You should be ashamed to say it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The family making $20,000 a year, which is

the poverty level -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: - will pay $51 a year more next year!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: If the hon. gentleman is so proud of that,

go out into rural Newfoundland and tell these people who are living on the

poverty level that: We have just increased your taxes by $51!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Where are all the poor people in Harbour

Grace and Carbonear?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: How about twenty thousand?

MR. PARSONS: The richest people in the country are in

Harbour Grace, Carbonear and Port de Grave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: People in the gallery (inaudible) talking

about. $30,000 a year. A lot of people out in Conception Bay North (inaudible)

dollars a year.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the impact of

this Budget on the average public servant. And there are a lot of public

servants making less than $33,000 a year, a heck of a lot of them. But that is

the impact on the average public servant making $33,000 a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: I am just waiting, Mr. Speaker, that's all.

I have lots of time.

I will move on now to a couple of other items in the Budget,

Mr. Speaker. In the midst of all this there are a couple of positive things.

Five million dollars for a centre for engineering technology. Good. I am not

sure what - it's a really small centre, I would assume, for $5 million, but that

is an improvement. No doubt that will be - I am not sure if that is attached to

the University, is it, or to the Marine Institute, that centre of engineering

technology? Maybe the Minister of Education, does he know? The centre for

engineering technology, is that attached to the University or -

DR. WARREN: No, that is part of the Cabot Institute.

That, Mr. Speaker, is going to be part of the new college. This is a new $12

million to $13 million technology centre that will be under construction within

the next two or three months.

MR. WINDSOR: But is that part of the University?

DR. WARREN: No, it will be part of the St. John's

Regional College.

MR. WINDSOR: Anyway, we welcome that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: And the school milk program, Mr. Speaker,

$150,000 for milk, it is a good program. I remember when I was in Grade VI, the

government then was talking about providing free milk to all the schools -

AN HON. MEMBER: Go away boy (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is true, I remember when I was in Grade

VI, not even Grade VI, what am I saying, I was in Grade II, I think, Grade II or

III, but I remember when I was in Grade II, I was ill, I was off for quite a

while with - I do not know, some strange disease -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I do not know what it was, it wasn't Aids,

no. Scarlet Fever, I think it was called, Scarlet Fever, it was not a social

disease - I was under quarantine as it was a very highly contagious disease, I

was off for quite a while. I remember while I was away from school it was

announced, a new school program is going to be introduced and I remember when I

went to school for the first time after, I went down fully expecting at recess

time there would be milk available but I was never so shattered when I found out

that no, they are talking about a school milk program, but there is no school

milk program yet. It is funny, it is one of those little things that happens to

you when you are young that totally devastated me and I have never forgotten it,

so I had to chuckle when I saw this the other day. It is a good program and I am

certainly very pleased to see it.

A Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre at Whitbourne. Maybe

the Member for Bellevue is planning on getting a job out there, he should apply

now -

MR. BARRETT: I would not have to get a job there. I will

get a bigger majority than you will in Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: If I was a betting man, I would like to take

that one on, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: $2 million is provided for an ongoing

comprehensive computer system, Mr. Speaker, for the Department of Social

Services. Well, it will not do a lot for the people who are on social assistance

but it would probably be of great benefit to the social workers out there who

are grossly overloaded right now. Social assistance rates are increased by 2.2

per cent, that is barely holding inflation, but at least they got something and

that affects a lot of people because there are a lot of people on social

assistance today, far too many people are receiving social assistance, far too

many. The Victim's Services Program is going to replace Criminal Injuries

Compensation Board and the Law Reform Commission will no longer be funded, these

are the great reforms I am sure in the Justice system.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the central point of

what I started to say -

MR. MURPHY: Pay rates of $2.83 per hour for student

assistants (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Is the Member for St. John's South making

his maiden speech, Mr. Speaker, or what is he doing?

MR. MURPHY: I made my maiden speech, there is no need of

getting (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Unfortunately, yes, you have. The point, Mr.

Speaker, that this government has missed is the fact that we do have serious

problems facing Newfoundland today and they need to be addressed. Unfortunately

the government failed to address these serious problems, all you have to do is

look at the percentage of the Budget that is being directed towards natural

resources, agriculture, tourism, industry and trade, 5 per cent of the Budget

only and there is where real job creation will take effect.

As I said before, we had to do it at two fronts. I think

somebody was quoted in the paper yesterday as saying that we cannot just do it

with natural resources, and I could not agree more. Our natural resources

unfortunately are getting taxed to the limit. We have not done a particularly

good job of utilising them. I think we need to direct more effort at further

utilising our natural resources. More value added. I spoke a couple of days ago

about the fishing industry. I welcome this initiative in the Northern Peninsula,

in Roddickton, to activate that sawmill plant there to export -

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

I wonder if the hon. Member could take his seat while I

announce the questions for the Late Show.

The first question is: I am not satisfied by the response of

the acting Minister of Justice to my question about the termination of the

Criminal Injuries Compensation Program. I would like to have these questions

debated at greater length on the Late Show, Thursday - the hon. Member for

Humber East.

The second: I would like to debate the answer given to me by

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs concerning the MOG - the hon.

Member for St. John's East Extern.

The third question: I am not satisfied with the answer given

by the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy re: the break off of negotiations

between Quebec and Newfoundland - the hon. Member for Menihek.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, we

have to attack the problem on two fronts. Have to have the long-term strategy.

It is critically important. I guess we have to attack it on three fronts.

Long-term strategy is critically important, and that has to be the key to

long-term economic stability in the Province. So we are anxiously awaiting this

great economic strategy plan. Can't wait. We're talking, what, the Spring

sometime? Late Spring? This is Spring now. When are we -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Harold Lundrigan gets

(Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Just after the House adjourns for the

Summer, no doubt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) we can keep the House open

(Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Oh we can keep the House open. You can be

sure of that. Keep her open to Regatta Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: So, Mr. Speaker, this great economic

strategy plan is something that has been long awaited, and is long overdue, I

say to government. I say that without having any concept of what might be in it.

It frightens me a little bit what might be in it. But we will wait and see. At

least there will be a plan that we can look at. There has been extensive

consultation, I think. There have been a lot of opportunities for people to make

representation. Whether or not it fell on deaf ears remains to be seen. But for

the moment we will give the government the benefit of the doubt that they have

given people an opportunity to have input.

I went through the other day the amounts of money that are in

the Budget for various economic strategy groups, economic councils, Economic

Recovery Commissions, economic strategy plan implementation, Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately, far too few of those dollars are

actually going where they belong, which is to create some activity. Too much of

it is in planning, strategy and administration. Paperwork. Bureaucracy.

When you look at the overall strategy of the government this

is what you have to look at. This tells you the story of what the government is

doing - or what they are not doing, perhaps more properly put. Five point one

per cent of the Budget is directed towards natural resources, agriculture, trade

and industry. Only 5.1 per cent. So that tells you something. Social welfare

takes 13 per cent. Debt charges and finance charges take 15 per cent. Education

takes 24 per cent. Health takes 24 per cent. We are only able to direct 5.1 per

cent at developing our natural resources.

So that signifies the problem that we have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It is not good, no. I say to the President

of Treasury Board that he is right. I agree with him. It is not good. It really

is not good. It is frustrating to all of us, I am sure. It is a sad commentary

when so much of our provincial dollar has to go on other things so that there is

nothing left to put into resource development, unless we can somehow change

that, and direct more funds in that manner, because right now we fail to create

the economic climate in which private enterprise can do it for us. That is

government's real role, not to create the jobs but to create the economic

climate that makes it attractive for private enterprise to move, to work, to

invest, and to create jobs and economic activity. All government does is

redistribute the wealth. Government's real role is to deal with the social

problem - to look after the social things - and to create an economic climate so

that the economy can support itself. That is what our goal has to be. I do not

think we are going to do it with 5 per cent of our dollar, only, going toward

it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could take his seat?

The Chair has ruled on many occasions that hon. members are

not permitted to interject during the debate. Also, hon. members have been asked

in the past, if they wish to carry on a conversation that they do so outside the

Chamber. I ask hon. members to my left and the hon. members to my right, if it

is absolutely necessary that they engage in a conversation that they do so

outside.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point I want to make is that we must create an economic

climate that is attractive, and that is, I think, government's real role. It is

not to give handouts to private enterprise. Some incentives unfortunately, from

time to time, are necessary, and you may rest assured that private enterprise

will lap them up. I think government's money is better directed at creating a

climate that will allow private enterprise to work without huge subsidies,

without heavy grant levels. Now there are certain areas where we do have to

provide that type of incentive, not as an incentive but to remove some of the

disadvantages that are inherent in our economy, of simply trying to do business

here - not the least of which is the very small market that we have available to

us, particularly locally. So we often have to put in place programs to overcome

the disadvantages from a transportation point of view, from a manpower

availability point of view, from an educational standard point of view,

unfortunately, as well. So we have to deal with that. Five per cent of our

dollar aimed at that part of our economy will not allow us properly to do that

and to put in place all of the infrastructure that is required to assist, or to

make it the kind of environment that private enterprise can work within. That is

one aspect of what we have to do.

The second aspect, of course, is education. We have to put

emphasis on education. We have to improve the standards of our people in the

workforce, and unfortunately the more we seem to do in that regard, the less

opportunities seem to be available for them. So we are losing them - the old

brain drain syndrome we have talked so much about in this House. It is still

very much a reality today. Some of our better students, some of our more

qualified citizens, are forced to leave the Province and find employment

elsewhere, so we have invested all of our resources into making educational

opportunities available, and again it is a two-pronged approach from

government's point of view. One is the social responsibility to make education

available to Newfoundlanders, and the second is to train Newfoundlanders to work

productively in our economy. So we have at least fulfilled the first part - at

least, we're trying to. We are training and educating Newfoundlanders, giving

them the skills that they need to be productive in the workplace.

Unfortunately the opportunities are not there, as I started

to say earlier. So we have to create for them some opportunities. We need to

give them some hope that when they come out of University or trades college or

whatever the case may be, that they have opportunities available for them to use

their skills. There is nothing more frustrating for young people than to spend

four or five years of their life in a post-secondary educational institution and

be faced with the hopelessness that there is no opportunity out there for them

to use the skills and the education that they have gained.

The third aspect of how we have to deal with the problem

unfortunately is to create short-term employment for those who cannot hope to

find a job, for lack of skills or obviously because of lack of employment

opportunities. Unfortunately in this Province we are going to be a long time

before we can totally eliminate the need for that type of a program. As much as

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Unfortunately. As much as none of us like to

see that. But it is a fact of life. What is even sadder, Mr. Speaker, is that it

has become a way of life, more so than a fact of life. There are many

Newfoundlanders out there who because they have been forced into this situation

for so long, we are getting into second- and third-generations that have become

accustomed to that as an acceptable way of life. The objective now is not to get

a full-time job. The objective is to get a job for long enough to get your

stamps. That is sad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I say to the Minister of Education, I am not

saying that is generally applied.

DR. WARREN: If jobs were available people would take

them.

MR. WINDSOR: Some would. There are tens of thousand,

hundreds of thousand of Newfoundlanders, yes, who would take them. I am not

saying they did not want the job, but they are filled with despair and the

hopelessness that a job is there. They no longer expect to find a job. It no

longer becomes unusual for them that there is not a job available. Okay? That is

what I am trying to say. Not that they are satisfied. There are always some who

would rather sit home then go to work. They are the minority, by far the

minority.

Newfoundlanders - more so than many other people in the world

- are born and bred to work. We have clung to life on this rock not easily.

Unfortunately, it is becoming not accepted but not unusual. So it has become a

way of life in Newfoundland. After a while you start to give up, you know. You

do not think that there is any hope of changing that. So the way of life tends

to become more acceptable because you are used to it for so long. I see so many

communities, particularly in rural Newfoundland - and sadly, not only in rural

Newfoundland today. It used to be only in rural Newfoundland. Primarily. It used

to be that generally speaking there were employment opportunities in St. John's,

in the St. John's region, and in the larger centres, if you wished them. A lot

of people moved to the larger centres to find employment.

But it is not there today. There used to be a big difference

between the unemployment level in St. John's and in rural Newfoundland. Not so

today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Toronto, it's not there

either.

MR. WINDSOR: That's right. You had the option of moving.

But they are coming back from Toronto because it is not up there. As I said on

Tuesday, if I were forced to live on that kind of income I would sooner live in

rural Newfoundland than anywhere. You are better off going home and living than

trying to survive in a big city where everything costs you money.

So it is a hard road we have ahead of us, Mr. Speaker, to try

to pull all of these factors together to strengthen our economy. Where are we

relied on to help us. This government has cried a great deal about the reduction

in the amount of funding that is being made available from federal funds.

tremendous amount for the people of this Province. We would all like to see

more, but you have to realize the problems we are facing are that much worse at

the national level. The national debt is far worse than the provincial debt on a

per capita basis.

So they have very serious problems to deal with and their

problem is growing, and they have to reverse that trend immediately.

Unfortunately, some of that burden is being shifted to the provincial level and,

in turn, the provincial level will shift it to the municipal level, and

ultimately, the burden will rest on the shoulders of the taxpayer. The bottom

line, the buck stops somewhere, and the economic buck stops on the shoulders of

the taxpayer, invariably, regardless of what happens at what level. Invariably,

in the end analysis, it is the taxpayer of the province who is called upon to

find the solution.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to be innovative and

imaginative. We are going to have to use the few dollars that are available to

us in the best possible manner. That is not easily done, and it is not always

easy because there are so many demands on government today. I can sympathize

with government. I have been there, and I know what it is like. Every day there

is another group coming in with a purpose, a very valid purpose, a very

worthwhile organization with a mission that deserves some government support.

Every day there is a hand out and another hand, and another hand. Government

could spend their full time meeting with those delegations, these popular

movements, and the minister probably does.

The President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, and

every minister who has a program, every minister, literally, has a group that

will come to him or her looking for funding. The Social Policy Committee is

incredible, just incredible! And they are all worthwhile causes in their own

right. If you look at each one of them individually, and these people are so

enthusiastic because they all have an interest, either a vested interest because

of a personal family problem or it has become an issue that they have taken on

to contribute to society. It may be the General Hospital Corporation and the

person may be volunteering on the board, but that person takes it seriously and

looks at that particular question, tries to deal with it, and tries to do the

best job that they can do. Every time they are coming to government looking for

more help.

They have to realize, I think, that when you are coming to

the government you are coming to the people. The government is only

redistributing the people's money, the public purse, the tax pot. Government's

only role is to set policy and direction as to what the public purse will be

used for, how much will go to social programs, and how much will go to resource

programs. It is to manage the public purse, that is the government's role. There

is no great divine right given to government when they are elected to do

anything that is so wonderful, it is simply to manage the public purse.

I guess our role as legislators here, and our role as an

Opposition, particularly, is to ensure or try to ensure that government does

that wisely and well, and in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the

people. When the people no longer agree with government, then they are no longer

the government. That is the way our system works. It is as simple as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't tell that to Mulroney.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Prime Minister Mulroney may well find

out. I am sure he knows that. He may well not find out. He may find out that the

people would like him to stay there another shot. They just might.

MR. NOEL: They are waiting for Mulroney to have an

election now.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

MR. NOEL: They are waiting for Mulroney to have an

election. (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: He will have an election in due course.

MR. NOEL: Not in due course - now. The economy is

stagnating now, waiting for Mulroney (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The economy is recovering very nicely,

thanks to the economic polices of the federal government.

MR. NOEL: Oh yes? Where is the evidence?

MR. WINDSOR: You will see the evidence. The evidence is

there. It is not something that happens in one day or in one week, but it is on

the right course. That will be obvious before too long. Where are interest rates

today? Where is inflation today?

MR. NOEL: Real interest rates today are as high as they

have ever been. Because the inflation rate (inaudible). Interest rates today are

very high.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you're a real fool!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Mr. Speaker!

MR. WINDSOR: My friend is stating the obvious.

MR. NOEL: Why don't you explain what you said?

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the economy of Canada could be

in far worse shape. I say to the hon. gentleman opposite that I believe we will

come out of this recession. There is very little sign of it yet, let me tell

you. There is very little sign yet of the recession ending, in fact, it appears

to be deepening, if anything.

MR. NOEL: I thought you just said it was improving.

MR. WINDSOR: Nationally, not provincially. Nationally we

are starting to s