March 31.

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 16

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't have a written statement for members opposite, I

would simply like to stand, Mr. Speaker, and make note of the fact that later on

today, tonight, in fact, marks the 43rd Anniversary of the date on which

Newfoundland became part of Canada, the date of Confederation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: It is time, Mr. Speaker, for those of us who

were around then and can remember, to think back to the conditions in

Newfoundland at that time and the tremendous changes that have taken place in

the last forty-three years.

Previous to Confederation, the social safety net was

practically non-existent. The road network and the various services to

communities in this Province were practically non-existent and there has been

some tremendous progress made in these forty-three years. Mr. Speaker, we all

realize that perhaps we would like to have seen a little more progress, but I

think we all realize that the decision made - albeit a very narrow decision -

the decision made on that fateful day has affected us all, has affected our

services, has affected the way we live, has affected our educational

institutions and has affected the total of the way of life of all

Newfoundlanders. So I would simply like to make note of that very special

occasion in our history.

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

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

I just want to say a few words in response to what the

Government House Leader said. We concur with him in his remarks about our

joining Canada. Some of us are too young to remember the great Confederation

fight. Some are like my colleague for St. John's East Extern, who remembers it

well and, Mr. Speaker, has become a convert, I guess, on just how much this

joining Canada has meant to us as a people, to us as a Province.

I suppose it is somewhat ironic, but I guess, as well,

significant, that on this very anniversary date, we have some of our people out

on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, trying to address the very serious

issue of foreign overfishing. And I hope, if they accomplish one thing, Mr.

Speaker, on this anniversary date, it will be that they have enough impact on

public opinion in Canada and public opinion in Europe, that this problem is

dealt with. I only hope they have enough impact upon the Prime Minister and the

serious issue. We have come a long way, but we will go back very quickly, Mr.

Speaker, if this fishing issue is not addressed in the near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

remarks -

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

have the leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is, of course, a

truism to say that Newfoundlanders are better off for Confederation. There are

very few Newfoundlanders, except a few romantics, who would have us turn back

the clock and be once again on our own. I think it is appropriate that on this

particular anniversary it is particularly noteworthy that some of those things

that we gave up in terms of nationhood and brought in Confederation in terms of

our resources, we as a Province or we as a people have the inability to act on

our own with respect to that.

It is quite remarkable that over the last year or so since I

have been in this House, there have been very many resolutions, all-party

resolutions, unanimous resolutions in this House, trying to get the Government

of Canada to take action in doing what we, if we were a nation, might be able to

do.

So we did give up something; it was the ability to control

our affairs on the international level that we gave up. And I think it is ironic

that on this very anniversary, we have people out trying to assert an

international jurisdiction that we, as a nation, might have claimed were we

such. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise this hon. House that Canada Bay

Lumber Company and its sawmill operations at Roddickton, until recently owned by

Chester Dawe Limited, have been purchased by Interholz Limited which is owned by

an Austrian interest. The mill has been purchased entirely through private

financing.

Canada Bay Limited had operated the mill only on a part-time

basis. It had never fully realized its potential. The new company plans to

operate the mill on a full-time basis. All its lumber production will be

exported to Europe. It will, therefore, not compete with other local mills in

the local markets. In the past, Newfoundland, besides newsprint, always exported

round logs or pulpwood. This is significant, Mr. Speaker. It is the first time

ever that Newfoundland will be exporting value added finished lumber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, this is good news for the

economy of the Northern Peninsula, especially the Roddickton-Main Brook area.

While additional jobs will be created, more importantly, these jobs will be more

secure and long-term. It will also result in better utilization of the local

forest resources.

The mill will require further investment in a seasoning kiln

and other quality improvements to meet the export standards. The new owners will

be evaluating the upgrading requirements of the mill in the next few weeks, and

they plan to start up the mill as soon as possible this summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I want to first thank the minister for an advance copy of his

release, and I want to congratulate the owners of Interholz Limited, I think is

the name of the company, for taking this initiative of buying the Canada Bay

Lumber operations in Roddickton. It is a good thing they didn't have to depend

on this government for any assistance, because they would never get it, Mr.

Speaker. It is very fortunate that they were able to finance this operation

themselves, and I congratulate them very much for being able to take on this

operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would say it is a good

deal for the company to get it. I would be very interested in seeing some of the

details on the timber rights that have been given with this, which would have to

be. I would be interested in seeing how the operation ties in with the

electrical generation plant in Roddickton. I imagine they have some affiliation

with that, to supply the wood chips, no doubt.

Having said all that, this is certainly a good day for the

Roddickton area, on the Northern Peninsula. I congratulate the company for

taking on this project, and I wish them every success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs announced funding, some $65 million for municipalities,

creating some 2,400 jobs in the Province. We are delighted to hear that activity

is about to take place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: My question is to the Minister of Finance.

Looking at the Budget documents it is clear that from the capital works projects

that were approved last year in the Budget there was some $56 million of that

amount that was not spent, only $14 million of which was provincial government

expenditure. Would the minister like to tell us why last year he did not spend

that $56 million which would have created some 2,200 jobs in this province last

year, and would have only cost this Province $14 million?

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

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

advisement.

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

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) comment, Mr. Speaker, it is

amazing that a minister has to take under advisement what he did last year. Just

incredible.

This year government plans to spend $210 million on capital

works, $17 million less than last year. Would the minister like to tell us why

he is this year not going to spend that $17 million, which probably would

leverage $50 million or $60 million of federal and/or private capital? Why is he

not going to spend that this year and create a couple of thousand jobs with

that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members were over

there seventeen years running the budget of this Province and all they did was

run her in the hole. We have now a responsible group of people in this Province

who will look at the long-term future of this Province and not strangle us in

debt.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has been in

office four years and we have had a negative growth in the economy every year

since that minister took office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister must know that for

every dollar government spends on capital that he gets back forty cents at least

in the provincial treasury. These numbers I have just referred to show that in

fact the cost to the Province of these projects would be less than forty cents

on the dollar. Why can the minister not see the economics of that and start

spending some money, money that was already approved by the Budget last year,

money that is being made available by the government of Ottawa? Why is the

minister not using that money to create some economic activity in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, again the member is thinking

only in respect to the short term. You get a little bit of extra money this year

by borrowing, but I might remind the hon. member that next year you have to pay

the interest, and you have to pay the interest, and you have to pay the interest

and the interest and the interest - forever! So there is no long-term gain by

doing this. There may be a little bit of pleasure this year, but unless what you

are doing in the economy is building the economy so that it can support more

people, just spending money one year and paying interest forever and subtracting

what you spend, you must subtract from what you have available the interest you

pay. Right now the interest cost in this Province is over $400 million a year,

which would go a long way to do many of the things we want to do, but what we

have to do is restrain our impulses to spend Santa Claus fashion in the

short-term.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier I

ask my question to the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader.

The woman who complained to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary nineteen months

ago that the Member for Naskaupi, then a cabinet minister, sexually assaulted

her, subsequently spoke on a number of occasions to Simon Lono in the Premier's

office in an attempt to get a meeting with the Premier. Would the minister

confirm that Simon Lono left the Premier's office last week and would he

indicate whether any involvement of Mr. Lono in the so-called Kelland affair had

anything to do with his departure from the Premier's office?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is, absolutely

nothing. There is absolutely no connection. The long answer?... I suppose I

could go into the situation and explain once again for the fifth or sixth time

in this House exactly what happened. All I can say at this point in time, Mr.

Speaker, is that the Member for Humber East is trying to dig up a little bit of

dirt again, and maybe that is the limit of what she can do.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask a new question. In the absence of the

Premier, and given the fact that the Minister of Justice does not have a seat in

this Assembly, I will direct my question to the acting Minister of Justice. I

would like the acting minister to tell the House how the government can justify

abruptly and totally terminating the Crimes Compensation Program and denying to

all past, present, and future victims of crime, any reimbursement for their

out-of-pocket expenses resulting from criminal injury, any compensation for lost

income as a result of criminal injury, and any token compensation for their pain

and suffering? How can the government rationalize this termination? Did the

government consult any of the public about the termination, and did the

government give any thought at all to scaling down the program still providing

some compensation, albeit at lower rates?

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

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

In, I believe it was, the fiscal year 1990-1991, the federal

government announced its complete withdrawal from this program. After years of

encouraging the development of such a program, the federal government announced

its complete withdrawal. Now, Mr. Speaker, since then the Province has been

handling cases that have arisen. As a matter of fact, at this point in time

there are 181 cases on the waiting list that will be dealt with, and in the

Budget this year there is a certain amount of money put aside to handle the 181

compensation cases that we will still handle. But, Mr. Speaker, in view of the

withdrawal of the federal government from this program we feel that the scarce

provincial money that is available is perhaps better spent in victim services,

it is better spent in providing help and assistance pre-trial and during the

trial for individuals in this circumstance.

It is a matter of choice, Mr. Speaker. We feel, since the

federal government pulled out of this program, that we have to spend our money,

the scarce dollars that we have, in the most effective way, and we feel, Mr.

Speaker, that is the most effective way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is strange that the government didn't make any public

representations to the federal government to get federal support restored. It is

strange that the government did not consult victims about their priority.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting minister

about a crime victim, now a survivor, who was just involved as a witness in

seven Mount Cashel trials. He made twenty-seven trips from Ontario to St. John's

for the Hughes Enquiry Hearings, for preliminary enquiry hearings and for

trials. He had planned to apply for crimes compensation following the final

trial. That concluded with a guilty verdict this morning.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when I questioned the Premier on

government's decision to remove from the Hughes Enquiry mandate the power to

make recommendations about compensation, the Premier said in this House, and I

quote, "That is -

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

The hon. member is on a supplementary, and the hon. member

very well knows that a supplementary is not given the leeway of the main

question. So I ask the hon. member to please get to the question.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the Premier said

the Mount Cashel victims should go to the Crimes Compensation Program. I have

quotes here from Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, would the acting minister explain to the House

of Assembly how the government intends to honour the Premier's commitment to the

Mount Cashel survivors to give them appropriate compensation for their pain and

suffering, for the disruption they have experienced in their lives, and for

their out of pocket expenses?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to be very careful in the

way I answer this. First of all when the comment was made the Crimes

Compensation Board was still in place and we are still proceeding with the

program. It was a budgetary decision for reasons that I announced a moment ago

that this government took and is putting its resources into victim services.

We have made representation to the federal government about

the abolishment of the Crimes Compensation. I would like to remind the hon.

member that the people who abolished that program are the same people she is

going to be out campaigning for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Shame! Despicable hypocrisy!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in terms of this individual case

that I know about I will have to look into what is happening and get back to the

hon. member, but I would like to point out that I hope the hon. member is not

suggesting that government make some kind of basic decision now that would

preclude the possibility of these people going to court and suing for damages

and so on, and who they would sue for damages. I have to be very careful of what

I say here. I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that we simply jump in and

commit tens of millions of dollars.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. In the Budget

of last week the children's dental program was cut from $7 million down to $4.7

million, a cut of 32.9 per cent. Now last year the minister said that cuts in

health funding would actually improve health care. I think the minister must

have thought he was Houdini when he dreamt that one up.

Does he now say that a cut of one third in the dental budget

will improve dental services for the children in this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we have a children's dental

health program which we are making some modifications to. In looking at that

program, Mr. Speaker, there are some procedures being performed which could

hardly be described as basic dental programs. For example, stainless steel

crowns and root canals are being done, and we are not absolutely certain that it

was the intent of the program to get into that kind of treatment. Basically it

was put in place as a basic dental program for children up to thirteen or

fourteen years old, whatever the case might be.

We have advised the Dental Association that we intend to make

some changes to that program. We are going to deliver a basic program, Mr.

Speaker, and I would advise the hon. member not to get too torn up on whether it

is $4.5 million or $5 million. This government is committed to delivering a

basic dental health program to our children. As a matter of fact I am meeting

with the Dental Association after the House closes this evening to discuss the

wherewithal whereby we can deliver that program.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. A reduction of

that size, Mr. Speaker, has to severely cut dental services to children. Now how

does the minister intend to do it? Surely it is not all impacted wisdom teeth as

the Minister of Finance would have us believe. Does the minister intend to

reduce the age limit for dental services as well? Does he intend to have a means

test, maybe, of some kind? Will he pay for only certain kinds of services? Maybe

he would be willing to lay it out for us as to where the cuts are actually going

to take place.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to forget

the kind of Department of Health he is dealing with today. We do not ride

roughshod over people, we co-operate with people. That is why I am meeting with

the Dental Association this afternoon, to discuss with them how best to deliver

this program.

Mr. Speaker, I will be in a better position to answer that

question in a few weeks time after we consult back and forth and we work out a

program that this Province can afford, and a program that meets the need that we

intended in the first place, which was a basic dental program, Mr. Speaker. I am

not going to make that decision on the spur of the moment just because the hon.

member asked the question. We consult with professionals in the business and

that is why we are making such great changes to the health system in this

Province today.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, whether the minister wishes to

admit it or not, he is tampering with the universality of the dental care plan

for children. Now, is he testing the waters, Mr. Speaker, for changes to the

Medicare plan? Do the changes to the children's dental plan foreshadow changes

to Medicare, is that the next step in the minister's bag of tricks?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the hon. member

does not have a clue as to what he is talking about. The dental program is not

included in the Medicare program at all. The dental program is an add-on, which

some provinces have decided to go with in the Canada Health Act. There is no

reference made to a universal dental program, so the hon. member, if he hopes

some day to be the Minister of Health, as well as the critic, he is going to

have to get his act together and learn exactly what the Canada Health Act is all

about.

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

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

Is the minister aware that payments under the dental plan for

children make up a very, very large portion of the income for rural dentists,

and won't this cut of 33 per cent force dentists to abandon rural Newfoundland

and leave tens of thousands of, not only children but adults as well without

proper dental service as a result of that cut of 33 per cent?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty well an opinion of

the Dental Association that the children's dental health program is what they

refer to as the 'Bread and Butter' of the dental business in rural Newfoundland.

However, if the hon. member were to look, he would see that a considerable

amount of this in the stainless steel crowns and the root canals are actually

performed as a surgical procedure within this city, so - I know it has been said

by the dentists - I am not absolutely sure that that is the case.

Another point I would want to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked a question and if he wants to

pursue it, he would be entitled to ask again.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Mr, Speaker, the hon. member should try to

restrain himself a bit. I know he is emotionally involved in this issue, but he

should try to practice a bit of restraint in this House.

I tell the hon. member that that whole program has been

giving me some concern over the past number of years. The previous

administration had a co-pay of five dollars in there and that is still there,

but I am not sure whether this co-pay is not actually deterring the people who

should take advantage of this service, so, over the next weeks, when I am

meeting with the Dental Association, I will be discussing ways that we can

design that program so that it will actually reach the people who need it. The

five dollar co-pay means that it is quite common for a child in rural

Newfoundland to go to his dentist and have a bill of twenty dollars or

twenty-five dollars. Now, I am afraid that has already proven to be a deterrent

and I am not sure that program does not need a lot of changing and that is

exactly what we will be looking at over the next few days.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The minister is aware, I am sure, of the recent suspension of

four firemen by the Town of Witless Bay, and he is also aware that those firemen

say that they have been suspended without cause. Could the minister tell the

House if he has checked into this particular problem, and if he did, if there is

any reason for those people not to be reinstated?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the department has checked into

the recent suspensions of the fire fighters in Witless Bay and it is a dispute

between the council and the fire department and it is something that the

department is reluctant to, and does not wish to, get into with the particular

parties.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister confirm that there has been an internal

investigation into the circumstances surrounding the fire department and the

town council in Witless Bay and if the contents of this investigation would have

anything to do with the recent resignation of a councillor in the town of

Witless Bay?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker. The recent resignation of a

councillor, to my knowledge, does not have anything to do with the most recent

investigation. That is not to say that there was not an investigation previous

to that. There is a current investigation under way. The report is with the

department. It is being analyzed. When the department is ready to make

recommendations they will be made public and also dealt with the council

involved.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, on January 16, 1992 a letter

was written to the then Minister, Mr. Gullage, and to the Premier, outlining a

number of grave concerns pertaining to the council in Witless Bay, some of which

contravened the Municipalities Act. Could the minister give an explanation as to

why there has not been a reply from the minister or the Premier in almost three

months?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot account for what the Premier and my predecessor - I

will start again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Can I have the protection of the Chair, Mr.

Speaker, so I can answer this question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: A profound question.

MR. HOGAN: I forget the question now.

I cannot account for the response or nonresponse from my

predecessor or the Premier. I doubt very much that it was not responded to. I

cannot see either of them ignoring anything that was brought to their attention.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Start again. Start again.

MR. HOGAN: I cannot account, Mr. Speaker, for any

response or nonresponse that my predecessor or the Premier did or did not make

in response to something from the residents of Witless Bay. I know that when

these matters were brought to my attention, an investigation was initiated. The

report is with me. There are some items there that probably would need the

attention of the department. They are being analyzed. Attention is going to be

given to those items and recommendations will be forthcoming.

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

supplementary.

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

Because the department has sort of set a precedent in

dismissing the council in Cox's Cove recently for contravening sections of the

Municipalities Act, can the minister tell the House if there is anything in the

department's report that would warrant such actions in this case?

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

Provincial Affairs.

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

Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice, and since he does

not have a seat in the House, I guess the acting minister can answer it. Can the

government confirm that the government has decided to close the courthouse in

Brigus, which serves probably the most concentrated area in Newfoundland,

outside of St. John's, the whole Conception Bay north area. Is it true that the

government has decided to close that courthouse, and does this mean that it is

shutting down the judicial centre of Brigus under The Supreme Court Act?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will check into the details of

that question and get back to the hon. member. My understanding is that it will

be handled from St. John's by circuit or something, but I had better check into

the exact answer and get back to the hon. gentleman.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and could I ask the acting

Minister of Justice to also find out whether or not the consequences of a

closure of this courthouse would result in an inability of residents of that

area to file documents in the court, and to achieve justice there and not have

to come to St. John's to file documents? If it is going to continue to be a

judicial centre, which it has been for many, many years, or whether any other

consideration was given - if they did not like that centre - of moving it to a

more central location in Conception Bay north - perhaps Harbour Grace or

Carbonear?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of any

of the considerations that went into any such decision that was made. If I were

aware of them, I suppose I would not be free to comment on them, because they

would have been comments made in Cabinet or wherever, but I am not aware of the

other considerations that were put in this. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that

the service offered by the justice system will be provided to all people in this

Province on an equal basis. We try to make our justice system as good and as

efficient as possible.

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

Extern.

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

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Since this hon. gentleman

became the new minister some good changes have been made in that department.

Because of one of the changes that his predecessor brought into being - the new

MOG, Municipal Operating Grant system - I ask the minister today: because of the

trouble that is causing to all municipalities in the Province, would he consider

changing that system?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: It is the practice of this government, Mr.

Speaker, that all programs that are either introduced by them or by anybody else

- their predecessors or what have you - are under constant review, and processed

in such a fashion that they would serve the interests of the public best. This

program would be subject to the same type of review.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I think what the minister has

said is that this government made a mistake. I want to ask the minister: does he

think it fair - since this system came into effect - I will take one specific

case. The Town of Torbay, which is a fast growing town, has increased their mil

rate by 1.5 mils. They are still losing $200,000 in revenue. I want to ask the

minister: wouldn't he consider this an intolerable situation? Wouldn't he

consider that those people, this council, is being robbed of money which is

rightfully theirs?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to correct the

hon. Member. I didn't - at least, I didn't hear myself say it; I don't know if

anybody else in the House heard me - say that this government made a mistake in

the MOG program.

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

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if I

heard myself say it or not, and I don't know if anybody else in the House heard

me say it, but I didn't admit to making any mistake, or that the government made

any mistake over the MOG program. I said that all government programs are under

constant review by this government so they can best serve the public.

The second part of his question. Any council that finds

itself in a deficit position - it's not a good position to be in, no more than

if I was in a deficit position.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Flatrock received a

grant and -

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

MR. PARSONS: - unless the minister changes the format

they cannot afford to accept it without doubling the rate from 5.5 mils at least

to 10 mils. How many more towns are in the same position as Flatrock is in?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the mil rate as it appears to me

- I am not aware of the specific mil rate, but I will take the hon. member's

word for it that it is 5.5. If the Town of Flatrock or any other town cannot

afford a program, the only way they can do it is by increasing their mil rate or

having a program that suits their particular needs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: I will start again, Mr. Speaker. The situation

which the Town of Flatrock finds itself in with 5.5 mils is: if they cannot

afford the program then the only logical way they can afford it is by increasing

their mil rate. They should not enter into programs that they can't afford. That

is being rather facetious but they should try and cut the cloth to suit the

needs.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister

understood what I said,. They are paying right now for dry pipe. If they accept

the money that the minister offered yesterday then they will still be only

halfway to the first house. It's been four years now since they received any

funding. Now they will have to put the mil rate to eleven with no assurance,

unless the minister again assures me that they will be funded next year to bring

services to at least number one house, they will have to double their mil rate

to perhaps ten or eleven mils, still with no services. The only service they

have there is garbage pickup. Was that in reality an offer or was it an

ultimatum?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker. The initial part of the

program that was introduced by my predecessor - I think it was four and a half

years ago that they received the initial grant for that particular system - I

hate to say it, Mr. Speaker, but it was spent in a political fashion and it was

done arse foremost and that is why they are having the problem they have now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table a Lieutenant Governor's warrant in the amount

of $3,329,300: For physicians' services, $1,274,000 million, and for grants and

subsidies to hospitals, $2,055,300 million, for a total of $3,329,300.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would like to table an

amendment to the loan agreement between Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and the

government. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the loan drawdown period

to enable Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to avail of a $4.3 million loan to help

finance the expenditures under the capital modernization upgrading program which

we agreed to do last week.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, the Member for Humber East asked me a question

concerning the grants and subsidies paid to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd. I

would like to indicate that Corner Brook Pulp and Paper have spent about $225

million modernizing the mill in Corner Brook and under the Pulp and Paper

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to give Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper grants of approximately $45 million toward the cost of the modernization

program. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's share of that $45 million

was approximately $7 million, and then, as a one-time contribution, the

government gave a $2 million grant to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to build

access roads. This grant was given when they originally took over the mill.

Then, Mr. Speaker, annually, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador share

the cost of a silviculture program with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper on a 70/30

basis with the Province paying approximately 30 per cent of $2 million or

$600,000. A similar program was extended to Abitibi-Price. Apart from the

interest we just discussed on the loan - we discussed that last week - these are

all the grants and subsidies that my officials could find that went to Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 1.

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

Speech.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, yesterday -

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a

brief interruption? The Chair feels it has to do it. For the benefit of hon.

members who have not sat in our previous House, I have mentioned on a number of

occasions that the layout of this House, the space that we have here, is

particularly conducive to a lot of noise. I find hon. members getting up to

leave and not leaving, leaning over members' desks and carrying on long

conversations. Our chairs are the type that swivel around, and hon. members are

not aware that when we have ten or twelve going on like that, it is very

difficult to hear a member who is speaking. Out of courtesy to an hon. member,

hon. members should please keep the level of conversation down to a minimum. We

have space over here and I have seen hon. members from time to time stopping

over here. Here, we have a tendency on this side to lean over the desk and to be

back on to the Chair. I have told hon. members about that. The procedure always

is, in every House, that if a member wants a conversation we go outside, or we

go behind the curtain. We do not have a curtain here, but I have noticed that

the two House leaders very often go behind here and it does not create any

disturbance. The Chair very often doesn't hear it. I ask hon. members, in

courtesy to other hon. members and for the maintenance of decorum and order in

the House, that they please remember the layout of our House, that it is not

constructed to entertain these conversations and that hon. members please

refrain, certainly, from carrying on long conversations that seem to multiply to

the point where you cannot hear the hon. member speaking.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me thank you for your ruling. I was about

to say, in fact, that yesterday there was quite a bit of disturbance in the

House, which makes it very difficult to speak, as Your Honour has quite properly

said. Hon. gentlemen opposite missed a great deal of factual information

yesterday and I hate for them to miss all of the good things I had to say

yesterday, so I feel obligated to hon. gentlemen opposite to start again. I

think I am going to have to do that, particularly now that Your Honour has given

me at least a 50/50 chance of having somebody listen to me today. Now, I am

under no false allusions that the news media are going to be listening. They are

gone, I suspect. I cannot see the press gallery from here, but once Question

Period is over they usually fade into oblivion, and certainly, if you were to

listen to CBC TV, you wouldn't know that I had made any comments on the Budget

at all. NTV have been quite generous, kind, and fair on panels that I have had

with the President of Treasury Board, the Member for St. John's East, and my

good friend and colleague and bosom buddy, the leader of NAPE, Mr. March. We

have had a couple of very pleasant debates on TV. I have had some very pleasant

debates on CBC radio, in fact, over the Budget, both before and since the

Budget, very worthwhile and very productive debates, I think. The Evening

Telegram have been fine and VOCM radio have been good, but CBC TV seem to have a

great penchant for doing interviews in the pubs on George Street. That seems to

be where they get their views on the Budget, but we have not seen a lot of

comment from this side recently. Anyway, sobeit, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is really a

point of order, but I commiserate with the hon. gentleman and I understand his

feelings, but I implore him, please, don't start again. I listened yesterday.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have great sympathy for the

President of Treasury Board because there were several occasions, brief, albeit,

yesterday, when he was paying attention. But I have to confess, Your Honour,

that outside of yourself and the Pages in the House of Assembly yesterday that -

Dr. Warren raised his hand. I think he did spend five or six minutes listening

along with one or two others over there. I can't say that much for my colleagues

on this side, I have to confess. There were periods yesterday when I saw more of

the backs of hon. gentlemen opposite than I did the faces of them.

At least now, Mr. Speaker, having said all that, having

gotten myself in trouble with CBC TV, I had their attention at least for the

first five minutes.

I want to start off by saying, Mr. Speaker, that out of all

the public comment that has taken place over the last four or five days, I have

to confess, one thing that really concerns me is the amount of apathy I am

seeing in the public - apathy, and I don't think it is apathy from the point of

view that they don't care, I think it is apathy from the point of view of a

severe defeatist attitude that the people of this Province feel.

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

MR. WINDSOR: My colleague says, quite correctly, many

people are scared to speak out.

I heard a good story today. Maybe some of you have heard it,

but it was new to me. It was something that took place at the Liberal convention

this year when there was a voice vote being taken on a particular issue. The

Premier already had spoken very much in favour of this resolution at the

convention and a voice vote was taken and it was very clearly against the

proposal, very clearly against it. The Chairperson said: 'Motion is defeated.'

And I am told that the Premier jumped up on the stage and said: 'Mr. Chairman, I

believe on an issue as important as this we should have a standing vote,' and he

stood on the stage with his arms folded and watched as the standing vote was

taken, and I am told it was passed by a majority of eighty-three to

seventy-eight. So there are seventy-eight free-thinking Liberals out there,

contrary to my former belief. There are at least seventy-eight who are prepared

to stand up and be counted.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It has a great deal to do with this. It has

a great deal to do with the whole methodology of governing the Province. It has

a great deal to do with the fact that it is a one-man show over there, that hon.

gentlemen and ladies opposite are not allowed to speak for themselves and have

had no input into this Budget.

MS. VERGE: Members of the public are afraid of

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: And that is precisely why the Minister of

Finance today couldn't even tell me why he hadn't spent $60 million last year.

He has to take it under advisement to find out what he didn't do last year. Now,

if that isn't gross incompetence, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is! -

absolutely gross incompetence, Mr. Speaker.

But that is an interesting story that came out of the Liberal

Leadership Convention that was related to me today. I think it is very

indicative, Mr. Speaker, of the malaise in the Liberal Party today and the view

that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have of this party, that it is a

one-man show. I warned hon. gentlemen opposite that the one-man show will drop

very, very, very quickly.

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

will find out if it is true.

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman should find out if it is

true. If the hon. gentleman can prove to me that it is not true - I don't hear a

lot of his colleagues denying this, by the way. I don't hear a lot of denial on

that side any more than I heard a denial when I told the hon. gentleman from

Baie Verte that the Premier had stood up at the Convention and taken the

microphone from him because he did not like what he was saying. There was no

denial on that particular occasion either, Mr. Speaker. So I suspect my

resources are relatively accurate.

Mr. Speaker, let me get back to what I am trying to say. I am

concerned about the apathy, and I don't think it is apathy from the point of

view that the people of this Province don't care what is taking place or what is

being done to them, I think it is apathy from the point of view of a total

defeatist attitude on the people that they have been beaten and battered so

often, that they have seen this government act in this unilateral fashion,

totally uncaring for the consequences of their actions, that they have become

accustomed to. What they are saying now is, What can we do. They are going to do

it, anyway.

Several people even suggested to me, Oh, you are going to

speak all week. What for? Is it going to change anything? Of course it is not

going to change anything. Is the government going to change their mind? Are they

going to bring in amendments? Are they going to roll back the payroll tax? Are

they going to reduce personal income tax because of what I say in this House

this week? It hasn't happened in the seventeen years I have been here and it

isn't likely to start this year. But I think we do have an obligation to the

people of this Province to point out what is being done to them. We have an

obligation to point out the actions of this government and what this government

is up to. It takes a little digging, Mr. Speaker, to get into a budget document

and fully understand the implications of it. It takes some time for private

enterprise to take these changes and apply them to themselves. Not always. Some

of them are very quick to respond.

I pointed out yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that the two main

factors in this particular Budget document are the elimination of the school tax

and the replacement of that with a payroll tax on businesses and personal income

tax increase for individuals. This government has tried to pass this off as a

trade-off, because it is perceived, and I think rightly so, that the majority of

people in this Province felt that the school tax was not a good tax, or at least

the administration of it and the impact of it. They didn't mind paying the tax

but there had to be a better way, and it was an inefficient tax to collect. The

administrative costs were high, although admittedly reduced over the past

several years, and I have said that myself. I don't disagree. I am on record

publicly as saying, I agree. We needed to look at the school tax system and make

some changes to it. I didn't disagree with that. And I am not totally in

disagreement with what has been put in its place, not totally.

What I don't like, Mr. Speaker, is that this government is

saying, We simply took this tax and replaced it with that tax, $30 million, $20

million being school tax on individuals and $10 million being school tax on

businesses. We replaced it with $20 million of personal income tax and $10

million on businesses through the payroll tax. That is true for 1992-1993, but

both of those taxes increase by a further 50 per cent next year.

So what this government has done, Mr. Speaker, is, they have

said, We are taking $30 million this year, and that is the same as the school

tax. So we haven't added any taxes. But in this Budget they have announced an

additional $15 million for next year.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Okay. Well, you are still getting $30

million additional this year on an annualized basis with the additional 2.5 per

cent on personal income tax. Next year you will raise $45 million in the place

of the $30 million school tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, let's be honest about it. Don't try to

hide it. It is clear. I can see the Minister of Finance next year standing there

and saying, Mr. Speaker, I am not raising taxes this year. No, because he has

announced them this year. He has announced his $15 million increase this year to

take effect next year. That's what he is doing, Mr. Speaker. Let us be very

clear about the implications of these taxes. Let us be very clear, Mr. Speaker,

that this Budget does not provide any increase for pensioners in this Province,

public service pensioners, but it increases income tax on them by 4 per cent.

Those are the least able to pay it. It adds 4 per cent onto their personal

income tax, Mr. Speaker. So the person on a public service pension has less

disposable income this year than they had last year. That is a fact of life. The

government tries to say: But businesses are better off, 10,000 businesses won't

pay school tax this year, small businesses which have a payroll less than

$100,000. They paid school tax last year and they won't pay any tax this year

because the school tax is eliminated, and they won't have to pay a payroll tax.

Because they have a payroll less than $100,000.

Well, I would suggest to the government, Mr. Speaker, that I

don't know where 10,000 small businesses are. I would suggest to the government

that the majority of them are paper companies that have no real property and

paid no school tax last year, and I would suggest that most of the rest of them

are in rental properties where the school tax was paid by the landlord. So there

is no saving to those small companies this year!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is passed on.

MR. WINDSOR: It is passed on, is it? Well, show me one

landlord who is going to lower his rent this year because he doesn't have to pay

the school tax. Show me one!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: So, Mr. Speaker, it is humbug to suggest

that private enterprise - with a few exceptions. There will be some. There will

be those who have fairly valuable property and very low payrolls who will

benefit. People in real estate, property owners, will benefit, because they

won't have to pay the school tax based on a property assessment now.

So I suppose I could turn it around and say: Well, that's

positive, that might be something that will make it a little more attractive for

private enterprise to invest in real estate and to build something. I suppose I

could find that small bit of positive aspect to it. But I am grabbing at straws

at that. But to try to pass this off and say that 10,000 businesses will pay

less tax, that is just not true. It is being very, very deceitful.

Now, while I am on that, something else came to my attention

this morning. My colleagues might be interested in this. Something else came to

my attention this morning. Because I am still amused at the Minister of

Finance's fixation on fees.

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

The Chair is going to have to insist on stopping the

meetings. I ask the two hon. members please, if they want to have a meeting, to

probably withdraw and have their meeting outside, not in the House.

I also want to remind the hon. the Member for Pleasantville

who just a minute ago walked across in front of the Table without doing the

appropriate courtesy. The Chair doesn't like to do that kind of thing but it is

the Chair's duty to ensure that all of the rules with respect to decorum and

dignity in the House are adhered to.

I ask hon. members, please, to co-operate. It is not

appropriate for two or three people to crowd around a desk while an hon. member

is speaking.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Once

again, you are quite accurate.

Now, as I was about to say, I discovered something very

interesting today. As I spent some time last night and this morning reading the

documents again and searching for something that I might have missed, it came to

my attention - I was somehow really amazed at the minister's fixation on fees

and licences, he said, that we're eliminating. And why he would spend so much

time at it. I thought I would have another look at this and just see exactly

what the minister is doing.

I read his words. He says: "... I am pleased to announce

today the continuation of a significant reform, namely the elimination of a

number of fees and licences and the consequent reduction in the cost,

inconvenience and paper burden...." I congratulate the minister for getting rid

of cost, inconvenience and paper burden.

Well, I said: How much cost and inconvenience and paper

burden are we losing? The minister says: Well, tourist establishment licence

fees, and hunting and fishing camp fees, will be eliminated. He says: "The

existing nine categories of food establishment licences will be reduced to four

and the fees eliminated."

He says: "I am pleased to announce that not only is the only

waiter's licence fee being eliminated, but also the licence itself, saving about

9,000 individuals the annual inconvenience of having to renew the licence and

about 1,100 licensed establishments the nuisance of having to display them. This

is an excellent example of what Government wants to achieve in reviewing the

Province's fees and licences regime."

Now, that all sounds wonderful, but it's the old story. Have

a look at the fine print, Mr. Speaker. Turn to

Schedule B-1 in the back of the

book - tourist establishment licences, travel trailer establishment licences.

There are eleven of those counted as one, simply because one is nine rooms or

less, and one is ten rooms or less. There are eleven of them, counted as eleven

fees. Are they being removed? No. The licence will still be required. The fees

are being eliminated, January of 1993. January of 1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I looked at it and said, well, the end of

the tourism year, I suppose. It is an annual fee. I guess they are all renewed

in January. They are probably renewed for this year, so I guess government is

saying, We are not going to refund for this year, but next year you won't have

to pay a fee. Alright, I will live with that. I can probably live with that, Mr.

Speaker.

Then, right underneath it came education, high school

certification, public exam registration fee, certified copy of marks, GED

testing fee, GED test results, private training institutions, registration fee

for private trade schools, evaluation of a course of instruction - seven more.

Are those licences being - well, they are not licences, so it is not applicable.

I think those are fees. The fees are being eliminated in September. I said,

well, okay, the beginning of the school year. I suppose it is probably not too

illogical. I can probably live with that, Mr. Speaker.

I turned over again, and came to the next one. A little

further on I came to small game licences, August, 1992 - that is being

eliminated, as well. I guess that is the beginning of the small game season, so

why it would not be effective immediately I don't know. I don't think there is

any small game hunting, unless there is a Labrador hunt or something over the

summer. I am not aware of any hunting during the summer. Some of my hunting

colleagues might know, but I said, Well, August, 1992 - what difference does it

make whether it is today or it is August? When the licences come up for sale in

September there will be no fee, so I guess that doesn't really matter. It is a

little ways down the road, but there it is.

Then I see wildlife, trout, non-resident and individual

trouting licence, non-resident family trouting licence. Those are considered two

fees, by the way, that are being eliminated - done immediately - and those are

actually being eliminated. You won't need a licence anymore. I spoke about that

yesterday. I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: You disagree with that?

MR. WINDSOR: I disagree with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The elimination?

MR. WINDSOR: I disagree with the elimination of that, and

the reason I disagree with it is because of my friend in Labrador who knows full

well the problem that outfitters in Labrador are having with persons flying in

from Quebec and fishing, and there is very little we can do now to stop them

from flying in, or walking across the border - because there is a whole string

of Quebec outfitting camps on the Quebec/Labrador border.

You know, until a couple of years ago when the previous

government changed the rules so that we could go to Labrador and get a caribou

licence, hon. members will recall that a resident of the Island could not get a

licence to hunt a caribou in Labrador. We said, why not? There are 750,000

caribou up there. Why can't we go to Labrador and get a caribou licence if one

chooses to spend that money to fly up there and hunt a caribou? But you know

what I found out I could do? I didn't do it, but I found others had done it, is

that I can book an outfitting camp in Quebec, pay my $2,000 to an outfitter in

Quebec, go to a camp on the Quebec-Labrador border and I can walk across into

Labrador and hunt a caribou under a Quebec license. That is what I found, and

that was one of the reasons that we changed it and said: of course we can. But

the problem we have with the fishing is that we have no control. We don't,

unfortunately, have enough enforcement up there, but the bit of enforcement we

do have - when you go in there you will find in front of a $500,000 fishing

lodge, probably partly funded by the provincial government and the federal

government, two or three Quebec planes flying in and people fishing and taking

all the fish they want without any concern for bag limits or anything else, and

now you can't even charge them for fishing without a license.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do disagree. It is not for the dollars. I

don't care if it is five cents or five dollars, but the fact is now we have no

control over out-of-Province fishing. I speak about Labrador, but the same is

true on the Island, but it was never enforced before on the Island. I don't

think anybody has ever been trouting and been asked: Are you a resident and, if

not, do you have a license? I have never been asked, and I have never seen

anybody being asked. I don't know if we have anybody to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever had one?

MR. WINDSOR: I don't need one, I am a resident. I have

had salmon licences and I've been asked if I had a salmon licence on a salmon

river, but nobody from out-of-Province has ever been asked or nobody from

in-Province has been asked: Are you a resident and, if not, do you have a

non-resident trouting licence? I suspect that very few people in Newfoundland

even knew you had to have a licence if you were from outside. I suspect there

are thousands of people who have come in to visit friends and relatives and have

gone trouting and not needed a licence. Well, needed it but have not known they

needed it, and never had any difficulty from it. So, it is probably not

enforceable on the Island and not worth the cost of enforcing.

There are many situations where we see people coming in and

raping the fish stocks, the freshwater fish, the same as the problem we have

offshore, except these foreigners are foreign to Newfoundland and not

necessarily foreign to Canada. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I came across that one.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

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

MR. WINDSOR: Which one?

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

stuff.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh!

Now I came to a gasoline wholesaler's licence. Again that fee

is being eliminated but the licence is still required. Now, you have to realize

that for all these I have talked about so far, the licence is still required,

except for the two trouting licences. So when we talk about paper burden and

nuisance, so far we have not eliminated anything, except the fee. I began to get

curious, so I read on. The gasoline wholesaler's licence: You still have to have

a licence and it takes effect January of 1993, beginning the next year. So I

said, well I suppose it is an annual fee again that has got to be renewed the

beginning of January or something. I haven't researched that to see, but I just

wonder what would happen if somebody was now establishing a service station and

needed a licence. Would they have to get a licence and pay a fee now, starting

this summer? The answer is, yes, they would, Mr. Speaker.

So I read on and I came to liquor licensing. A lot of those

there. There are eleven licences under liquor licensing. I looked at those and I

found that fees are all going to zero. The licences are not being removed. So

there is no paper burden being eliminated there. Then I looked at the date, Mr.

Speaker, April of 1993. When I stood in this House yesterday and congratulated

the minister I said: I am really pleased to hear that 9,000 waiters will not

need a licence anymore and that 1100 establishments will not have to display

them. I had missed that in the fine print, April 1 of 1993, one year from

tomorrow. Why, Mr. Speaker, are these licence fees and the licences themselves

not being eliminated today? Why didn't the minister be honest with us and say:

Next year I am going to eliminate these fees and licences?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: You read his speech, Mr. Speaker, and there

is very little reference to it. I suppose a learned gentleman of the law might

say, legally he is accurate, he has two references to dates on that

section

dealing with fees. He says: April 1, licensed establishments will pay only a 12

per cent purchase levy on liquor and wine, and that is accurate. He does not say

anything about when the liquor licences will be eliminated except down at the

bottom of the page, the last sentence he says: after March of 1993, the only

Newfoundland Liquor Licensing Board fees will be for special events, licences

and personal identification cards. In other words he is saying those are the

only fees that the licensing board will have left and he slips in there - after

March of 1993.

Now I think the average person reading this for the first,

second and even the third time, would not say: oh, that means all of these that

he talked about earlier at the top of the page are also only taking effect in

1993. Now, I do not see any rationale for this, Mr. Speaker, and I had a call

today that tipped me off on this, from a gentleman who is renewing some licences

for a Lions club, and he said: I had to pay $500 for licences for waiters and

waitresses, volunteers of the Lions club who serve in the Lions club during the

course of the year; $500 from one Lions club, the day after the minister

announced these licences and fees will be eliminated!

Now, I have never seen a more dishonest statement in a Budget

document, Mr. Speaker, than that. I have never seen a more dishonest statement,

and by the way that licence fee, if I am not mistaken, was doubled last year by

the minister, if my memory serves correctly. The bottom line is the government

says that all of these changes will cost them $2 million this year, some of them

obviously are not going to cost them anything because they are not going to take

effect until next year, but the bottom line, fees and licences actually will

bring more revenue this year because of the wholesale increases that this

government put in place last year that are really only having impact this year,

so all they are doing is taking away $2 million of what they gave you last year.

I suspect they are not taking away $2 million, they are taking away $2 million

of revenue but it probably cost them $2 million to collect it, so in effect,

they are probably giving up not five cents, not five cents, Mr. Speaker.

Smoke and mirrors, Mr. Speaker, they hide it in the fine

print of the appendices to the Budget document. Very, very cleverly worded I say

to the minister, Mr. Speaker. As I read this over four or five times today and

checked Hansard, because I was told this morning that the minister did not read

the date when he read his Budget Speech, he skipped over that, but that was not

true, I checked Hansard and the minister did read exactly as it is printed in

the document, I will grant him that, but, Mr. Speaker, what a misleading thing

the minister has done.

But then the bottom line, did you see this? Let me read it

again: Consequent reduction in the cost, inconvenience and paper burden. Do you

know how many of these 171 fees and licences are eliminated?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. WOODFORD: Seven!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What?

MR. WINDSOR: Seven are eliminated; seven only. The fees

are eliminated but you still have to go and get the licences, so the only

inconvenience in paper burden that has been eliminated - let us have a look it;

let us have a look at the ones being eliminated now. The two fishing licences,

if you can count to two, single nonresident licence and a family nonresident

licence, those two are being eliminated, you do not have to get those any more.

Seasonal vehicle entry and the daily vehicle entry to Provincial Parks, those

are being eliminated. The waiters licences, a year from now will be eliminated -

a year from now will be eliminated - and there are two more. There is another

one that is April 1993, swimming pool inspections and unserviced land

assessment. Why would those not be eliminated now? Can the minister tell me why

he has to wait a full year, until April 1993, to eliminate the fees and licences

for swimming pool inspections and unserviced land assessments in the Department

of Health?.... a full year. The President of Treasury Board is over there

amazed. I suspect the President of Treasury Board is hearing this for the first

time. In fact I suspect the Minister of Finance is hearing it for the first

time. Maybe the Minister of Health can tell me. Would the Minister of Health

tell me why he wants to continue with swimming pool inspections and unserviced

land assessments for another twelve months? Tell me why it cannot be removed

today? Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the hon. member for thirty seconds if he

will answer that.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deal with the

specific question but I want to tell the hon. member that I had the privilege of

meeting with a waitress in Deer Lake on the weekend who told me it was the best

Budget we ever had in this Province. I asked her why and she said: because we do

not have to pay that $15.00 fee anymore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: I do not believe the hon. gentleman. There

is nobody in this Province who said this was the best Budget. I do not know how

the hon. gentleman is related to that particular waitress but I can be

suspicious. It was like one time when I was making a speech and one person at

the back of the hall applauded and I said, thank you, mother. That is about the

size of this statement from the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, there

are two more if I can find them. Oh, here it is: initial fee for mobile home

development. That is a big one. That is a lot of paper burden. There are so many

mobile home developments being initiated in this Province that that licence is

being removed. Pulp wood trucks - this one might be of some benefit, pulp wood

trucks operating on woods roads will no longer need a licence. Now, they use to

pay $436 and it is about the biggest one here. It is the biggest one on this

list. Why they are eliminating the fee of $436 and laying off wage scale

operators -

MR. WOODFORD: They are going to hire more wage scale

operators so they can catch them.

MR. WINDSOR: They are going to hire more so they can

catch them and now they do not need to catch them. The President of Treasury

Board should arrange a meeting between the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

and the Minister of Finance. In fact he should introduce them to one another

because they do not know what each other is doing, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine

this great announcement, seven licences have been removed, seven, and the

minister says 171, 171 fees, yes, but even that -

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

MR. WINDSOR: There are 171 fees.

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

you might understand that.

MR. WINDSOR: If the hon. minister had read it at all he

might be interested in it. The hon. minister has not taken the time to read the

Budget document yet. When you look at a tourist establishment licence, nine

rooms or less, ten to nineteen rooms, twenty to thirty-nine rooms, forty to

seventy-nine rooms, eighty rooms or more, the minister says that is eliminating

five licences. I think we could honestly say, Mr. Speaker, tourist establishment

licences have been eliminated, one licence. There are five categories but the

minister counts that as five. It is the same thing with travel-trailer

establishment licences. There are five of those. You really have to question the

integrity of a minister who would try to put the likes of that into a Budget

document, an incredible display.

Now, where was I when I was so rudely interrupted yesterday?

I do not remember so I will go back. I know the hon. President of Treasury Board

does not want to hear it again but he missed several pertinent points, and his

colleagues missed most of it, so I really think that for their benefit we should

really start again.

MS. VERGE: What about lottery revenues?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, we talked about that a little bit

yesterday. The point I made yesterday I think bears repeating. Lottery revenues

have gone up by $10 million from last year and I think the number from lotteries

was an additional $8.5 million received this year if I am not mistaken, if my

memory serves me well. Lotteries estimated at $20 million and went up to $28.5

million. I am accurate on that. The point that has to be realized there is that

comes from total desperation, part of it, out of the state of the economy and

the financial situation that so many people in this Province find themselves

faced with. Absolute, total desperation. How many people have said to me: I have

to go out and buy a lottery ticket, it is my only hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liquor revenues.

MR. WINDSOR: Liquor revenues have gone down. Also another

good indicator of the economy. There was not that big an increase in liquor last

year. Government took an extra $1 million last year as I recall, raised it from

$79 million to $80 million, the revenue that they asked for from the Liquor

Corporation. There were some increases from the wholesalers, obviously, who

provide the raw material. But there is a switch to beer there, and I suspect,

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why the government has changed the fees charged

to licensed establishments, that they have reduced the amount charged for liquor

purchased. They have taken off the premium that liquor establishments have to

pay to the Liquor Corporation over and above what you or I can buy in a liquor

store. We can go in and pay $20 for a bottle of liquor, a licensed establishment

pays about $21.50 or $22 I think. I think it is 3 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: The more expensive stuff.

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon.

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

MR. WINDSOR: On the average about 3 per cent, I think,

premium that they pay. They have eliminated that now I think, but they have

increased the cost of beer to liquor establishments by 60 cents. So what they

are doing, Mr. Speaker, is going with the trend of drinkers because of the cost,

because we have reached the point of diminishing returns and starting to see it

in liquor consumption. They are now saying that more people are drinking beer so

we will move the burden to beer and away from liquor and try to get the liquor

sales back up. I suspect you are seeing more wine being bought. I suspect you

are seeing more revenues from wines now, for two reasons, one because they can

perceive at least that there is lower alcohol content and that if they just sip

on a glass of wine they will not get into the heavy alcohol.

MS. VERGE: How about aftershave?

MR. WINDSOR: A tax on aftershave might help your

revenues.

Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is part of the problem. The other part

of the problem is that the people just cannot afford to drink as much. I am sure

my colleague from the Burin Peninsula will confirm there is a roaring trade with

St. Pierre.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I know my hon. colleague does not know

anything about it. He would certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman certainly would not have

anything to do with it, nor would my friend from Grand Bank have anything to do

with it, or our colleague opposite from Burgeo. That is another prime point of

entry. I am sure he would not have anything to do with it. That is about the

only thing.

But the point is that the high cost of alcohol in this

Province today is certainly an incentive for persons to bring more alcohol into

the Province, and the same is true of tobacco taxes. Tobacco tax this year is

going to net us $63.4 million. That would blow your mind, Mr. Speaker, $63.4

million dollars of taxes on tobacco this year. It has gone up $7 million from

last year. That is a 15 per cent increase in the amount of tobacco tax collected

by the Province. That is 15 per cent of what you collected before. Mr. Speaker,

that has to have an impact on smuggling into the Province. We have always had a

problem with tobacco being brought in from the mainland of Canada. You cannot

fault somebody who is away on a trip and poking a few packs of cigarettes, or

even a carton of cigarettes, in their suitcase when they come home. We are not

talking about that.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, when they come in, yes. The minister

told us yesterday that all of these consumers, when they come back from Toronto

or from Florida, with their carton of cigarettes, immediately call the

minister's office and say, 'I brought up a carton of cigarettes. Where do I send

my $8.60 tax?' Pigs may fly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I do not think there has ever been a call to

the minister's office, nor do I think there will be in the near future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You cannot fault somebody for doing that.

That's not what we are talking about. What I am talking about are the transport

trucks coming in half-loaded with cigarettes and tobacco, and a transport truck

loaded with tobacco is worth a lot of money. I did not realize this until I had

some association recently with the transportation industry, and I find out now

that if you are hauling tobacco from St. John's to Port aux Basques, you are not

permitted to stop. You go straight through. You are not permitted to pick up any

passengers. The value of the cargo is such, and it is so easy to move - you

don't need forklifts to start hauling off cartons of cigarettes - but it is the

easiest target. It is one of the more popular targets. It is a high-value,

low-weight commodity. When you have a truckload of tobacco, and you are heading

for some point in the Province, you go straight there. You don't stop. If you

need two drivers, you take two drivers.

I am amazed at the ends to which some people will go. We had

a case last summer where some people decided they wanted to get into a truck

load of tobacco, and if you drive past a warehouse you will see all the trucks

are either backed up to each other, or backed up to the warehouse so you can't

get in those rear doors. Well, a chain saw comes down through the roof of one of

those trailers very quickly - and that has taken place in this Province. So you

see the degree to which people will go today, and if they will do that -

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

inspectors?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh yes, we lost some of the inspectors last

year. We lost one in Port aux Basques. One of the inspectors, and one of the tax

inspectors in Port aux Basques was eliminated.

MS. VERGE: Tobacco and gas inspector.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right, whose job was to inspect

vehicles coming into the Province to see if they were carrying tobacco or

alcohol, and to see how much gasoline - some of these guys were coming in with

extra tanks strapped to their trucks. We eliminated that, Mr. Speaker. We just

opened the floodgates, and I am told that it is a pretty easy target now.

Capital expenditures in the Department of Municipal Affairs:

the minister announced, yesterday, $65 million, which is $6 million more than

last year. Is it $65 million?

MS. VERGE: $59.9 million.

MR. WINDSOR: $59.9 million, which is about $5 million

more than last year, but he told us - at least the minister told us on that one

- he said, that is to get things moving early this year, but there will be $5

million less next year. So give him credit; he was honest about that.

He also told us, and I do not know how many people noticed

it, that we are limiting construction this year to roads, schools, municipal

works, and projects already started. I am not sure how to read that. Does he

mean we are going to have new roads, new schools, new municipal works and other

projects that are already started, or does he mean roads and municipal works and

schools that are already started? It will be interesting to see, Mr. Speaker.

He talks about federal/provincial review of personal income

tax flexibility. I referred to this

section yesterday with which I agreed. That

is why I got off on a tangent with my friend, the Minister of Development, I

think. I said it is important that the business tax climate in the Province not

only be favourable to business, but that it be perceived to be favourable.

"One of the principle objectives of government's tax reform

exercise is to ensure that the business tax climate will promote and compliment

Government's economic development objectives." Noble words, Mr. Speaker, if they

had any meaning to the minister and to this government. The words are good; the

actions, unfortunately, belie the words.

Then I see the next sentences I just referred to:

"federal-provincial review of personal income tax flexibility." Now that rings a

bell. There is a warning note that comes from that. We are talking tax reform

here again. We are talking now, and the minister has often referred publicly to

of Canada would like to see sales tax harmonization across Canada. The minister

is talking tax reform. He is saying that this fall he will be coming forward

with his tax reform package. This tells me that perhaps he is also looking at

getting into the income tax system here.

Flexibility in the income tax system. That, in itself, would

be welcome, because we have never been able to get any flexibility from the

income tax system. Maybe this is what the minister is saying, that the

tax system in return for which we agree to harmonize RST and the GST. Perhaps

that is what is coming down. But there is a flag that goes up automatically when

I hear the minister talking about changing the tax system, taking any

flexibility.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the next item that comes up is one that I

can't help but refer to: Public sector salaries. The government took some very

unusual action last year. The President of Treasury Board will confirm that the

legislation that was introduced last year was highly unusual legislation. I

don't know that it had been introduced in Canada before, to the same degree.

Wage freezes have been implemented, but never retroactively. In fact, it is not

just a freeze. In every sense of the word it was a rollback. Increases that had

been approved and agreed and negotiated in good faith - some of them within a

matter of several weeks, a couple of weeks before the Budget was brought down,

those agreements were finalized and signed. Those agreements were not honoured.

This government came to the House of Assembly and used its power in the

Legislature to change those agreements.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The president of NAPE knew government was

doing it. The president of NAPE did not know government was doing it when he

signed the agreement two or three weeks before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, I'm not wrong. The government has come

back this year and said: We're going to do the same thing. We are going to

rescind Bill 16 and we are going to put in a new bill that freezes salaries for

another year and will limit increases next year to 3 per cent. So public

servants now who were told, who negotiated and signed agreements that gave them

an average of 7 per cent last year, have now been told: No 7 per cent last year,

no 7 per cent this year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - and only 3 - average of 8 per cent.

(Inaudible). I stand to be corrected. Eight per cent, on the average, increase.

So we will not get 8 per cent last year, this year or next year, we will just

get 3 per cent next year. Or you can negotiate, it says. The minister says here

that: "... collective bargaining can occur within these expenditure guidelines

when existing contracts expire."

Existing contracts have expired. They are all expired. New

contracts are in place but haven't been honoured. So I don't quite understand

that terminology. If you signed a two-year contract that was supposed to start

last year, or the end of this year, that two-year contract will have expired.

That 8 per cent you negotiated will have expired. So you are saying that we can

negotiate then up to 3 per cent at the end of that contract.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) compensation.

MR. WINDSOR: Total compensation. So that's not

necessarily 3 per cent. Or is the President of Treasury Board telling us - and

let him answer this question, Mr. Speaker, if he would - is the President of

Treasury saying: We negotiated wage and benefit increases in a package that has

never been implemented or have the benefits been implemented but not the wages?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They have, all except the wages. So the

benefits have been enjoyed for this two-year period, all except the wage

increases. Changes to wording, changes to vacations and sick leaves and all the

rest of it, all of that took effect, the minister is telling me. I thank him for

that.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister of Forestry finally speaks. It

is too bad we can't get him on his feet to speak in the Budget Debate, Mr.

Speaker. I hope he will when he gets his opportunity. I hope he will stand up

and tell us just how much he supports this and how much this is doing for

forestry in the Province. He wasn't long getting to his feet today to announce

that private enterprise has done something. I couldn't help thinking, Well, so

what? What did you have to do with it? I felt like saying to the minister.

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

MR. WINDSOR: The minister had absolutely nothing to do

with it. Private enterprise made a deal - not a penny of provincial money gone

into it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, what a way to tie the hands of

public sector unions. How do you negotiate with somebody when you are already

told you can negotiate all you want but 3 per cent is what you are going to get.

Why bother? Why waste the time? I can tell you now that there is not a person

out there who has not had a salary increase for two years, who is prepared to

say we will take anything less than 3 per cent in return for anything else. I

mean, how foolish! I can't imagine, I could be wrong, but I can't imagine that

there is anybody there saying: We have had zero increase for two years and we

will take zero increase this year but give us another benefit that is worth 3

per cent. I don't think you are going to see it. I could be wrong.

MR. BAKER: You could work it the other way around,

though. (Inaudible) negotiate, you could work it the other way around.

MR. WINDSOR: Could work what?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, okay. You could work it the other way

around. You could give up 2 per cent in vacation benefits, or whatever -

MR. BAKER: Take home pay.

MR. WINDSOR: Take-home pay or whatever. What is the

difference? Well, that provides a little bit of flexibility, but the bottom line

is, it is 3 per cent. The bottom line is 3 per cent. So there is not a great

deal of room for negotiations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: If they are creative there are some things

that can be done, but no matter how creative you get it is still 3 per cent any

way you cut it. Whether they all take a decrease in salary of 15 per cent and

you give every public servant a car in place of it they are still only getting a

net increase of 3 per cent.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Not likely up for consideration. Only the

ministers are given cars, that is all. Eliminate the car pool and give ministers

money so they can buy their own cars and they will have their own cars and can

do what they wish with them.

I am not going to waste a lot of time on that one. One thing

that does, Mr. Speaker, is give ministers some flexibility so they are not

always looking over their shoulder to see what they are using their car for. I

do not disagree with that, I disagree with the concept that they were saving any

money. The government tried to pass it off and say they were saving hundreds of

thousands of dollars by eliminating ministers' vehicles. Nonsense! It is costing

them more in the long run, but from the ministers' point of view they are

probably better off, because now they don't have to answer for this type of car

they are driving or whether they take their kids to the arena on Saturday

morning in that vehicle,

whereas previously, when we had government vehicles,

everybody watched everywhere we went, what we used it for and who we had in it.

So they are probably better off. What we find fault with was the methodology

used in trying to pass it off as a saving to the tax payer, saving nothing, Mr.

Speaker.

The minister expects these wage guidelines to be respected by

municipalities. Well, good luck! Unless he is going to impose something, I doubt

very much if you are going to see municipalities doing it. In fact, Mr. Speaker,

while I think of it, it is probably a good time for me to poke in a little bit

here about amalgamation, where government was going to save so much money and

that is probably true, government is probably saving a little bit of money, but

I will come back to that later when I get into the Municipal Affairs estimates,

but I can tell you municipalities are not saving any money.

I was told today, I do not know if my friend here may have

some knowledge, I am told that the town council of St. Phillips -St. Thomas, is

maintaining both town council halls, both town halls and they are alternating

meetings between town halls. Now that is a big saving, Mr. Speaker. My friend

from Mount Scio is not here so he cannot confirm or deny that for me, but that

is what I understand is taking place. The town council of St. Phillips - St.

Thomas are holding their meetings in two town halls, they are alternating from

one to the other. I am also told, Mr. Speaker, that there was a snow clearing

contract awarded by the town without tender. We will find out some details on

that particular one.

I am told, Mr. Speaker, that they had the approval of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs to do that, awarded a contract for $95,000 for

snow clearing without calling tenders, the town of Portugal Cove. Maybe the

former minister might recall something or maybe the minister had no knowledge of

it, but it was approved by the department I am told, but we are going to

research that some more before I go any further on that, but it would not

surprise me one bit. When we talk about the cost of amalgamation though, Mr.

Speaker, what savings are we getting? The town of Paradise is going to pay an

extra $600,000 for fire fighting services -

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

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - nothing to do with amalgamation? No, it

has something to do with the former minister's stealings away from Mount Pearl,

taking the fire department and giving it to the City of St. John's and giving

them full authority. You are right, it is not amalgamation, it is abject

annexation, Mr. Speaker, that is what it has to do with. It has to do with the

dictatorship that the minister put in place, with giving the City of St. John's

complete control over surrounding municipalities, that is what it has to do

with. It has to do with giving the City of St. John's the right to send a bill

to the town of Paradise, saying you will send us $600,000 for fire protection

this year, never mind the fact that last year you spent $30,000, $30,000 last

year in the town of Paradise for fire protection and this year they are expected

to pay over $600,000. The town of Paradise, would have to triple their taxation

rate from 4.5 mils to 12 mils or 12.5 mils, I am not sure-

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

for them?

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

they are not getting.

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

MR. WINDSOR: What foolishness, how can you expect a

community to do that? And they were send a bill saying you will pay $600,000

this year for regional water and sewer service assessment. I suppose the hon.

gentleman for Pleasantville agrees with that, they should pay for that too.

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

MR. WINDSOR: They are not being serviced. They have wells

and septic tanks and they are being billed $375 per unit for water and sewer by

a Regional Services Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wake up boy.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Is that what you call fair?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Get your facts together before you open your

mouth. $600,000 for people who are on wells and septic tanks, an assessment for

regional water and sewer. Get serious, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Not very nice. Here are your savings from

amalgamation, and what occupies the time of our city council?... what colour

will we paint the Mount Pearl fire trucks that we have taken out of Mount Pearl

and put in Kent's Pond, what colour will we paint them?

They have had three meetings now in City Hall debating that.

Why paint them at all? Every fire department in North America is changing to the

fluorescent green truck. Nobody drives around in a fluorescent green car, but

there are a lot of red cars. So a fluorescent green fire truck is far more

visible than a red fire truck. What difference does it make if they're purple,

Mr. Speaker? Thinking about spending money to change the colour of the fire

trucks.

Then, to add insult to injury, what do they want to do? They

wanted to raise a flag in Mount Pearl. They wanted to show just how powerful the

City of St. John's is now. They wanted to prove to everybody in the northeast

Avalon that we have taken control. So we have to go in, we have to take down the

Mount Pearl flag. Get it down as quickly as you can and get a St. John's flag up

there. Funny, they did not have one on any other municipal building in the City

of St. John's. Not a one. It took them a week to get it down. It took three

phone calls to City Hall before anybody would finally take down the foolish

flag. What an insult.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, indeed we do, I'd say to my hon.

friend, indeed we do. But what an insult, Mr. Speaker. When is the City of St.

John's going to realise that they do not own the fire stations? The regional

council, whatever it is, it is a regional service owned by the region. What

right do they think they have to raise a St. John's flag over a fire station in

Mount Pearl? Better you put a swastika up there, as some hon. gentleman said. It

would be more appropriate to put a swastika up there. It would certainly be

appropriate to the action that was taken by this government, and the manner in

which the St. John's Fire Department got into Mount Pearl. It would certainly be

very appropriate.

No wonder the Minister of Finance referred to me yesterday as

Gorbachev. Old 'Boris' himself. What foolishness for a minister of finance. I

just cannot believe it. I have to say I was almost speechless yesterday. The

first question after the minister's Budget asked to him, a fair, reasonable,

logical question asked to the Minister of Finance by the Opposition finance

critic, and what does he do? Calls him names.

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

them in here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

see the performance of the Minister of Finance.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, I wish they were here to see this. I'd

welcome it. I would speak for more than a week then, I'll tell you. There is so

much that I would like to say. I realise I'm wasting it. it is falling on deaf

ears here to hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Speaker. I wish I could have an

opportunity to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the deceit that is

being inflicted on them. I would love to have that opportunity.

I would love for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to

see the puppets over there, to see how they are controlled by the Premier. I

would love to see it on t.v. I would love to see the Premier's arrogance come

forward on t.v. I would like to see the way he answers some of the questions. I

would like the people to see the way the Minister of Finance refuses, or is

absolutely incapable, of answering questions. I would love to see it in this

House. Bring them on.

One mistake we made as a government. We hesitated as well to

bring cameras into this House. Provisions were made though I believe when this

House was designed for cameras, for the electronics. I do not think it will take

too much to put them in now. We should have proceeded with it. We should have

gone ahead with it.

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

Now I spoke for some time yesterday. Earlier I referred to

the deceit in this Budget as it relates to the fines and the forfeitures - for

the fees and the licences, rather, let us talk a little bit about the school

tax. I referred to the fact that public service pensioners will pay more. They

will pay more personal income tax now because they did not pay school tax

before. Anybody over sixty-five did not pay school tax but now those people will

pay more property tax.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a few things that relate to

the average individual in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have used the example

already of a salary of $30,000, a couple with one wage earner, therefore paying

one school tax previously in the St. John's area where we pay $150 a year, that

family would break even because the increase in personal income tax would be

about $150 so there would be no change in the total tax burden on that family.

The family earning $40,000 with one wage earner will pay $105

more and it goes up from there - $105 more for $40,000. Now, in rural

Newfoundland it is a little different because the school tax assessment was

lower. In some cases it was $100 and in the lowest case it was $85, so a person

on the Burin Peninsula, say a teacher - I assume a teacher's salary would be

about $40,000 on the average, is that reasonable? A teacher on the Burin

Peninsula earning $40,000 would pay $255 this year instead of the $85 they paid

last year for school tax, so that teacher, Mr. Speaker, will pay $170 more,

exactly triple. A person with $40,000 in rural Newfoundland will pay exactly

triple this year. That is only this year they will pay triple. Next year, Mr.

Speaker, that same person will pay $408. A single person or a family with one

income that paid $85 previously will pay $408 next year, increased personal

income tax. Would the hon. gentleman like to question it because it is coming

right off the hon. Minister of Finance's sheet? A family with one income of

$40,000 a year, a couple with no children, this is an example that the

minister's staff provided to me, with a total family income of $40,000 a year,

living on the Burin Peninsula, paid $85 a year school tax last year, that same

family will pay $255 this year and will pay $408 next year, so they will pay

exactly triple this year. This is the school tax that was eliminated. We are

going to pay triple, hardly a millionaire somebody earning $40,000 a year a

family trying to live on it. Let us have a look at some others. How about a

person in rural Newfoundland earning $20,000 a year? I think we are told the

poverty level is $19,000 year for a family. Mr. Speaker, $20,000 a year is

hardly living in luxury. It is just barely above the poverty level, if that.

Last year they paid $85. This year they will still pay $85 - exactly the same.

But next year, because it goes from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent increase, that

same family will pay $136. The President of Treasury Board shakes his head. The

facts are the facts. That family will pay $51 more. That is a family earning

$20,000 a year. They are not driving around in Cadillacs. They are barely able

to survive on $20,000 a year. So where are the real benefits?

A person in St. John's next year, and I know it has been said

before in this House, if I were earning $20,000 a year I would sooner live in

rural Newfoundland than I would in the heart of St. John's. It is a heck of a

lot cheaper to live in rural Newfoundland. I can cut a bit of wood, jig a few

fish, snare a few rabbits, and shoot my moose. Hon. gentlemen I am sure will

agree that you are a heck of a lot better off in rural Newfoundland than living

in downtown St. John's. That same family living in downtown St. John's trying to

survive on $20,000 a year, which is the poverty level, paid $150 last year, if

one person was working, will pay $85 this year. They are going to save $65 this

year. That is a benefit. Next year they will save $14 - $14.

Well the President of Treasury Board shakes his head again. I

would be delighted if he could tell me that I am wrong. The numbers that I am

quoting are from the minister's sheet, provided to me during the Budget lockup -

this year's figures. Next year's figures are a simple projection. I simply

projected from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent. I multiplied by 1.6 - the difference

- because the figure that the minister has calculated is the difference being

paid by that person this year. So I multiplied by 1.6 for the total amount being

paid. If that person pays $85 this year, based on 2.5 per cent, then that person

will pay $136 next year, based on 4 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well the mathematics is right. Eighty-five

times 1.6 is thirty-six.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: What is wrong with it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: But tell me why it is not right. Is my

theory wrong? I would love for the minister to show me that I am wrong. I would

hope that I am wrong. Tell me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: 4 per cent is 1.6 times 2.5 per cent. You do

not believe me? I have a calculator - and 1.6 times eighty-five is 136. So there

is the difference. There is the great benefit of eliminating the school tax. A

person living at the poverty level will save $14 next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the figures I am using

are wrong, then the President of Treasury Board should speak to the Minister of

Finance, because I am using his numbers.

MR. NOEL: What is your point, that they should not

eliminate the school tax?

MR. WINDSOR: The point I am trying to make is that the

minister deceived the people of this Province by saying: I am eliminating the

school tax and simply replacing it with an equivalent tax. That is almost

accurate for this year, but it is certainly not accurate for next year. It is a

50 per cent increase in the amount paid for school tax, or paid by an equivalent

tax.

MR. BAKER: That is where you are wrong.

MR. WINDSOR: That is where I am wrong. Mr. Speaker, the

President of Treasury Board says: that is where I am wrong. Let me refer him to

page 14 of the Budget, dealing with payroll tax. "Our revenue objective is to

generate from the business sector $10 million in 1992-93 and $15 million in

1993-94."

That is a 50 per cent increase in payroll tax. The minister

is telling me that. But the minister is telling me that 2.5 per cent increasing

to 4 per cent is not going to increase by 1.6 per cent the different amount

paid. Well, would the minister tell me where my numbers are wrong? When I asked

the question in the lockup I said: how much will be gained next year? I was

told: $30 million next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: From personal income tax, additional - $30

million additional from personal income tax. The minister tells me we are going

to gain $15 million next year from payroll tax. Now, if $30 million and $15

million don't add up to $45 million, I will sit down.

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

MR. WINDSOR: School tax, what?

MR. BAKER: Forty-eight million.

MR. WINDSOR: I couldn't hear what the President of

Treasury Board said. The school tax -

MR. BAKER: Forty-eight.

MR. WINDSOR: Forty-eight.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Last year, the School Tax Authority raised

$30 million, is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Thirty million dollars. Government is giving

the school boards, this year, an additional $30 million to replace the school

tax. They are giving them an additional $8 million for equalization, which we

welcome. But they are giving them $30 million or $31 million additional to

replace the school tax. That is what we are trying to replace with personal

income tax and payroll tax. The minister can deny it all he wants, but he is

picking up $45 million next year.

The fact that government chose to give an extra $8 million

equalization is a laudable thing. We welcome that, and the school boards welcome

that. But that has nothing to do with replacing school tax. I am talking about

replacing the school tax. Government is trying to get the people of this

Province to believe that we are replacing $30 million school tax with $20

million personal income tax, and a $10 million payroll tax increase.

All I am trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that what

government is collecting additionally is $30 million this year and $45 million

next year. So they have increased by 50 per cent their taxation level which they

put in place to replace school tax. That is all I am saying. The numbers speak

for themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, after forty-five minutes

of this, the President of Treasury Board says: We are not arguing that. Thank

you, I say to the President of Treasury Board. We are not arguing it.

Government pensions, I have mentioned. People who are on

pensions have not received an increase in four years, not since 1989. I think

they received 2 per cent. We gave them 4 per cent in 1988, I believe this

government gave them 2 per cent in 1989. They have not received a cent since,

but they will be paying more now by way of personal income tax.

Let me now move on to the Strategic Economic Plan. Good

stuff, Mr. Speaker, if we ever saw one, and the question has to asked: Why has

it taken more than three years to get one?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It hasn't. How long does it take this

government to do something?

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

MR. WINDSOR: It didn't take us seventeen years, either.

We had our strategic economic plans, we had our Five-Year plans, updated every

year. We had our Five-Year Financial Plan to deal with the deficit.

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

MR. WINDSOR: After we lost nothing. I say to the hon.

minister, if he would like to look at the graph on page 6 of the document, Mr.

Speaker, he will see that our financial management plan worked very nicely, from

1985 to 1989 - coming down very steadily, very consistently. It has taken a

couple of bumps since this minister took over. But that worked very well, as did

our Five-Year Economic Plan.

Now we are told we are going to have a Strategic Economic

Plan. Well! Great stuff!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Never adopted what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Certainly won't, no. It was a five-year

plan. Same thing. It's a five-year plan. It was produced and was updated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. Oh, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

produced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we talk about economic

plans, and I started to look. Let's have a look and see. What are we dealing

with here? An economic plan. I said: We'll have a look at the Economic Recovery

Commission. I see in the Department of Development budget $2.2 million for the

Economic Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Two point two million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, well, $2.2 million this year, they were

$2.1 million estimated last year. They spent $1.95 million. Big change. Ball

park. Well, there's $2.2 million there.

I said: 'But I heard about this other group somewhere.' 'Oh

yes,' I said, 'they are under Executive Council, aren't they?' I look under the

Economic Strategy Planning Committee. There is $3.1 million there. That's the $3

million that I'm told the minister talked about in the Budget, saying: 'e are

putting in place $3 million to implement this economic strategy plan.' I assume

that is what it is.

While I was looking at that I saw another one: the Advisory

Council on the Economy. They got another $411,000. That must be Harold

Lundrigan. Yes. That's a new name. They didn't like the Economic Council, as we

call it, so they eliminated the Economic Council and created this new Advisory

Council on the Economy. That was a great step forward for humanity.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That created some jobs.

MR. WINDSOR: That created a lot of jobs. That was

$411,000 there. So there is $6 million there. Economic planning. Then I said:

Well, what about Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador? Where are they? There

must be some money for them? Oh, there it is, Enterprise Development.

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

more ads.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Forty-six million dollars. Very few details

of what it will be used here for. I noted the Newfoundland Stock Savings Plan is

not funded at all this year. The Newfoundland Stock Savings Plan, which was a

good lever to move private investment -

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

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, that's right.

- put in place a number of years ago, because I think the

number at that time was $400 million that was going out of the Province every

year in investments of one kind or another, going to other parts of Canada

primarily. Four hundred million dollars a year. We wondered why we couldn't keep

$30 million, $40 million or $50 million of that in the Province, invest it in

Newfoundland companies. Good program. Then there was a venture capital tax

credit program that is not funded this year. Another program that was highly

rated by the financial community when we introduced it.

DR. KITCHEN: Huh! Hah!

MR. WINDSOR: Those are two intelligent comments the

Minister of Finance has made today. 'Huh' and 'hah'. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad

testimony when the Minister of Finance cannot contribute any more than that.

Two very good programs that could have been used to leverage

some private money, totally gone. But I said: We have $46 million in Enterprise

Newfoundland. I looked at it. Grants and subsidies, $32 million. I said: Well,

surely that has to do something. We don't have an accounting here of much. I

would like to see some of the projects. As the minister knows, I have had some

dealings with Enterprise Newfoundland and I don't for a moment fault some of the

people who are employed there. In fact, there are some very professional people

there who can be very helpful.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. I just said: I wish this other $6

million were going into grants and subsidies to private enterprise. Because out

of that $46 million, $32 million is grants and subsidies. Then I looked around

and said: Whoops, $14 million is federal revenue. Fourteen million comes back

from the feds. So there is really only $17 million provincial money going in

there. But it leveraged $14 million federal money and that is pretty good, too.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) - flows through. There is

revenue of $6.5 million on that. So the total cost there is $7 million. So you

have $17 million and $7 million, which is your $24 million. No problem. That is

not the point that I am making, I say to the Minister of Development. I wish the

$24 million was $54 million. I wish the minister had $54, I wish he had $124

million. That is what he should have had.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, I believe that to be true. But I wish

the minister did have it. That is the point I am trying to make, that when I add

up the $6 million that is spent in other areas on administration, on planning

and strategy and Economic Recovery Commissions and Strategy Commissions and

Economic Advisory Councils - I wish that $6 million was over with that $31

million in grants, subsidies and loans to private enterprise, where it could be

doing some real good.

That is exactly the point I am making. Why did this

government not take an opportunity? They saved $20 million last year under

capital alone. They have cut back this year on capital again. I am not alone in

saying that this government could have borrowed another $20 million or $30

million this year to give it to the Minister of Development and let him create

some economic activity in this Province, and that would not have impacted on the

Province's credit rating if it were done properly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance has nothing more to

contribute to this debate than to wave his hands like a trained seal why doesn't

he just remove himself from the chamber? I say to the Minister of Finance, Mr.

Speaker, we are used to seeing him making his faces over there and making silly

gestures, but it does nothing for the decorum of this House, and it does nothing

for the image of a minister of the Crown of this Province. He may find this

amusing, Mr. Speaker. The people of the Province do not find this amusing, nor

do they find the minister very amusing.

Mr. Speaker, there are many opportunities available out there

and the Minister of Development I am sure could list 100 projects that with some

funding could create thousands of jobs in this Province, if he had the money to

deal with it. The opportunities are there.

The minister in his speech, Mr. Speaker, talks about

secondary processing, marketing, aquaculture and the development of

underutilized species. He talks about the need to do something in the fishing

industry to try to strengthen the fishing industry -

MR. MATTHEWS: He did absolutely nothing.

MR. WINDSOR: And he has done absolutely nothing. My

colleague from Grand Bank is quite right.

If the Minister of Development had $20 million to spend on

aquaculture, if he had $20 million to assist fish companies to get into further

processing, we have been years and years and years fighting the tariffs, the

trade barriers with the United States, trying to get into the United States

market with finished product. Now finally because of free trade we have an

opportunity to do that, and I do not think we have advanced very far in the last

couple of years in that regard. A couple of private companies are trying to.

Why, Mr. Speaker, can't we?

The last breakthrough we had, I recall, was at the seafood

show in Chicago when we unveiled Fishery Products Fish Nuggets and they went

like wildfire. It went like wildfire and they could not keep up with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

MR. WINDSOR: They will try. They will try. And when are

we going to start crying foul? When are we going to start saying to the

Government of the United States: we put up with your tariffs for years, we sent

hundred pound blocks of frozen codfish to Danvers, Massachusetts, to be

processed and create three times as many jobs in Danvers, Massachusetts,

producing fish products out of Newfoundland fish as there were in Newfoundland

catching that fish, and the fishermen were getting $1 or $1.20 a pound and it

was selling for $6.50 on the shelf in the United States. There is the secret to

the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker. We can talk about overfishing. Yes, that has

to be dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who set up in Danvers?

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

Fisheries.

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

part of FPI.

MR. WINDSOR: Became part of FPI. I am not going to waste

my time with the hon. gentleman from St. John's South, he would not know a fish

if he had one hit him in the face, Mr. Speaker.

The point of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that all of this

fish product is going unprocessed. We can talk about trying to control the fish

stocks and we must, but when we resolve all of that, Mr. Speaker, there will

still be a certain sustainable yield of the fishing industry as there is with

any resource. There is a certain sustainable yield above which if we catch any

more we are only fooling ourselves, and that is what has happened in the past.

When we establish that level, Mr. Speaker, we might as well realize that there

won't be enough fish to satisfy all of the fishermen who are looking for

licences and all of the fish plants that are looking for raw material. We have

to realize that there will be available, no matter what the results of all these

current negotiations, less fish than we would like to have available, and we

have to start to utilize that fish properly.

The answer is not in getting more fish, the fish is not there

to get. We have to use the fish, we have to put in the value-added. We have a

product that the world wants, but we have to provide it to the kitchens not to

the wholesalers. That is the difference. That is why the Minister of Development

could use an extra $20 or $30 million, if he put it all on that alone. That is

why I welcome it.

I have been saying for years - I did not say it very loudly -

as it relates to the salmon fishery, that a salmon caught by a salmon fisherman

from the United States is worth about $2,000 to this Province. A salmon caught

by the fisherman in Petty Harbour is worth twenty bucks to him. It does not take

very much to see that we are not utilizing our resource in the right direction.

The Minister of Development should have some funds to develop aquaculture to

serve the market.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I am still trying to fight on behalf of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the fights he is having because I had them

too. It is not easy.

Those are legitimate arguments, the Minister of Health wants

more money for health care and the Minister of Social Services wants more money

for social services. Of course they do. But unless the Minister of Development

gets more money to develop the economy there will be no money for the Minister

of Health or the Minister of Social Services. So you have to have a balance, Mr.

Speaker. That is the age-old argument. I am not telling anybody anything new.

Mr. Speaker, if we want salmon in our restaurants and on our

tables let's grow them in salmon hatcheries, let's get aquaculture going.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you tasted the Bay d'Espoir stuff?

It is really good.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, I have tasted it. I am not coming down

on the government here for not developing aquaculture. Government can only go so

far. We have had programs in place.

I visited a salmon hatchery in Denmark and Norway in 1976,

and we have made efforts to bring aquaculture into this Province ever since.

Where is private enterprise on this? They have to get moving too, but they need

some help. I think if the Minister of Development had $20 or $30 million he

could go out and say: Look, the opportunities are there. Government, the

Department of Fisheries and the Department of Development have done the

research. We see the technology and we know what we can and can't do. We have

had some experimental ones, Bay d'Espoir being one example with rainbow trout

rather than salmon. Let's get on with it, Mr. Speaker