May 21,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 2

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, since the House of Assembly

last sat two former members have passed on. One is Ross Barbour who was the

Member for Bonavista South. I guess only the hon. Member for Naskaupi and myself

sat in the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Member for Twillingate.

PREMIER WELLS: I guess there are a great group of us who

were colleagues of Ross Barbour. He was a member elected four times, in 1959,

1962, 1966, and 1971. During his period he made some notable statements and I

think his was a name that was well recognized throughout the Province. He made a

very significant contribution to many of his constituents.

The second member is a former Member for Fortune - Hermitage,

Jack Windsor who served one term in this House. He was elected in 1975. I did

not know Mr. Windsor but I am confident that he made a similar contribution on

behalf of the constituents who elected him. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, supported,

I am sure by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP that this

House express to the families of these two former members the sympathy of the

House.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would, on behalf of this

side, associate ourselves with the comments and expression of the Premier. Mr.

Barbour, of course, is an institution in Newfoundland politics and is well

known, perhaps one of the most colourful characters ever to enter the House of

Assembly. I did not know him personally, although I did meet him on occasion.

Not in the House. He was not here when I was first elected but I do know of his

work. In his district he was a tremendously effective constituency member. He

worked very closely with the people of his riding and did tremendous things in

that particular area.

The second gentleman I know far better because he was my

uncle. He was elected as I was in 1975 and we sat on opposite sides of the

House. Unfortunately, most of the Windsor's are Liberals and that is a cross

that I will bear. Some of us younger Windsors are starting to see the light and

I made a major breakthrough. My uncle was also a very dedicated member of the

House of Assembly, as the Member for Fortune - Hermitage who is not here yet but

will be here, I assume, shortly, attest to because he knew him well. He also

worked very hard for his district but he also made a greater contribution

probably to the fishing industry because he was involved for so many years in

operating fish plants at Gaultois, Burgeo, Hermitage and other places on the

south coast of the Province. He also made a great contribution to the Province,

to the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and it is with great pride that I have

this opportunity to stand and pay tribute to him and to his life's work in this

hon. House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I also would like to

join in the remarks of the Premier and the Member for Mount Pearl in paying

tribute to these former members and to ask the Speaker on behalf of the House,

to express the condolences of the House to these families. I did not know Mr.

Windsor at all, I had met Mr. Barbour and of course we all know him as a very

colourful member and politician and I think was known as the, amongst other

things, as the boss of Bonavista South. In fact the kind of politician I

suppose, of a sort of a former era but one who was very well known and very well

liked by his constituents and I am happy to pay tribute to their contribution to

this House of Assembly and the political life of Newfoundland.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we all have constituents who

leave this world from time to time and of course we would not be able to pay

tribute to all of them in the House of Assembly but I would like to beg the

indulgence of the House to pay tribute to a constituent of mine who passed away

in the last few days, in fact was buried yesterday. My friend from Windsor -

Buchans and the Member for Gander and others in particular would be familiar

with this individual. He was a great humorous, a great after dinner speaker, a

member of a very well known family in Newfoundland and Labrador, a very

prominent family in Newfoundland and Labrador, a family that helped build up

central Newfoundland, in particular, Grand Falls, Gander and those regions and I

am referring to the late Denny Goodyear. Many people in this House, certainly

many people in this Province, would have known of Denny Goodyear and known of

his abilities, both as a human being but in particular he made a name for

himself as a great humorous and a great after dinner speaker. Mr. Speaker, I

would appreciate it if Your Honour would send a message of condolences to his

wife and his family and the rest of his brothers and other relatives as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I had not heard until I just

heard the hon. member say now, of the passing of Mr. Goodyear but I remember him

very well and remember him very fondly. He was indeed the great humorous that

the Leader of the Opposition has described him to be but he was more than that,

he was a great human being. He was a very human and compassionate person. He

comes from a very well known family. The patriarch of the family I also knew

very well, Ken Goodyear, his father, and I would join with the Leader of the

Opposition in asking Your Honour to ensure that the sympathies of the House are

extended to the family of the late Denny Goodyear.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would join with the Leader of the Opposition and the

Premier in asking the House to send condolences to the family; he is not an

individual who was known to me, but I have heard of him and, quite obviously

from the remarks of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, a man whose

mark was made on his fellow human beings in central Newfoundland. I do know the

family and I want to recognize his contributions to the life of this Province.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, some time ago - I guess it is a

couple of months ago now - and the question I think is pertinent, in view of the

discussion we had yesterday in this House, and the resolution that we passed. A

couple of months ago the Premier announced that he was going to undertake a

national travel campaign dealing with the fisheries management question. Can the

Premier tell the House now, after two months have passed, when is this campaign

starting, what will be the nature and scope of the campaign, and more

interestingly perhaps by now, can he tell us how much it will cost, how much has

he budgeted for the trip, the program and so on?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, at no time did I ever suggest

I was going to undertake a national travel campaign. Many of the news media keep

using the phrase and others do. What I said was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: - listen very carefully now because it is

important. The hon. Member for Burin -Placentia West, laughs -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I see. Well, I am sorry. The laughter was

loud in an interjection in my comments.

Mr. Speaker, what I said was, we would have to take our case

to the people of Canada. Now, I can understand people automatically assuming

that you would do that by a speaking tour across the nation, and in fact, most

of the media keep asking me about this speaking tour across the nation. I have

never stated we are going to have a speaking tour anywhere that I ever remember

saying, but we will take the case to the people of the nation. That may have to

be done. A speaking tour is clearly one way by which that can be done but there

are other methods by which it can be done, and that is being explored at the

moment.

So, Mr. Speaker, there has been no budgeting for any specific

travel tour or travel plan. We have looked at advertising costs. We have looked

at an advertising program, and we have looked at speaking opportunities. I have

a fairly substantial number of invitations to speak across the nation, and we

are looking now at a list of those opportunities that are open and outstanding

and where I might go to speak, so there has been no tour planned, as such.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't speak on behalf of the

media but I can certainly speak on behalf of our party, and I am quite certain

that the Premier did indicate he was going to undertake a national campaign.

That was the feeling we certainly had and, in view of his answer, I am not quite

sure if he said yes or no because towards the end of it he talked about lining

up speaking engagements, so I don't know. Perhaps we will do what we did during

Meech Lake, bring them all down here, before the Bar of the House.

Let me ask him a different question, but a fisheries-related

question, dealing with the issue that we debated here in the House yesterday

specifically - Bill C-129, I think it is. Can the Premier tell the House whether

or not he has had discussions with the Maritime Premiers, in particular, with

whom he has become very cosy over the last couple of years and has a good

relationship, no doubt, and possibly with the Quebec Premier, as well. I would

imagine he has an excellent relationship with the Premier of Quebec, no doubt,

given his history and his reputation. Could he tell us if the Maritime Premiers

and the Premier of the Province of Quebec will, in any way, to his knowledge,

try to block any of our efforts now jointly here in this House by campaigning

with MPs and senators to pass Bill C-129, contrary to what we would like to do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can't possibly speak for other premiers.

Over the course of the last two to three years I have been laying the groundwork

at Conferences of Premiers and Conferences of Atlantic Premiers. I have gone to

Nova Scotia on two occasions and met with the Premier, the Minister of

Fisheries, and representatives of the fishing industry, to make the case for

joint management. The Minister of Fisheries was with me on at least one

occasion, if not both, when we went to Nova Scotia and met with Nova Scotia

government officials, including the Premier and representatives of the Nova

Scotia fishing industry, to make the case for this kind of joint management.

Just last week, in Vermont, at the Conference of New England

Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, a resolution was passed, a unanimous

resolution, to support the principle of greater involvement. Joint management

didn't mean anything in the United States context, but what they did support was

the principle of greater involvement in the management under regional

jurisdictions. Now, that meant something to both Canada and the United States,

because in the United States the jurisdiction is somewhat different. The States

manage the fisheries up to three miles off the coast, and beyond three miles a

federal panel manages the fisheries. So you can't use exactly the same words.

So, Mr. Speaker, at that meeting last week in Vermont, all

five eastern Canadian provinces were represented, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, and the six New England

States, and all supported the resolution without comment. As a matter of fact,

there was overwhelming comment after expressing very strong support for it.

There was no objection whatsoever.

Now, beyond that, I can't speak for how those provincial and

state governments might react.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the explanation by the Premier, of what happened

in Vermont. Perhaps he could table the resolution. We would like to see the

wording of the resolution, as a matter of fact.

My question dealt with efforts - which we heard the Minister

of Fisheries talk about publicly, and I believe the Premier as well - to try to

stop Bill C-129. I raise the question because obviously the Maritime Provinces,

in particular, have a vested interest in this whole fishery question. I would

have thought that by now the Premier would have had personal conversations and

talked to his counterparts in the Maritime Provinces. If so, surely he has asked

for their support in your efforts, your government's efforts and the House's

efforts, to try to get this legislation stalled.

What I am asking him is: Has he had such conversation and has

he asked for their support? If so, did they give him any response at all, and

does he know how they feel?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I haven't dealt specifically with the

Maritime Premiers or Premier Bourassa of Quebec, specifically with relation to

this specific bill. I have dealt with every one of them in relation to the

principle of joint management on the basis that Newfoundland proposes. I have

told you about the meetings we have had, particularly with the Premier of Nova

Scotia, where the greater level of interest is, and the greater level of concern

would be. I would not anticipate any difficulty from either Quebec or New

Brunswick in terms of that. I should think they would want the same kind of

joint management we would want of the fisheries and waters adjacent to their

respective provinces. As a matter of fact, for nearly fifty years, Quebec

managed their fishery themselves, directly, because the Federal Government

delegated to Quebec the right to manage it while the legislative jurisdiction

was exercised by Parliament, but I have not spoken individually to the Premiers

with respect to this particular bill.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am a bit surprised at the Premier's answer. Now, maybe he

cannot speak for his Minister of Fisheries, because his Minister of Fisheries

was out there the last week or two bellowing about how they were going to

undertake this big, aggressive campaign. Now, we find, they have not even talked

to the Maritime premiers to see what kind of support they might get from them,

so maybe he can clarify that.

I want to ask him this final question, and it is related to

the broader issue, the bigger issue of joint management. I would like to ask the

Premier, is he prepared to sit down with the Federal Government to discuss the

issue of joint management in the fishery without setting any pre-conditions? -

just to make sure I understand his position clearly on that entire issue,

without any pre-conditions. Is he prepared to sit down with the Federal

Government to discuss the issue of joint management?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have been virtually on my knees to John

Crosbie asking him to do just that for the last two years and get nothing from

him. I went to the Prime Minister and asked him to do it. I did not set any

pre-condition but there is one position, that joint management means jointly by

Canada and Newfoundland in the waters around Newfoundland and Labrador, and not

jointly by Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and PEI of the Newfoundland area.

That is an absolute. Other than that, there is no pre-condition of any kind

whatsoever. The principle of joint management is what we have asked. I have

talked about it to the Atlantic Liberal caucus representatives. I have talked to

the Chairman - I believe he is the Chairman - about it, and I have been advised

they have adopted approval in principle, of the principle of joint management

with the method to be determined, and I have no problem with that. I accept that

without question. So, in answer to the specific question - absolutely, on the

understanding that it is joint management by Canada and Newfoundland of

fisheries in the waters around Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Finance. Last week the Dominion Bond Rating Service lowered the

Province's credit rating from a BBB to a BBB low, which is the lowest rating we

have ever had in this Province. Can the minister tell us what impact that will

have? He said already that it will not have a great impact on the international

market, but a very high percentage of our borrowing is done in the Canadian

market. What impact does the minister predict that low credit rating will have

on our ability to borrow in the Canadian market this year?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right,

our credit rating was lowered by DBRS from BBB to BBB low, and he is also right,

that is the lowest it has been. The last downgrading was in 1985. The statement

that I made at that point in time indicated that we believe this will have no

impact on our ability to access and borrow in the Canadian markets, and will not

directly impact the rate we would pay if we go to the Canadian market for money.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister, also, in his

response last week said he did not think that Dominion had all the information

they really needed to do a proper assessment. Would the minster like to tell us

what effort he and his staff made to try to ensure that the Dominion Credit

Rating Agency had all the information available? Secondly, Mr. Speaker, what

information has the minister given to other credit rating agencies in New York

which are far more important, perhaps, in the international marketplace? Has he

ensured that they have all the information necessary to do a proper assessment

of our financial position?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the statement made by

DBRS, they made a number of points. They have indicated on three separate places

in their release that the Government of this Province have been on the right

track, doing the right things, to the extent that is possible in this Province,

so they have given a vote of confidence to the approach taken by this

government, number one. But, number two, they indicated there are things they

felt were beyond our control and these were the things they used to apply their

downgrading. They then got into some detail on it. They talked about the capping

of federal transfers as being a reason, and they felt that this would have a

serious effect down the road.

In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, only 20 per cent of our federal

transfers are capped. The others are not capped, and I feel this is a

misunderstanding that they had about what is happening federally. So, Mr.

Speaker, I also feel that they did not have an understanding of the impact of

the oil development in this Province and did not have a real understanding of

what this Province is doing to attract activity and industry.

So what did I do about it? A few minutes after we received

indication that this was going to happen we contacted the rating agency. The

phone call was returned by the owner of DBRS about ten minutes after they made

the release public, and I had a rather lengthy conversation with him in which I

expressed our extreme disappointment at what he was doing, at which point in

time, I went over the information that I felt he did not take into account and

had a misunderstanding about. I then immediately faxed him up at least twenty

pages of information related to his very brief statement, which indicated that

we felt this was not the right thing to do and it was not justified at this

point in time.

Since then, Mr. Speaker, we have also had conversations with

other rating agencies, and our conversations have confirmed our attitude that

this Province is very highly thought of in the money markets, and very highly

thought of in relation to the credit rating agencies in New York, who will be

down here in the next four to six weeks, anyway, to do their annual run-through

in the Province. They come down and spend three or four days each going through

the books of the Province, talking to officials and to the ministers, so they

are doing their normal thing.

Recently, we raised $150 million on the Euro-Canadian market,

and the downgrading came in the middle of the sale of the last $50 million of

that $150 million worth of bonds. The managers in that consortium indicate to me

that - and when the downgrading was done, immediately there seemed to be an

effect for a few hours, but after that the bonds sold at the normal rate and

there was no problem, so it had no effect on the Euro-Canadian market either.

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

for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, a BBB- is hardly confidence in

this Province being shown by a credit rating agency. What effort is the minister

now making to give the types of information that Dominion obviously didn't have

when they did their rating, to make sure that the markets in New York have that

information? Specifically, Mr. Speaker, the minister must know that one of the

most important things that bond rating agencies look for are long-term plans.

This government doesn't have a long-term plan. They have no projections for the

strength of the economy into the long term. Is the minister going to come

forward with the kind of economic and fiscal plan that bond rating agencies will

need, and specifically, when he brings down his Budget again in a few minutes,

is he going to bring out the same dire document, that meaningless document that

was brought in before the election, or is he going to now give us a financial

plan that will lead this Province to economic stability in the future and give

the credit rating agencies some confidence in the economy of this Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is totally wrong - totally wrong

in his assumptions - and I think he should think before he makes such public

statements as he has just made. First of all, the Dominion Bond Rating Agency,

which is a small Canadian rating agency, deals primarily with businesses and not

with governments, as the hon. member knows. Number two, they quite specifically

stated that they have total confidence in the ability of the Government of this

Province to handle the fiscal affairs of this Province properly. They have

indicated that we are doing the right things. They indicate that they are

confident of the will that exists in this government to solve this problem, so

they have specifically indicated this.

The reason they used for the downgrading, Mr. Speaker, I

repeat again, was what they incorrectly perceived the Federal Government to do

as a result of the Federal Government's budget. So, Mr. Speaker, the member has

things all mixed up.

Now,the rating agencies in the United States - the two to

which the hon. gentleman referred - know the financial situation of this

Province. They are comfortable with the approach taken by this government, they

are comfortable with the long-term planning that this government is doing and

the direction in which we are headed into both the medium and long term. They

are very comfortable with that, Mr. Speaker, and I might add one further thing,

the people of this Province are comfortable with it, as well.

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

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

My question, too, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister responsible

for Finance. In the March Budget, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance sought

expenditures of approximately $3.2 billion. In a Budget footnote he said that

expenditures shown in the Budget for the departments and I quote, 'will be

reduced during the year to achieve $70 million in compensation savings which are

currently the subject of negotiations'. Now, of course, Mr. Speaker, we are

nearly two months into the fiscal year. Will the new Budget show the real

breakdown of expenditures for the various government departments?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: I wonder how long we are really going to

have to wait for the 1993-94 Budget, Mr. Speaker? Isn't this very kind of

mismanagement and uncertainty, the real reason why the credit rating agencies

downgraded our rating, Mr. Speaker, is that not the real reason because of the

uncertainty?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the real reason is, as I stated a

moment ago, that I believe, through some information they misread, they were

uncomfortable with the intentions of the Federal Government and they indicated

their total and absolute confidence in the ability, the will of this particular

government to do what is right, they feel very comfortable with that.

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

for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of

Finance could answer this question: What do you plan to do if you are not

successful in negotiating the necessary compensation savings from the public

sector unions?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows

that I cannot give an answer to that question. We are meeting with the public

sector unions now. We are, I believe, close to the end of our discussions and

negotiations with the public sector unions. While that process is ongoing, I

must allow the process to work, and it would not help anybody if there were any

indication of exactly what we were going to do if the negotiations were

unsuccessful. We believe in a co-operative approach, we believe in trying to

work things out with the public sector unions, we have tried that consistently

over the past number of years and we hope that this approach will continue and

will work.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

direct a question to the Minister of Health. A report by the House of Commons

Committee on Health claims that the tracing of persons infected with HIV

contaminated blood during the 1980s is still incomplete. I ask the minister,

what is the situation in this Province? Is the minister satisfied that all

persons who have received blood transfusions before mandatory testing for

contamination have been contacted and tested for the HIV virus?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the whole question with respect

to contamination of blood is under careful review in Canada. There are a number

of legal cases involved in this and I would like to assure the hon. member that

this government is doing all that is possible but, at the same time, we have to

be very careful of what we say publicly since these matters are under review by

courts.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I gather, then, he

is not prepared to say what the Province is doing. I ask him: Will the Province

require that all hospitals contact patients who received blood before mandatory

testing of donated blood before it began in 1985? I know, the Hospital for Sick

Children in Toronto has already started this practice.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that

question under review. I think the answer is yes, but I will take it under

review.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, a final

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the minister is aware that Nova Scotia decided some

time ago to negotiate compensation for patients who were infected with the HIV

virus through blood transfusions. Is this government willing to negotiate a

compensation package for persons who have been infected in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, this is a very complicated

question. The Federal Government have compensated victims for four years. The

matter is under review by the courts, and I do not intend to say anything more

about it at this point.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In the March Budget, the government decided to shut down pork

production at Newfoundland Farm Products and end subsidies for hog farmers. To

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture: Does the government stand by this

decision?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: In the first instance, Mr. Speaker, the

government didn't end subsidies for hog producers. The government is still

paying subsidies for hog producers and will continue to do that until all the

hogs in the barns are grown-out. Yes, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Grown-out?

MR. FLIGHT: Are grown-out and finished.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government intends to stand by its

decision. After the industry, as we know it now, has wound down and the Swine

Breeding Station has been closed, the hog producers who are in business as a

result of subsidies from the Newfoundland Government, will no longer be paid

subsidies for the production of hogs in Newfoundland.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Obviously, this decision is going to cause

hardship for many farmers involved in the hog industry. Does government have any

plan to compensate farmers for their losses, or to assist them to get

re-established in other areas of the industry or in other branches of farming or

any other careers?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, discussions are being held with

the hog producers of Newfoundland and the Hog Marketing Board, by my officials

and other officials in government. We are discussing the possibilities. We

recognize there are difficulties for some, if not all of the producers, and we

are working towards treating the hog producers in this Province in a way that is

fair to them and acceptable to the government.

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

for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Before making the decision to end the hog

industry, did government do any research to find out what the economic impact

would be, not only on the hog farmers, but on the entire Province generally?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, a lot of research was done on

the economics. Let me give the hon. member one specific piece of economic

information that he might decide would have helped us make the decision.

The average salary in the hog industry in Newfoundland was

about $21,000 a year. That applies from the owner down to the employees. This

government, the Newfoundland Government, was contributing $28,000 per job in

that industry. Now, Mr. Speaker, most people wouldn't necessarily need any more

economic information to make the kind of decision we made.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the new Minister of Social Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Will the new Minister of Social Services bring

some enlightment and compassion to his position by making a start in amending

social assistance regulations, to categorize once again maintenance and child

support as allowable income, so that single parents on welfare have an incentive

to get court orders for child support, and so that the thousands of children in

single parent families on welfare will be slightly better off as a result of

contributions from absent parents?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, one substantive thing has happened

since the member last asked that question, and that is, there has been a new

minister, and I can only tell the member that the new minister is going to look

into all of those matters to ensure that the social needs and the matter to

which she refers, is looked into so that the people of this Province will have a

quality of life, Mr. Speaker, that is equal to the quality of life in other

parts of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Minister of Social Services.

Over the past four years, when two of his colleagues held the

Social Services portfolio, the number of people in our Province on welfare rose

steadily. Now there are about 70,000 children, women and men in this Province on

welfare, many of whom are able to work, are used to working and have skills.

What is this minister going to do to provide better alternatives than welfare,

to provide opportunities for people now getting social assistance, to train, to

be in school, to have jobs or do community service?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the monopoly of caring about

people and addressing their social needs does not reside on that side of the

House. This minister is as concerned about addressing the social needs of the

people of this Province as his record shows and he is going to ensure that that

record is maintained and improved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like, on behalf of all hon. members, to welcome to

the public galleries six adult students from Cabot Institute with their teacher,

Bridget Godden.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the striking committee that was struck

yesterday, has struck again and is now prepared to present our first report if I

may, Mr. Speaker. The committee reports and recommends the following to be the

members of the three estimates committees as they are named, the Standing

Committees which will deal with the estimates.

The following members, Mr. Speaker, will comprise the

Government Services Committee; the Member for Trinity North as the Chair, the

Member for Bonavista South as the Vice-Chair, the Member for Harbour Grace, the

Member for Pleasantville, the Member for St. John's East Extern, the Member for

St. John's North and the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

The Social Services Committee, Sir, will be comprised of the

hon. Member for Burgeo - Bay D'Espoir as the Chair, the Member for Humber East

as the Vice-Chair, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, the Member for Fortune

- Hermitage, the Member for Port au Port, the Member for St. John's East and the

Member for Terra Nova.

The Resource Committee, Mr. Speaker, will be chaired by the

Member for Lewisporte, the Vice-Chair will be the Member for Humber Valley and

the other members will be: the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, the Member for

Fogo, the Member for Harbour Main, the Member for Kilbride and the Member for

St. George's.

This is our first report, Mr. Speaker. We will present

reports with respect to the other Standing Committees I should think, in the

next two or three days of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Committees

be stuck as read into the record by the hon. the Government House Leader. Is it

the will of the House that the Committees be constituted as stated?

All those in favour, 'aye'. Those against, 'nay'. Carried.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the annual report

for 1992, for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Thank you.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow or later today, by

leave, move that the following heads of expenditure be referred to the

Government Services Committee. These are about the same as before, I would say

to my friends Opposite, Finance, Works, Services and Transportation, Employment

and Labour Relations, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, The Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation and The Public Service Commission.

The following heads, Mr. Speaker, will be referred to the

Social Services Committee: The Department of Social Services Estimates, The

Education Department Estimates, Health, Environment and Lands and Justice; and

the Resource Committee will have referred to it, the following heads of

expenditure, Mr. Speaker: Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, Mines and Energy,

Tourism and Culture and Industry, Trade and Technology.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: During Question Period, Mr. Speaker, the

Leader of the Opposition asked if I would table the resolution passed by the

Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, and I am

pleased to do so; and also, to pass on the information that the Minister of

Environment and Lands just gave me, that, during a national meeting of Ministers

of the Environment, she spoke on the fisheries issue and the need for joint

management, and received from the representative of the Government of Quebec the

assurances of Quebec's support in relation to the matter; so I will just pass

that on.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House resolve

itself into a Committee of Ways and Means and that the Speaker do now leave the

Chair.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As members know, once a year at least, there comes the time

when the government presents its financial plans and details for the year. As

hon. members also know, during the Forty-first General Assembly, which was

dissolved recently, a Budget was presented in mid-March; a Budget was presented

to the Forty-first General Assembly. Before that Budget was processed and had

gone through the procedure for passing a Budget in the House of Assembly, of

course there was an intervening event. The House was dissolved, an election was

held, and now we are back for the Forty-second General Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, in the couple of short months that have

intervened there have been no major changes in terms of the financial position

of the Province. I suppose the next occasion at which there may be some major

change would be late fall. Every year we get federal re-estimates and so on at

that point in time, but right now the situation is the same. There have been no

major changes in revenue. There have been no major changes in expenditure. There

have been no changes which cannot be handled within the normal confines of the

Budget that was tabled for the Forty-First General Assembly for the year

1993-'94.

As members know, our approach in that Budget was to rigidly

control expenditures. Expenditure control was the key to that Budget, and of

course I suppose this is consistent with the approach that we have had to take

for a number of budgets. Revenues have been decreasing in actual dollars from

the federal government over the last couple of years. Revenues have been

decreasing and therefore we have had to plan our programs in such a way that we

have to survive with decreasing revenue.

We have tried the approach of increasing taxes. Over the last

couple of years taxes have been increased considerably in this Province -

unfortunately. In the December statement of last year there were tax increases.

We felt in this Budget that we were at the limit of tax increases and could no

longer afford more tax increases in the Province; therefore we did no tax

increases in the recently tabled Budget - the recently presented Budget.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, we went for expenditure control, and one of the aspects of

the expenditure control was a $70 million reduction in total public service

compensation, in addition to reductions in program expenditure and reductions in

operating expenditure. That was the approach that we had taken, consistent with

what we have had to do for the last couple of years.

The reduction in overall compensation is something that we

have been in the process of - the mechanism for this is something that we have

been negotiating with the public service, public sector unions. The fact that

the $70 million is being removed is not in question. The only thing that is

being discussed is the mechanisms by which these amounts are to be removed and,

Mr. Speaker, I can report to the House today, as I did earlier in Question

Period, that we are getting very close to the end of these discussions, and I

still have hope that we can reach an end to these discussions successfully so

that the mechanisms used would be agreed to by the public sector unions; but,

Mr. Speaker, if these negotiations are unsuccessful then government will

introduce into the House its suggested method for retrieving this $70 million.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are not at the end of that process yet, but we are very,

very close to it.

The question often asked is why we have had to take this

approach. The answer is pretty obvious. There has been a world-wide recession.

There have been declining revenues from the federal government, and we have had

to cope - and we have had to cope at the same time that we have been hanging on

by our fingernails in terms of our credit rating in the international markets -

hanging on by our fingernails.

When we took over government a little over four years ago we

had a situation where we were rated in the B category by three of the four big

rating agencies, two Canadian and two American, and in one of them we still

maintained an A rating. That was the situation when we took over government,

that was the situation given to us by some members opposite. We have been

struggling, Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances to retain the confidence of

the money markets of the world and it has not been easy. We have had to show to

the financial markets that our approach is reasonable and sensible. We have had

to show to them that in spite of the blows that we have suffered over the last

four years, the blows that we have suffered from decreasing federal revenues,

the blows that we have suffered internally from our resource shortages and so

on, in spite of all of that, we have had to retain their confidence and, Mr.

Speaker, we have done that. We have retained the confidence of the markets of

the world in terms of our ability, desire and will to do what is right in this

Province. We have retained that confidence and at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we

have done it in such a way that we recognize there are fundamental public

services that must be provided in the Province and we are providing these

fundamental public services. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we are improving

these fundamental services.

So, Mr. Speaker, it has been a very delicate balancing act.

The Budget as prepared was part of this process and was part of a plan that this

government has to eliminate current account deficits and to work on the

elimination of any deficits, any budgetary deficits in the medium term. So, this

is governments plan and our Budget was an integral part of that long-term plan.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are no changes to the Budget. What I want to do here

today is to simply retable the estimates, to retable the same information that

was provided to hon. members in the Forty-first General Assembly so that we can

carry on the process, pass the Budget.

That again I will stress, is part of our long-term approach

to proper fiscal management in the Province, to retaining the confidence of the

markets of the world, to retaining our essential public services that we must

provide and to continue to improve these public services. A budget is an

integral part of all that. We explained this to the people during the election,

we explained it to the people before the election. As a matter of fact, we have

been so totally open, honest and straightforward about everything financial,

because this Budget was done in total public view. Budget secrecy disappeared,

Mr. Speaker, everybody knew what the financial situation was, everybody knew

what we were faced with and everybody knew what our approach was. The people

knew, the public sector unions knew, the people of the Province knew and, Mr.

Speaker, the people of the Province have spoken on this particular Budget.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to table the estimates

for 1993 and all of the other relevant documents that are available to all

members of the hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned until later

today.

MR. SPEAKER: On motion that the debate be adjourned until

later today. You have heard the motion,

All those in favour, 'aye'. Those against, 'nay'. Carried.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I

have received a message from his hon. the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The message is directed to the hon. the Minister of Finance:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland,

transmit estimates required for the public service of the Province for the year

ending March 31st, 1994 in the aggregate of $2,859,968,800.00 and in accordance

with the provisions of the Constitution Act 1867 I recommend these Estimates to

the House of Assembly.

Sgd:_____________________________

Frederick W. Russell, Lieutenant-Governor.

We will take a few moments to distribute documents to all

hon. members.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together

with the Estimates, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the message

from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, together with the Estimates, be

referred to Committee of Supply and that I now leave the Chair.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee

rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Speaker.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has

considered the matters to it referred, has made some progress, and has asked

leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again on tomorrow, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of motion.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there are no notices arising from

the Minister's Budget Speech and accordingly I would ask Your Honour to call

Motion 1 which would be the Budget Debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is most unusual to have two opportunities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Perhaps we could go to Hansard and get a

copy of what I said five weeks ago, distribute it, and then we could all go off

for the weekend and go fishing. My first thought, Mr. Speaker, was that it would

be somewhat redundant to say again everything I already had an opportunity to

say for some four and a half hours, but then I looked around the room and saw so

many new members who did not have the opportunity to hear those words of wisdom,

and knowing the length of memory of hon. gentlemen opposite I figured they had

forgotten everything I said, too, so I think in fairness to the people of the

Province I really should go back and say everything I said, and so many more

things that have occurred to me over the past four or five weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: I will not say it. It is too early in this

session to get nasty with the poor helpless Minister of Environment and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do is congratulate Your Honour on your

election to the Chair of the House of Assembly. It is a very prestigious honour

and I know from Your Honour's record in the House and outside that you bring to

it a great degree of dignity and wisdom and that Your Honour will serve this

House and the people of this Province well in that capacity. On behalf of my

constituents in Mount Pearl and on behalf, I am sure, of all the people of the

Province I congratulate you for that.

I would also like to congratulate the new ministers who have

been sworn in very recently. It is very interesting to see two or three new

ministers in. We were surprised there were not more changes but the Premier has

indicated that he may well have a Cabinet shuffle coming up later on this

spring. He probably wants to get out off the House first, and then maybe the

fall, over the summer, or next year he will have it. I want to congratulate the

former Speaker on the job he did as Speaker and wish him well in his portfolio.

I am sure he is going to do well. He learns quickly. He answered two question

today in Question Period and did not say a thing so he has already found out how

to be a minister. He is performing very well. The old adage of saying absolutely

nothing in as many words as possible is coming through very quickly. The

minister has learned that very effectively.

The Minister of Social Services is back, but not as Social

Services Minister anymore, he is back as Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. I congratulate the minister on his appointment, Mr. Speaker, but

I find it a little strange that he would be given that particular portfolio.

Here is a minister who left Cabinet because he interfered with the Public

Service Commission and now he is put in charge of it. That is like putting Jesse

James in charge of Fort Knox, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: I have to say, I am not surprised that the

minister was put back in Cabinet because that is the only way the Premier could

shut him up, to get him inside again, instead of being outside sniping at the

Premier's heels every second day and criticizing the Premier's policies,

particularly on fisheries. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I was really surprised

that he was put in that particular portfolio. But, we wish him well.

There is one other portfolio that should be changed, Mr.

Speaker, and that is the Premier. We should have changed the Premier.

Unfortunately, that wasn't our choice.

I congratulate the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, Mr. Speaker. He has a history of being involved in municipal affairs in

this Province. He was an effective mayor in Carbonear before he entered the

provincial scene. We look forward to big things from that particular minister,

because I think, or hope at least, that he has an understanding of the problems

that municipalities in this Province are facing. He has shown in the past that

he has some understanding. He has shown a reluctance to follow some of the

policies of the administration while he was in the backbenches, as well. He was

one of the rebels, Mr. Speaker. It is amazing that the rebels are the ones who

are put in Cabinet. It is in the only way to keep them quiet I suppose.

The Member for Carbonear often disagreed with things that the

administration was doing. He often spoke out, not very loudly but he spoke out,

and he grumbled and stamped his heels and he walked out of the Chamber and

refused to vote. At least he had the intestinal fortitude not to stand up like

some many more ducks in a shooting gallery and be counted. We hope, Mr. Speaker,

now that he is in Cabinet he will speak even more loudly for what he believes

in, and that he will have some impact, that he is not just in Cabinet to be

silenced as the Minister for Works, Services and Transportation is.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my friend from St. John's South is now the

Parliamentary Assistant. He is the third renegade that was in the backbenches.

Now he has been elevated, he has been brought in where the Premier can keep a

hand on the back of his neck all the time. I suspect the Member for St. John's

South is not going to be so quiet. He has never been quiet in the many, many

years that I have known him. I doubt very much that he is going to begin now.

MR. TOBIN: He won't let Danny Dumaresque in the House.

MR. WINDSOR: No. I was coming to the member for Eagle

River. I was wondering about the member for Eagle River, but I will have a

chance to speak to him on Tuesday, I guess. I was wondering about the member for

Eagle River. I mean, he is not here yet. He is the other renegade. I would have

really suspected -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) resigned.

MR. WINDSOR: Who resigned?

MR. ROBERTS: Trying to cause trouble, are you?

MR. WINDSOR: I am trying to cause some trouble, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: You are not doing very well, actually.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I am not doing so bad.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Tell them how much they paid you to

knock off Bill Rowe.

MR. WINDSOR: I would like to know how much Bill Rowe was

paid to commit suicide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Whatever I might think about that hon.

gentleman, Mr. Speaker, he is not stupid.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he is.

MR. WINDSOR: He might be politically stupid, but he is

not stupid,

so there had to be a reason why he was sent in. I have to say

it was great fun. It was an interesting campaign. Most elections are won

district by district. My friend from St. Mary's - The Capes and I won our

elections `Rowe' by `Rowe'.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many doors did you knock on, 'Neil'?

MR. WINDSOR: How many doors did I knock on? Almost every

door in the district - almost every door. There were three or four little

cul-de-sacs that I didn't get to, and the reason is that I spent a

day-and-a-half on crutches with a knee problem. Other than that, I would have

been -

MR. WALSH: It is amazing that you would win after so many

people meeting you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: It is amazing, yes!

MR. SIMMS: Oh! What a low blow!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but they also met Bill Rowe, let me tell

you.

MR. WINDSOR: I knocked at doors when people were home; I

knocked at doors when people were not home. I knocked at the member's door when

he was knocking on somebody else's door, and I knocked on his neighbour's door

and planted signs on the lawns of all of his neighbours. In fact, I was told I

had so many signs on his street, that Saturday afternoon when he came home, he

had to put sunglasses on, it was so colourful.

AN HON. MEMBER: 'Neil', we heard Jim wanted to get rid of

Bill Rowe so badly that he even voted for you.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, he was forced to put a red and white

sign on his lawn, and if he wasn't out in Mount Scio voting - the only thing

that saved Bill Rowe from having a vote cast against him was that the member was

out in his own district voting for himself, as all members, I suspect, were.

That is the only thing that saved him, Mr. Speaker. But it was an interesting

campaign. Perhaps some time later on I will get an opportunity to ask the

Premier if he is going to fulfil some of the commitments that were made by my

opponent during that campaign. If I thought they would be fulfilled I would be

tempted to retire because my goals would have been realized. There would be

nothing left for me to do, there were so many hollow promises made during the

campaign. I could relax and say that my district had been well served and I

could go on to a far greater reward, I suppose, Mr. Speaker - but it was an

interesting campaign.

I want to get back to my friend from St. John's South. I hope

that he is still going to be on the Public Accounts Committee as Vice-Chair of

Public Accounts. I don't know. He won't be?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Lost that.

MR. MURPHY: I got fired.

MR. WINDSOR: You got fired. You see? There is another

example where the Member for St. John's South was being too fair and honest on

the Public Accounts Committee. The hon. member agreed with me, and with the

Committee, I might say, in fairness to the Member for Eagle River and the Member

for LaPoile, who are also on that Committee, and somebody else, I think, one

other - there is one more. The Member for LaPoile -

AN HON. MEMBER: Carbonear.

MR. WINDSOR: The Member for Carbonear. Well, he will be

changed now, obviously, because he is now a minister, but all of those members

agreed with the position the Public Accounts Committee took on a couple of major

issues - one being the University, particularly, a very important one that we

are not finished with yet, by a long shot. It was announced yesterday. A Notice

of Motion was given of a piece of legislation to deal with the University. Now,

there will be a fine piece of legislation to debate. I don't know if hon.

members know what that piece of legislation is all about. This government

doesn't feel that the University has to answer to the House of Assembly, more

importantly, to the Public Accounts Committee, for the expenditures of over $100

million by the University. They are above and beyond, the fat cats at the

University.

This government refused to direct the University to provide

the information requested by the Auditor General of this Province, who has the

right and power and authority to examine the books of every government

department and every agency of the Crown - every single one, including the

University - and this government has given notice that they will, retroactively,

pass legislation which makes legal what has already been judged by the courts as

being illegal, because the matter has been heard by the courts. The Auditor

General referred it to the court, and the court said that the University was

wrong in not responding to the Auditor General, and that the Auditor General,

being a servant of the House, the University was wrong in not responding to the

Public Accounts Committee, as well.

I came forward on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee

with a point of privilege in this House. I say this particularly for the benefit

- not only the benefit of our new members on this side, but some of the new

members on the other side, who I see are listening very attentively, and I am

pleased that you are because this is important. I want you to know the type of

administration that you are supporting over there. I think it is important that

you think about it, if you haven't already done so.

This government stood here in this House and said we will not

make the University answer to the Auditor General. We will not force the

University to appear before the Public Accounts Committee of this House. Now,

the Public Accounts Committee of this House, is this House. It is a Committee of

this House, it is a Standing Committee of the House of Assembly with all the

powers and privileges afforded to this House. In refusing to answer to the

Public Accounts Committee when summoned, formally, legally in writing before the

Public Accounts Committee, the University officials, the President and the

officials of the University basically said to the House of Assembly, 'No, we

will not appear before you; we will not answer your questions.' Now, I ask,

particularly those hon. gentlemen in the backbenches and the new members, do you

honestly believe that the University is so different that they should not answer

for $110 million of expenditure of public monies? You and all of your ministers

will come before committees of this House, which are no different from the

Public Accounts Committee, and will answer for the expenditure of government

monies by every department of government. We will call before the Public

Accounts Committee,in due course, as issues arise, boards of directors and

officials from - we have had school boards in, we have had hospital boards in,

we have had -

AN HON. MEMBER: Crown corporations.

MR. WINDSOR: - Crown corporations, MCP. We can call in

Newfoundland Hydro, we can call in the Housing Corporation, we can call in every

Crown corporation and every agency of government before the Public Accounts

Committee to answer questions identified by the Auditor General, generally, in

the Auditor General's Report. The Auditor General says, 'I don't agree with

this, I don't agree with this, I don't agree with this.'

The role of the Public Accounts Committee is to examine that

report, to examine the public accounts and to call into question any issues that

may arise, and we do that on a regular basis. We have had many of those agencies

in and given them a thorough questioning on how that government money is being

spent and they have answered the questions under oath. It is a quasi-judicial

board or committee. Witnesses before the Public Accounts Committee take an oath,

sworn to by the Clerk of the House. But this government says the University

alone will be exempt from that.

Academic freedom? What does it have to do with academic

freedom? We have a board of regents, a senate and we have an administration, one

agency deals with academics and one deals with administration. We are not

interested in the academic affairs of the University. We don't want to tell them

what courses to teach. We don't want to tell them what to say in those courses,

what concepts should be taught to the students, whether they be democratic

principles or religious principles, whatever you want to talk about. We are not

interfering with academic freedom, but we have a right to find out how much was

spent by the University on buildings, on furniture, on administration and on

trips abroad. We have a right and a responsibility to the people of the

Province, Mr. Speaker, to do that, as we do with every Crown corporation. We are

not questioning whether we teach education courses, arts courses, science

courses, mathematics courses or whatever we may be teaching over there or the

content of the curriculum, but it is the cost to that, Mr. Speaker, how the

costs are controlled. Is there any wastage over there? When we say to every

government department, to every public servant, we must cut back, we can call -

we used to call all government departments. They still do, the Estimate

Committees; the ministers will come up with their staff and will justify how

much the Minister's Office is costing, how much his travelling is costing and

whether he needs seven or eight staff in his office. Every program within that

minister's department, that minister comes into this House of Assembly or into

the Colonial Building or wherever the Committee meeting is being held and

answers questions from other members of the House of Assembly - the Estimate

Committees that the House Leader just named.

Every minister is held accountable in this House, but the

President of the University is not. He alone, in this Province will not be held

accountable. He is, under present law - and the courts recently ruled on it.

Judge Noel said the University was wrong in not responding to the Auditor

General, and, by the same token, therefore, the University was wrong in not

responding to the Public Accounts Committee, although the judge did not address

that because the question was not put to him. And he said: 'The only remedy I

have - I don't have a remedy, I have no means to penalize the University, I

can't put it in jail, there is nothing in the law saying: You have committed a

breach of this law, therefore, here is the penalty.' So he said, the only

redress that the Auditor General has, which she followed and followed quite

correctly, is to ask the House of Assembly to give direction, to take action; in

other words, to ask the University or direct the University to respond to the

Auditor General and, by the same token, two parallel issues, to respond to the

Public Accounts Committee. What was the response of this government? Did they do

that? No, Mr. Speaker, the government said: 'We do not believe the University

should answer.'

'We now have a written judgement from the Supreme Court

saying that the University was wrong in not responding, so we will bring in a

law that says the University does not have to respond and we will make it

retroactive, so that when they broke the law, it will now not be the law

anymore, we will change it. That is like if I am driving home today and I get

caught on Prince Philip Parkway, driving at 120 kilometres an hour and I get

stopped by the police, I will say: Oh, I broke the law. Well, tomorrow, I will

come into the House of Assembly and pass a law making the speed limit on the

Prince Philip Parkway, 120 kilometres an hour, retroactive to today - no

difference, no difference whatsoever. It is called breaking a law and then

changing a law retroactively to make it legal afterwards. That is the method of

operation of this government, but the real question still remains: Should the

University have the right, they alone, to refuse to answer for expenditure of

government funds, and the President of the University will say, 'Well, we have

auditors and we have a Board of Regents and we have a Senate and we look after

all of those things, but they are not elected by the people, Mr. Speaker. They

are not elected by the people and it is the people's money. And we, as members

of the House of Assembly, every single one of us, is responsible for every

dollar that is collected from the taxpayers of this Province, and we are

responsible for how it is spent, and the piece of legislation that will be

introduced here in due course over the next number of days, our ability to

account for that $110 million that is handed over en bloc to the University each

year, our ability to question that will be taken away. It is a real question,

Mr. Speaker, whether it is even constitutional; it is a real question. But we

will get into that; no doubt, I will have another opportunity to say all this

again. But I caution and I commend hon. gentlemen opposite who are very

interested - and I am pleased to see they are paying attention - to think about

that and have a look at that and think about the democratic principles here.

Because, we still hope and believe that this is a democratic country and that

this is a democratic Parliament, and as such, all of us individually and

collectively, are responsible to our constituents, to the taxpayers of this

Province, who pay the cost of running this government.

Mr. Speaker, you can go on for days and days, I suppose, but

I don't really think I want to; I do not see a lot of point in it, because I

have said most of what needs to be said. But I do want to go over the pertinent

points of this Budget again.

This Budget, Mr. Speaker, will be remembered and will be

recognized for one thing primarily. It is the first incomplete Budget ever

brought before the House of Assembly, because you must realize that we have as a

document that identifies essentially, a $120 million deficit. Now, the

government says, and says quite correctly, that we cannot tolerate a $120

million deficit on current account in this Province. It is not acceptable and

the evidence from the credit rating agencies, as discussed during Question

Period, certainly confirms that. Even with the Budget that was brought in our

credit rating is still in great danger, and I might say for new members who may

not be familiar with it - what does a credit rating mean? Well, there are credit

rating agencies that say to the bonding agent, the money markets whether or not

this Province, or any government, is a good risk. Are we a good risk?

Newfoundland is probably the worst risk in Canada.

Now the key credit rating agencies are Standard and Poor's

and Moody in New York, on the international money market, because money is

borrowed for this Province not only here but in Europe, in Japan, not so much in

Great Britain, but certainly in Switzerland, Germany and France, money is

borrowed. Japan is a big market and the United States is a big market and

generally the Minister of Finance will try to borrow in all markets. The bulk of

funding will be borrowed in the Canadian market and that is why this particular

credit rating agency, albeit a very small credit rating agency, and as the

minister said, perhaps did not have a great impact because they are a small,

relatively young credit rating agency. Nevertheless, it is significant that they

have shown concern.

Credit rating agencies do not just look at one document. As I

said, also in Question Period, they are concerned about the long-term. Where is

this government heading? Where is the Province and the economy of this Province

heading over the long-term, so they want to know more than just a snapshot of

what is taking place at this moment. Where are we going? What this government

has done in this particular snapshot, first of all they have not given a

long-term plan. They could go to the credit rating agencies and say: we have a

$60, $70, or $80 million deficit that is unacceptable and here is what we are

going to do over the next four or five years. Here is our five year plan. They

did not do that.

In 1985 the government of the day was faced with an $89

million deficit and that was unacceptable and we knew it, and we knew our credit

rating was in great danger. Economic times were no better then and perhaps even

worse in many ways that they are today. More importantly they were probably

worse because the economic times in Newfoundland compared to the rest of Canada

were worse. Today we have an economic problem right across Canada and we can be

forgiven a little bit because we are caught up in that national recession, but

in 1985 there was somewhat of a recession but Newfoundland, for a whole host of

reasons I will not go into, found itself in a much worse position, so we could

be singled out very easily. We were very concerned about that $89 million

deficit and we went to New York and sat down with the credit rating agencies and

said: we cannot eliminate that deficit. We cannot bring in a balanced Budget,

not without destroying some essential social programs or raising taxation levels

to an unreasonable and unacceptable high level, so we said here is our plan.

Here is our five year plan and these are the decisions that are going to have to

be made over the five years and we are prepared to make them. We will reduce

that deficit from $89 million to zero over five years and we laid out a firm

plan. We said, here is our problem, here is how we are going to deal with it,

these are the tough decisions this government will make over the course of that

five years. Here is what we will do, and we did it. Not only that, we did it in

four years instead of five years. At the end of four years, in 1989, we passed

over to this government a Budget which had a small surplus on current account,

and the credit rating agencies in 1985 accepted what we said. If we had come in

in 1985 and said that we have an $89 million deficit and we do not know what to

do with it, and we cannot lower it any more; we are not prepared to make the

decisions necessary to reduce that deficit to deal with that problem, they would

have downgraded us in 1985 - but they did not, Mr. Speaker, because we had a

five year plan. They said to us: You have come to us before and you have said

you are going to do something, and you have always done it, and we have

confidence in you as a government. They trusted us again, and we did what we

said we would do, and our plan worked.

Compare that with the Budget document that is before us

today. Here you have a Budget document that is not complete. It predicts a $120

million deficit, and that is what is on the expenditure side, let us be very

clear. And the Interim Supply Bill that was passed, based on the Budget, which

is essentially one-third of the Budget, was passed based on expenditure

estimates which result in a $120 million deficit at the end of this year. The

government departments are now operating on that basis. If we do not do anything

at the end of the year, if they stick to their Budget, we will end up with a

$120 million deficit.

The government has said: No, we are not going to do that. We

have a $120 million deficit. We are not sure how we are going to deal with it,

but we are going to take it from the public service somewhere. We are going to

cut off $70 million.

Well remember there used to be a TV program first when

television came on, the $64,000 question. Well this is the $70 million question.

Where is this government going to find $70 million? Now they have lost $200,000

every day that action has not been taken. That is how much you have to cut -

$200,000 a day - over the course of the entire year, to save $70 million.

When the minister brought in his Budget he said: We will have

this done by the beginning of the fiscal year - by April 1st. Well this is May

21st. Fifty odd days have gone by at $200,000 a day. So what is that? That is

$10 million, we have slipped, that has not been saved because the Budget has not

been changed to reflect $70 million in expenditure savings.

It is interesting - a most unusual way to do a Budget, to say

our bottom line is $210 million, but - right at the bottom we will take out $70

million. If you look at the Budget document, it is very clear. If you read down

just in the

summary of the Budget document, function of expenditure, lists down

all the main headings. Subtotal expenditures, $3.2 billion less compensation

measures, $70 million. Where? How much? How many jobs are going to be lost? What

programs will be cut back to save that $70 million? Or will we see rollback in

wages? To save $70 million you either have to employ fewer people or you have to

roll back wages and benefits that have already been negotiated and are now being

paid. There is no way to reduce by $70 million without eliminating something,

without reducing something, without rolling back something. It is not possible.

Some benefits have to be given up.

It is a most unusual Budget. Have you ever seen a pie chart?

The day of computers always gives us graphs and charts. A pie chart is a very

useful way of showing how expenditures go. Here we have a pie chart - you always

heard the old saying, pi are squared? Somebody said, well no, pie are not

squared; pie are round. Well this pie is not round. There is another piece stuck

out here - $70 million outside. Pie are round with $70 million added to it. They

do not know how to fit that in.

AN HON. MEMBER: A mini-Budget will cure that.

MR. WINDSOR: A mini-budget will cure that. The minister

does not need to bring in a mini-budget. An interesting Budget. This is the

first Budget, I would submit, ever brought before this House that didn't require

any resolutions. There were no motions coming out of the Budget itself, because

there were no tax increases, there were no tax cuts. Amazing. Because it was all

done on December 4 in the mini-Budget. Two hundred million dollars in tax

increases on December 4, $200 million per year in tax increases on the people of

this Province on December 4, in a little mini-Budget. They didn't all take

effect then. The government likes to do that, you see. They like to come in and

say: we're going to increase some taxes, but here's all it needs this year.

Sixty million dollars this year, I think, is what it said.

What happens next year when you annualize it over the whole

year? Big difference. It comes up to something like $200 million. So there were

no motions introduced with this Budget. The government doesn't have to. Because

they have asked - this Budget is asking this House for a blank cheque to take

$70 million out afterward. Where is it going to come out? Because $70 million

out of this Budget will change almost every figure in the Budget document.

So what they've said is: here's our Budget, it's not

finished, we have a $70 million problem, we're going to take - we have a $120

million problem - we're going to take $70 million of it away. We'll tell you

later on. I think it's time that the minister came in and told us now. I don't

think it's acceptable to say that: we'll take it away from compensation. The

people in this Province have a right to know. Particularly the public servants

of this Province have a right to know. Where will we find that $70 million? Very

interesting question.

More importantly, what is the impact of taking that $70

million? What cuts are there? You're asking us to buy a pig in a poke here. We

do not know the implications of this Budget because we don't know where it's

coming from. We've no idea. The Minister of Finance asking us to approve a

budget and he will later on tell us how he proposes to do all that.

MR. GRIMES: Are you reading from the Hansard now?

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

MR. GRIMES: Are you reading from Hansard the same stuff

you read before?

MR. WINDSOR: Am I reading from Hansard? No.

MR. GRIMES: Sounds familiar -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) sounds familiar, doesn't it?

MR. GRIMES: Sounds the same.

AN HON. MEMBER: So does the Budget.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, it sounds familiar. The members

opposite might remember it, it's too bad they don't pay attention to it.

MR. ROBERTS: You've got him stirred up again Roger.

MR. WINDSOR: If they'd knocked on as many doors as I did

in the election campaign I'm sure they must have heard a lot of this.

MR. ROBERTS: I knocked on as many.

MR. WINDSOR: You knocked on as many? I doubt that very

much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. member doesn't have as many doors

to knock on as I do. His district is well spread out, but he doesn't have nearly

as many constituents, nor did he get -

MR. ROBERTS: Mount Pearl must be one of the largest

districts (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mount Pearl is the largest. My friend had

the highest percentage of the vote, I had the highest vote. Over 6,000 votes. My

friend for Waterford - Kenmount had the second-highest. He has the second

largest district.

MR. ROBERTS: What is the larger?

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: I thought Waterford - Kenmount was the

larger district, but nobody really knows. The voting list is so hopelessly out

of date.

MR. WINDSOR: We don't really know.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: One of the problems that we had - in fact, I

have the only voters list that's available in Mount Pearl at the moment. Because

we did it. We abandoned -

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman's the only one who needs

it right now.

MR. WINDSOR: The only one who needs it. The 1988 voters

list was of absolutely no value so we just ignored it.

MR. ROBERTS: The federal one (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The federal one was of no value. Polls were

different, streets were different -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, great. It's fine in rural Newfoundland,

where you go into a small community and there are 100 or 200 voters.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It's just as easy to go do your own

enumeration as to try to transpose all of the data from one to the other. In

fact, you'll find that the enumeration that was done for that federal Yes

campaign or No campaign, the referendum, was done so quickly it was not totally

accurate anyway. We found in any case, Mr. Speaker, that in my own riding at

least, and I realize my riding is somewhat unique, there are so many people that

changed. First of all you had five years that passed by and many people have

passed on to another world. You had young people who were thirteen years old

when that enumeration was done, who were eligible to vote and a lot of mobile

people in my district but even more importantly the growth area, all of

Westminster, most of Admiralty Wood and most of Power's Pond areas did not exist

in 1988. I think it represented some nine polls that did not exist at all in

1988. These are totally unknown people, totally unknown. We did not know who

they were, we did not know where they came from. We knew nothing about them or

how many people were there, names or anything. So we did our own voters list,

computerized it and produced our own enumeration effectively and I have it on

computer disk. In fact the returning officer is asking to get a copy of it and

certainly it will be made available because it is the only list available. If

those two parties did not go through that trouble.

MR. ROBERTS: They may have paid a price for it.

MR. WINDSOR: They may have paid a price for it, yes. They

certainly paid a price for the signs that they had around. I would like to have

the taxes that they paid on the signs that they put up.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, the lawn signs.

MR. WINDSOR: The lawn signs, yes. I have to say my

opponent was well financed. I do not know where he bought his signs. He did not

buy them in the district. We have a couple of good sign shops in the district.

To my knowledge he did not use anyone from the district, they were brought in

from outside and that is fine but he certainly paid the price. He also paid to

have them put up. He also paid people to put them up for him. Unfortunately, he

had to replace them almost every morning. He had a real problem.

MR. ROBERTS: People were saving them were they, for

posterity?

MR. WINDSOR: No, they were not saving them. They were

destroying them almost as quickly as they were putting them up. I would say the

hardware stores did a very good business on black paint, cans of black spray

bombs. Unfortunately the signs were destroyed on a regular basis, very

unfortunate. Something that we certainly had absolutely nothing to do with and

would not tolerate, would not condone. We had some damage to our own, without a

question. He had quite a bit more damage than we did but he spent a lot of money

on signs. Somebody did well from his election campaign as they should.

Mr. Speaker, the question is, where are we going with this

particular Budget document? Negotiations with public service unions may well be

progressing as the minister tries to tell us. I think it is going to be very

difficult for him to find $70 million. Now he may find a mechanism, and

obviously as we go through the year it is going to have to be a mechanism that

comes in lump sums. At the rate we are going it is going to be too late to make

the changes necessary to the Budget document. So he is going to have to find

solutions such as his famous pension plan contribution scheme that went nowhere.

We all know how a couple of the major collective bargaining agencies felt about

that. So that option may not be available.

I think it is important too, that government look at what the

implications are of that for government because it is not all favourable to

government. I think if government looked at that very closely, and they may have

already done so, I have some reason to believe that they have had second

thoughts on that option because of the long-term implications of taking that

particular type of action. It may well be extremely negative to government, so

you are not changing anything. You may not be borrowing that extra $70 million

in the money market, doubtful if you could raise it anyway, doubtful that you

could raise anything if you came in with $120 million deficit but you may not be

borrowing at the money market but you are borrowing it essentially from pension

plans from the future. You will pay it back one way or the other in the

long-term.

MR. ROBERTS: It's a reduction in compensation, not

borrowing.

MR. WINDSOR: Reduction in compensation, reduction in

amount that you contribute to the pension plan now.

MR. ROBERTS: Reduction in compensation, no question about

it but (inaudible) -

MR. WINDSOR: In effect you are borrowing.

MR. ROBERTS: No, no.

MR. WINDSOR: You are dragging it out at the end. You will

pay back in those days, dollars. You are going to employ those people an extra

six months.

MR. ROBERTS: If they want to stay.

MR. WINDSOR: If they want to stay. They are going to have

to stay to get their thirty years in. They are going to have to work that extra.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, a lot of them will retire before that.

MR. WINDSOR: Teachers in this Province were on strike for

thirty and out clause and now they are being asked to work thirty years and six

months.

MR. ROBERTS: The teachers pension plan, the problem isn't

thirty and out, the problem is that unfunded liability, and have a look at the

age distribution (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: So somewhere down the road that extra money

has to be paid out. No question about that. You've a big unfunded liability

there, no question of that. We've been negotiating that for many years.

MR. ROBERTS: That's the greatest legacy, the curse that

we inherited, I tell you, that one.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh yes. But we had begun to deal with it. No

question, it was there. But in fairness to governments, though -

MR. ROBERTS: Goes back several years.

MR. WINDSOR: - actuarial studies and pension plans are

relatively new animals.

MR. ROBERTS: Canada Pension Plan (inaudible) 'sixties.

MR. WINDSOR: That's right. Pension plans get put in

place, you estimate what the cost might be, you find that the costs are much

greater than you anticipated. So in fairness to previous governments, and to

this government, but in fairness to previous governments particularly, because

we had to deal with the problem, because it was during our term, during the

latter year or so of our term, that we discovered that we had the problem. I

recall in fact as President of Treasury Board in 1989 I think, 1988 or 1989,

meeting with the present Minister of Environment, who was president of the NTA

at the time. Calling her in to a boardroom here in the east wing, and other

members of their executive, and saying, and showing them, with our actuarial

consultant there, and he doing the presentation and saying: here is what has

been happening and here's where we're going.

MR. ROBERTS: Just look at the age distribution. In about

ten or fifteen years the roof falls in. It's the most serious fiscal problem

confronting us.

MR. WINDSOR: No question whatsoever.

MR. ROBERTS: And all the answers are unpalatable.

MR. WINDSOR: We don't disagree with the need to deal with

it at all. Back in 1989, when I met with my friend, the Minister of Environment,

we said to her and to her colleagues at the time, the teachers' pension plan is

a real problem. First, we have not been contributing enough, and we're still

not. So we have an unfunded liability because government has been borrowing -

the government's contribution effectively, is what it does. It doesn't actually

put it into a bank account but makes that commitment. It builds up a liability

but it doesn't actually put the money in. It uses the money.

We said: we have that problem, but we have another problem,

in that we haven't been contributing enough. We haven't even been committing

enough. So there's a deficiency from both sides. Because it's a 50-50 plan.

MR. ROBERTS: Also, there were some rather generous

things. Allowing buying all that university time....

MR. WINDSOR: That's right. Incredible, absolutely

incredible. That's been changed.

MR. ROBERTS: It's been ended now.

MR. WINDSOR: Been ended.

MR. ROBERTS: But to allow people to buy four or five

years for a couple of hundred bucks was just nonsense.

MR. WINDSOR: We had the dilemma, that a teacher could buy

four or five years of service while they were a student. Why couldn't a nurse

buy four years while that nurse was in training? Why couldn't doctors buy it?

MR. ROBERTS: What that four or five years did, on the

actuarial side of it, was just disaster. Because it meant, really, they got the

pension five years earlier and five years less contributions.

MR. WINDSOR: Exactly. It was probably one of the most

disastrous clauses ever put into a collective agreement. No question. But we

found therefore at that time that teachers were not contributing enough and

government was not contributing enough. We said to the NTA at the time: we

accept responsibility for that, because government has been managing the plan.

It was up to us to say to you: you need to pay more. But we're saying to you now

as of today, you will have to contribute more or we'll have to reduce your

benefits. But we accepted the liability that had been built up. We said: we will

not ask you to pay what has been built up in the past because you had no control

over it. Government was responsible and we'll accept that. We'll accept that

liability but it has to stop, and we have to start paying our way.

I think that's fair. I see no problem with government

cost-sharing a pension plan for its employees. It's in government's best

interest to ensure that employees have some security into the future when they

finish working for government, when they've completed their service in the

public service. It's also obviously a huge benefit to the employee and that's

why these things are cost-shared.

MR. ROBERTS: It's a form of compensation (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It's a form of compensation but it's also an

insurance policy purchased by the employee. The employee say: I will contribute

5 or 6 per cent of my gross income toward my pension plan. I am purchasing

future security. They know what that pension plan is, and here's what I'm

buying.

MR. ROBERTS: They are doing more than that because we are

paying the five or six points on the top of that, so really the compensation is

105 per cent, 106 per cent of the stated amount.

MR. WINDSOR: It is 12 per cent total, yes -

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, or whatever, it depends (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is right, sure, there is no question,

it is a real benefit, but I say to the Minister of Justice that if employees did

not get that benefit in that, if we did not cost-share a pension plan, then we

would probably pay them 105 per cent of what their salary is and they would go

and buy their own pension plan; it is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other,

it is the same thing. Either way today, pensions are very important and again I

say, not only to the employer but to the employee, to both of them, the employee

wants his own personal security and the employer needs to know that their

employee down the road has some protection, and that when it comes time to

terminate the employment that the employer knows that there are social

implications from the employer's point of view that have been dealt with, but

pensions will bankrupt this nation, not only this Province but this nation.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) David Dawe, a Deputy Minister of

Finance in Ottawa made, he put the whole Canada Pension Plan, we are now paying

3 per cent on the first $35,000 or something of that order of our income, it has

to go to 13 per cent on all our income to be actuarially sound in 2010, when you

and I are going to be getting it, in theory?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, if it is there for us to get. Unless

something is done -

MR. ROBERTS: In the whole country it is a nightmare with

these pensions, we have all built up these liabilities in good faith but what

appears to be a (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, it is part of an overall phenomena, I

say to the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: I agree -

MR. WINDSOR: People today go into the workforce. They are

very much aware of pensions and long-term security, they have to be. They have

to be and thank God they are. In the past, too few of us paid enough attention

to what is going to happen down the road and governments were forced through

social programs

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) phenomenon that we borrow for

current account. We all do across the country. I am not being partisan on this

and you know, we think we can borrow and spend on today's money, not realizing

that you have to pay it back some day sooner or later.

MR. WINDSOR: You do it in the short-term but not in the

long-term. I say to the minister, we have a $70 million problem this year, that

is fine, we will live with that $70 million or $51 million -

MR. ROBERTS: What will we do next year?

MR. WINDSOR: Next year, hopefully it will be less and

again less, and less and less, but we have to know that somewhere in the

foreseeable future, not way down the road but in the very foreseeable future,

that we can only balance that Budget with the (inaudible) -

MR. ROBERTS: And if the country does not do it, the IMF

is going to do it for us.

MR. WINDSOR: No question, no question, it is going to

happen. The day of reckoning is coming and we have to deal with it. But I was

about to say that pensions are very much part of the overall phenomena that has

taken place in Canada and perhaps elsewhere, that people are very concerned

about that, very much consumed by looking for that day of retirement, ensuring

that they and their families are geared up for that day of retirement,

unfortunately we spend sometimes far too much time, as important as it is,

consuming ourselves with what do I have to do to get out of here as quickly as

possible and have as much financial resources available to me when I do retire

as I can get, so that I can retire and live a peaceful and leisurely life

thereafter, but the cost -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, far from it; far from retirement, Mr.

Speaker, because I will probably never retire.

MR. ROBERTS: Of course I retired and came back.

MR. WINDSOR: You retired and came back. I may well retire

from politics some day but I certainly will not retire in total. I will always

find -

MR. ROBERTS: Better to wear out than rust out.

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: It is better to wear out than rust out.

MR. WINDSOR: Exactly. I would find it very difficult to

sit around on the front porch in a rocking chair all day and read books and

watch birds fly by, I have to say. There are too many things that I have, that I

would like to do yet in my life, and once the people of Mount Pearl are tired of

me - I should have actually, I meant to start off my opening remarks when I was

congratulating His Honour and the various ministers and all hon. members on

their re-election, I meant to start off by thanking the good people of Mount

Pearl for the very strong vote of confidence that they have put in me. They

have, after eighteen years, come back with a resounding vote of confidence and

it is very gratifying. Somebody said earlier today, it is one thing to get

elected, it is something else to get re-elected.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) first rule.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right, and to be re-elected six

times - if you are elected for the sixth time, if you are elected five -

MR. ROBERTS: I was elected six times in one district.

MR. WINDSOR: Six general elections and a by-election.

MR. ROBERTS: No, no. Six times in the White Bay North,

Strait of Belle Isle seat. One election and five re-elections.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, it is an honour and it says something.

Several people, as I was knocking on doors in my district, said to me: What is

your platform this time? I said: Boy, I cannot sell you on a platform. My

platform is eighteen years of what I have done. You know me. I cannot fool you

now.

The first time you are elected you can create an image, be it

accurate or not. You create an image, I say to the newer members particularly,

that the people are prepared to accept; but if you create a false image it is

very tough to live up to that image thereafter, and if you do not live up to

that image and in fact perhaps even exceed it, at the end of four years you may

well pay the price.

Now my friend from Ferryland was elected very, very handily -

not a huge majority, I do not think, in a by-election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: One hundred and twenty-five votes - so here

is a prime example. One hundred and twenty-five votes in a by-election eight or

nine months ago, and he has worked so hard in that eight or nine months, he has

established for himself such a reputation; he has been so well accepted and such

an effective member that he came in with the highest percentage of any member in

the House. Now that is quite an achievement, and that is exactly what I am

talking about here - that you can create an image the first time you get

elected, but that image cannot be created a second time.

Your election campaign started the day of the election. The

day you are first elected you start to campaign for your next election. If you

do not, you will find yourself going by the wayside, I suspect, very quickly,

because your second election you are judged on your performance of the first

four years, and every four years after that. What amazes me is that I got the

biggest majority in my history this time, by far.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you win by?

MR. WINDSOR: I won by almost 3,000 votes. It was only a

little over 400 last time - a big change. Only the hon. gentleman from Port de

Grave had a bigger majority.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some of us have had bigger percentages in

the past.

MR. WINDSOR: Bigger percentages in the past, oh yes. Oh,

many have. I was 15th. in percentages this time.

MR. FUREY: Is that a compliment to you or a message to

us?

MR. WINDSOR: What is that?

MR. FUREY: Was that a compliment to you or a message to

us?

MR. WINDSOR: I will not be unkind. There was a strong

message from the people of Mount Pearl to this government, as it relates to the

amalgamation issue - very strong. That was the number one issue in the district,

without a doubt. The second issue was the $70 million, because I have a very

high percentage of public servants in my district. People would come to the

door: I am a teacher; you know how I am voting. I am a nurse; you know how I am

voting. I am a public servant; you know how I am voting. There is no question

about that.

Now in many areas in rural Newfoundland the NTA did not do us

any good. In many areas it did not do us any good. It backfired - better they

had stayed away and let the teachers do their own thing, but I found in my

district that the big issue, without a doubt, except for those who are

unemployed - those who are unemployed there is only one issue on their mind -

getting a job. Where can I find work? That was paramount, and I have a growing

unemployment rate, but far lower than most areas of the Province. Most people in

my district have both husband and wife working. We are not a rich community. We

are an average community, but somewhat secure; not as secure as we have been in

the past, let me tell you.

I just drove up and down my own street yesterday and looked

at the 'For Sale' signs on houses of people who are moving out, and vacant

houses where people have been forced out and are gone, and houses that are for

sale or for rent - vacant houses. It is frightening, but nevertheless my

district is very fortunate in comparison to other districts. So for those people

who are not employed, by far the biggest question was they needed a job, but for

those who were employed and reasonably secure, no question, the amalgamation

issue, taking away the fire department, taking away the Southlands. Even my

opponent promised the Southlands. Now, here is a question I would like answered.

Is this government now prepared to revisit that question and put the Southlands

back where it belongs? There is a real question. There is a dicey one. My

opponent promised he would. My opponent promised he would get the Southlands

back, and he justified it as to why it was a wrong decision. The problem was it

did not do him any good because the people of Mount Pearl knew he was not

speaking for the Premier. The Premier is very clearly on record. The people knew

that when my opponent made such promises that these were hollow election

promises coming from a candidate. This was not party policy. Had the Premier

come into Mount Pearl and in a public meeting promised that had the Liberal

candidate been elected in Mount Pearl, or if the Liberal candidate were elected

in Mount Pearl, he would immediately give the Southlands back, I would have been

in big trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said it.

MR. WINDSOR: No, he did not and that is the whole point.

He did not come to Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you said the Premier came to

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: No, I said, if the Premier had come to Mount

Pearl and made the same kind of promises that the Liberal candidate made I would

have been in big trouble. I might even have voted for him myself. I might have

resigned and said, look, that is all I want for my district. Leave us alone,

give us our expansion area, and let us carry on. My job would then pretty much

be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you not lucky that you have an honest

Premier?

MR. WINDSOR: I do not call that honest. I do not call it

honest trying to hide behind feasibility studies that were done on a completely

different option. I do not call it honest that you make a decision at eight

o'clock in the morning before coming into the House of Assembly on something

that was not studied, was not recommended by anybody, and that undemocratically

takes away from the second largest city in this Province, the most viable

community in this Province, half of its land and (inaudible). It takes away a

fire department that was totally built and paid for by the people of Mount Pearl

and gives it to a neighbouring municipality which causes us to pay $700,000 a

year more for a lesser service than we were able to provide ourselves. I do not

call that being an honest Premier, nor is it democratic. It is far from it, and

he will pay the price one of these days for that.

No doubt that was the issue and no doubt that issue will not

go away I say to the government. Nothing is changed. Yes, there was a strong

message that came out of my district to this government, the same message that

came through with 18,000 names on a petition a year and a half or two years ago,

18,000 names that said, do not make us part of St. John's. There were 18,000

names collected in two hours, in one evening, that said we have a right to

decide the type of municipality that we will have. We have a right to govern

ourselves at the local level. We have a right to continue to grow and expand. It

would be different if we were a pimple on the side of government that was

costing the government five times as much per capita as any other community in

the Province. It would then be a different story altogether and government would

have a right to step in and say this is not acceptable, but there is no more

viable community in this Province than is the city of Mount Pearl. There is no

more self-sufficient community than is the city of Mount Pearl. There is no

better developed community, more active community, and no community has so high

a level of voluntarism as does the city of Mount Pearl. There is no more

progressive community than Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not 450 years old.

MR. WINDSOR: No, it is not 450 years old, but it was

built and paid for by the people of Mount Pearl. People cast jealous eyes at the

city of Mount Pearl but I can tell you that the people of Mount Pearl can take

credit for everything that has happened in there.

So, Mr. Speaker, I reacted very negatively and they gave a

very strong message with that 18,000 name petition a couple of years ago and

they gave a very strong message again now, as did the people of Waterford -

Kenmount give a very strong message to this government. People of Waterford -

Kenmount gave a more important message on behalf of all of the people because it

was a minister who was responsible for that undemocratic act. He met his fate in

Waterford - Kenmount and that was why, that was the issue, because the people of

Waterford - Kenmount also disagreed with amalgamation.

The people of Waterford - Kenmount also found it wrong that a

unilateral action can be taken by a government to destroy a major municipality

without due cause. The undemocratic principle, that is what we are talking here.

We are not talking this piece of land versus that piece of land or that fire

department versus another fire department. Those are all parts of the issue but

the overriding issue are the basic democratic principles and beliefs of the

people of this Province and they believe, they hope that their democratic

beliefs and principles are shared by the members of this hon. House and that

this hon. House represents their democratic system. If we ever lose that

confidence than this House will be of no value, if we ever lose confidence that

the people's will is going to be done in this House. It is not enough to say

that well, the people will decide in four years time. This is true, no question

about that. The people will decide every four years, you will be judged, we all

will be judged as we should be but it is not necessarily enough to say: well if

we do not do it right, we will pay the price in four years time. Simply because

we have a responsibility day by day to protect the democratic principles that I

think we all believe in deep down. I honestly think that we all believe in these

democratic principles. So these kinds of messages, Mr. Speaker, have tremendous

importance and I think it is critically important that we pay attention to them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the Budget itself. We

are talking here again of a $51 million deficit providing we can find that $70

million but in the midst of that there are a number of things that have been

done. What else was done in the Budget? Contributions to third party agencies

have been reduced. Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting area. When one first

looked at the Budget and saw, I believe the figure was $800,000 being saved

there and I guess you could look at that and say, well $800,000 I guess in the

overall schemes of things that is not a huge amount to cut out. Maybe that is

not totally wrong but then you had to sit down and look at the individual

amounts and who was cut. The first one that came up of course, very vocally, was

the Daybreak Centre and we all know what happened there, the government reversed

its position on that and reinstated that funding as they should have but it is

an example of not having properly considered the impact on these little groups

and agencies that that $800,000 in small amounts of $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000

perhaps, the impact that it had. Again, during the campaign, there were so many

groups who contacted us either in writing or verbally. I have several letters

here somewhere in my pile of papers from various groups who talked about the

impact that those cuts will have on them. I don't particularly need to go

through them. But here again is a case where the government didn't listen, or

didn't give people an opportunity to speak, before those decisions were made.

You all must be concerned about the deficit, and you have to

deal with the deficit. There is nobody questioning that, but as has been said

here many times before, it is not the dealing with it, it is how you deal with

the deficit that can create the serious problems. When you unilaterally cut

funding from groups, as in the case of Daybreak, by cutting the provincial

contribution, you automatically lost considerably more federal contribution.

That doesn't make any sense. And so many other agencies need the seed money from

government in order to access private funding, or funding from other levels of

government, be it federal or municipal. If you cut that small amount of funding

- it may only be 5 or 10 per cent of their budget, but if it is the seed money

that allows all the rest of it to be raised, then you may well be eliminating

the whole program. If it is only 5 per cent or 10 per cent, then that 5 or 10

per cent is probably a good investment from government. Anytime you can create a

program or any economic activity with an investment of 5 or 10 per cent then

that is a good investment. Any government that turns down a thirty-cent dollar,

for example, is making a bad mistake. And let me just use one example - probably

the most blatant example, the most blaring example, of being counterproductive.

There is, I think my friend from St. John's East Extern will

remind me - I think it is $125 million, or $100 million to $125 million dollars,

allocated for the Outer Ring Road - 70/30 dollars - 70 per cent federal money,

30 per cent provincial money. Now, I don't need to tell hon. members opposite

the implications of spending $100 million to $125 million on a highway

construction program - the impact that will have on jobs and employment in the

whole Province, but specifically here, when our contractors are literally

starving to death out there. That money is sitting there, and has been there now

for four years, a federal/provincial agreement in place - and this government,

particularly the Premier, says we shouldn't be spending that money in St.

John's. Why not? Fifty per cent of the population of this Province lives within

100 miles of St. John's. Why would we not spend money on highways? Why would we

not build the Outer Ring Road? I ask the hon. the Member for Pleasantville. I am

sure he supports the Outer Ring Road. I hope he does. If he doesn't he should

tell us now. He should have told us before the election. He should let the

people know.

With all of these new members now from St. John's, are they

now supporting the Outer Ring Road? Not only is it needed from a transportation

point of view - critically needed - but just look at the labour and construction

activity that would create with our thirty-cent dollars. Government will get

back more than thirty cents on every dollar in income tax and sales tax and

corporation taxes. A thirty-cent dollar is a good dollar. This government should

be up to Ottawa saying: Give me all the thirty-cent dollars you can give me,

because they are good dollars from this Province's point of view. You can't go

wrong, no matter what the project is, whether you like it or not. You cannot go

wrong spending thirty-cent dollars, not only to the economy, as a whole, but to

the Province, to the Treasury, itself. It is a good deal.

There is an example where government is spiting itself. Why

can that project not be commenced immediately? Planning has long been done.

Environmental studies have been done. There is an ongoing battle about

environment. It will go on as long as you allow it to go on. The sooner you get

it done, get it built and get it over with, the better off we will all be.

We heard the Premier yesterday in his response to the Throne

Speech talking about creating a great petroleum industry here in Newfoundland.

Part of that is creating infrastructure. The Outer Ring Road is critical to

connecting the airport, the east end of St. John's, with the Trans-Canada

Highway and with the south side of St. John's. The Outer Ring Road is a

tremendous piece of infrastructure that will be a great benefit in attracting

industry here, outside of the economic impact it will have in the near future.

This government, Mr. Speaker, has very clearly, very deliberately, decided that

they should not move ahead.

Also announced in the Budget were some cuts in the area of

social assistance - reducing the cost of transportation services to persons on

social assistance. No increase in rates paid to social assistance recipients or

to senior citizens. Now, we all have to cut back, we all know that, we all know

we have to cut back, but I can tell you, and I am sure if hon. members were

knocking on doors, as I am sure they all were, they had to come across many

cases of people who were living on social assistance. I am not talking about

those who might be abusing the system, because there always will be some. Any

system you put in place, particularly if it is a government program, will be

abused by some, and we should deal with them very quickly.

Anybody who is living on social assistance in this Province

today is not living very well at all. They have real problems. Not only that -

AN HON. MEMBER: They are going to spend less money

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Spend less money (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That's right, far more people, some 20,000

more on social assistance this year, and the Budget is less. But that is only a

game. That is one of the foolish things. Here we have 20,000 more people on

social assistance and the minister is saying we need $10 million less than we

spent last year. Because he's forgetting about the special warrants he brought

in last year. We all know that he'll be back in with special warrants again in

the third quarter of the year - no question about that. So, he is not fooling

anybody by doing that. He is not going to fool the money market either. They're

not that easily fooled. They can see through that. That's only a charade. It is

not going to help anyone.

I am talking about the rates paid for social assistance

recipients. People who have not had increases now for three or four years, I say

to the new Minister of Social Services. Inflation has gone upward by about 14

per cent in those three or four years. That means those people are living on far

less money today than they did four years ago, and the same is true of our

senior citizens.

Now, I ask the minister to consider this, and he may recall

it. I raised the issue once before. Most of our social assistance recipients are

living in social housing, in public housing, if they can get in there.

Unfortunately, there's another problem that his colleague next door, the

minister responsible for housing now, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing, if he is listening - he's not, but I wish he were.

The other problem we have is in the housing area. There are

some 1,500 families in the St. John's area alone waiting to get into public

housing units. Is the Minister of Housing - he is not listening - but maybe the

Minister of Social Services there next to him would give him a nudge and ask him

to pay attention? He is not listening.

The Minister of Housing - I finally got his attention. I was

saying that in speaking with the Minister of Social Services about the problems

of social assistance recipients, who have not had increases in some four years

and, therefore, because of inflation of 14 per cent approximately over that

period of time, these people are living on far less money.

The other problem that most of them have, is, that they are

either living in public housing, in social housing, or wanting to get in there.

We have some 1,500 people on your waiting list in St. John's alone, waiting to

get into public housing, by far the longest, the biggest waiting list we have

ever had since I have been involved. It is a serious problem. The minister may

not yet know but he is soon going to find out that in the federal budget that

funding for new social housing through Canada Mortgage and Housing was

eliminated effectively. There are $2 billion in there to continue maintaining

the current housing stock, but no new funding to build new. If you are not

building 300 or 400 public housing units a year, you are going backward, so that

has been downloaded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three years (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Three years, oh yes, every bit of it. The

other point I make to both ministers is that most of the people on that waiting

list are single parents, who are not in a position to help themselves. A lot of

these people are desperate people. There is one problem that we created many

years ago. Years ago, there was social housing and there was public housing; it

used to be called welfare housing - housing units owned and operated by the

Department of Social Services for those persons who were receiving social

assistance; welfare, we called it in those days.

There was another block of houses operated by the Housing

Corporation, for those whom we called 'the working poor', those people who were

working but not earning enough income to support themselves and their families,

and that is public housing which is geared to income. Your gross cost of housing

cannot exceed 25 per cent of your gross income. Many years ago, we combined the

portfolios together, all under Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, so

now there is no distinction. And there are many good, social reasons for that,

and, management reasons. You have one housing agency with expertise and

personnel involved in building and maintaining the housing stock, the housing

portfolio, but unless you are on social assistance, you are not likely to get

into one of those units. So what we called 'the working poor', men and women who

are out there working, trying to support themselves and their families, would

need that little bit of assistance until they can, somehow, raise their income

perhaps, they will probably not get into a social housing unit,

whereas all

these people who are on social assistance, with absolutely no means of income,

and the amount of funds allocated by the Minister of Social Services for housing

is grossly inadequate.

A family could not possibly hope, with the housing allowance,

to find in the rental market, particularly in St. John's - it may be different

in rural Newfoundland, and I suspect the numbers are applied right across the

Province. But a person on social assistance, with the $400-and-something a

month, I think it is, allocated, could not hope to find suitable accommodation

for the amount of money that is allocated, under the formulas that are in place.

So, that family has to go into substandard accommodation until they can have the

inspector from the Housing Corporation come in and see that they are living in

inadequate accommodation, and do a rating based on the point system that is

applied right across Canada - fairness - would do a rating and when they get a

point score of sixty or more, I would say now, maybe seventy or more today, they

would need on that rating system before they would qualify for one of the very

few units that the Minister of Housing has available.

Members today, if a constituent calls and says: The house I

am living in is not an adequate house, I need to get into a public housing unit,

the best advice if the member were to be honest, the best advice the member

would give to that constituent is get yourself evicted, get yourself thrown out

on the street. When you are thrown out on the street then they will do an

assessment of you and your points score will be higher and you will have a

chance of getting in but these are games. How many constituents have I had call

me, have other members had call, and say I