The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

During our short recess this summer, we were very fortunate, in St. John's, and not only in St. John's but throughout the Province, under the capable direction of Mr. Mike Donovan and through Her Worship, to obtain the first professional franchise associated with the Province, namely, the St. John's Maple Leafs. I know that not only has it helped the social and sports community of the city but it also is a good source of revenue for the city and a great social event for the Province, as well. So I would, through you and the Chair, Mr. Speaker, ask that this hon. House write a letter to Mr. Donovan, congratulating him and his Board of Directors on the franchise, the St. John's Maple Leafs.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This side of the House, certainly, Mr. Speaker, endorses all the sentiments of the hon. the Member for St. John's South, and we hope that the St. John's Maple Leafs will have all kinds of luck, as they did in their few games. In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I did not have the opportunity to see either of the games but I am contemplating attending on Wednesday night; after that, hopefully, I will be in a better position to address the capabilities of that fine team.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take the attention of the House for a minute or two, on behalf, I am sure, of all members of the House - but I will let a representative from the other side speak to the matter - to extend a warm welcome to the newest member of the House, Mr. Harold Small, the new Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Small's family, wife and daughter, are also in the Chamber today and I extend a warm welcome to them, but I extend a very personal welcome to Mr. Small. He has participated in public life in this Province extensively in recent years. He tried on one previous occasion to seek membership in this House but was not, at that time, successful. This time he was successful. I am confident that he will be an able representative for the district of Baie Verte - White Bay and will also be a member of this House who is concerned for the whole Province and, indeed, for that matter, for the whole nation. Speaking on behalf of this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, I extend a warm welcome to Mr. Small and look forward to his continuing to be a member for many years to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the members on this side of the House or, at least, those sitting in the Official Opposition caucus, I, too, wish to congratulate the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. I bring personal greetings to him on behalf of his brother, Mark, who asked me to pass along his congratulations, as well.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, at the outset, that we kind of thought the campaign was going to be a tough one, and that the margin of victory would produce the results it did. In fact, we had predicted that it would be a small victory, and everybody agrees with us that it would have been. But, on behalf of this party, Mr. Speaker, we congratulate the member on his election. We look forward to his participation in the legislature, and we hope sincerely that he enjoys his tenure here in the legislature, however long that may be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the Government House Leader, if I might just bring to the attention of hon. members, a point which will help in the smooth operating of the House in the future: All hon. members might not know the daily procedure in this House for standing when the House opens - when members want to make statements about various things, that we have been allowing - as we know, not in our Standing Orders, but we have been allowing these things, and if the House allows it we can do anything - that nobody is permitted to stand until the Chair says 'Order'. Of course, that is for a very obvious reason, because if members are allowed to stand as soon as we get in the House, it is going to be very difficult for the Chair to know whom he saw first. So if a person stands the minute he comes into the House, hon. members will appreciate that it makes it difficult for the Chair, but if members only rise when the Speaker says 'Order', it gives the Speaker a little more opportunity to catch whoever is standing. So I will just bring to the attention of hon. members, the procedure in this House has been that nobody ought to stand until the Chair calls order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to draw to the attention of members, the fact that there have been some very important changes in the last few months in the House.

I direct to their attention the fact that we have three new Pages. The function of a Page, as everybody who sits in this House knows, is a very important one. There are things that simply happen, things appear magically, and the process goes on very smoothly because we have Pages who are very efficient and do their work well in this House.

I would like to welcome the three new Pages from Bay d'Espoir, Bay Roberts and Mount Pearl, I believe. I hope they will enjoy themselves as much in the House as we do and learn as much as we do.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to join with the Government House Leader in welcoming to our legislature the new Pages who are with us today, and tell them that we look forward to working with them.

On my way into the House today, I met a couple of the new Pages. I think they are going to be quite an addition to the legislature, along with the new Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. I say to them, it is nice to see you here and we look forward to working with you.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty evident to anybody who might travel around the Province these days, that we are, in fact, facing an economic crisis. It is partially due to the recession, as we all understand, but I think the situation is much more severe here in this Province than it need have been, and that is probably because of the regressive fiscal measures taken by this Government and indeed, their lack of economic planning.

I want to ask the Premier, will he, during this fall sitting of the legislature, bring forward a strategy, a plan, that would deal, now, with the present economic crises, and that might stimulate economic growth, now, not twenty or twenty-five years from now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as all members know, you have to run the economy on a managed basis with long-term planning and we are in the process of doing that. Every now and then, however, the economy runs into difficult circumstances, like the Newfoundland economy has run into this year, with the effects of the national recession, to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred. But also, there have been the particular effects of first, a substantial reduction in the total allowable catch, generally, and then, the disastrous inshore fishery of this particular year. The overall impact on this Province has been tremendous, as a result of that.

Now, fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Government of this Province had economic development planning and programmes in place, so that the net effect on this Province of the economic recession has been far less severe than it has been on the nation on average, and certainly, far less severe than it has been in terms of Ontario; the impact has not been as severe, although it has been substantial.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the specific question of the Leader of the Opposition, I point out that the Government announced the programme to which he was referring some three or four weeks ago, when we announced the Employment Generation Programme that would expend some $14 million. It was done at the same time the Federal Government announced its programme specifically orientated towards the fishery. We wanted the two dealt with at the same time so that we would have all sectors of the economy covered. So that programme is in place. And, just today, you hear a federal official saying he finds signs of optimism that the Province is near economic recovery, and he went on to spell out the basis on which he came to that conclusion.

So, Mr. Speaker, while I do not say that economic recovery is going to happen tomorrow or the next day, I can say that we have managed the economy well and have already taken the steps to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been referring.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, to say that the effect of the recession has not been as severe in Newfoundland as elsewhere in the country is pretty cold comfort to the thousands of Newfoundlanders who are unemployed in this Province today, and I have my doubts if that is, in fact, an actuality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government has had nearly three years to show some action in this particular area. Next April, for example, they will be staring their fourth year in office. The people out in the Province are asking for the Government to provide some action now. I want to ask the Premier a specific question. The reason I ask it is because I have recently held a series of meetings with a number of private sector employer groups who have said to me, specifically - the groups in the construction business for example - that they have, in fact, curtailed their hiring because of the Government's payroll tax. I want to ask, on their behalf, in particular, will the Premier consider eliminating the payroll tax in order to stimulate growth and in order to perhaps get some job creation going in this Province? Would he consider that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, virtually every other province in the country has a similar tax for an obvious reason. It results in a substantial contribution by the Federal Parliament and the Federal Government into the Newfoundland economy, instead of placing an even greater tax burden on the people of this Province and the businesses of this Province, as would be necessary if we were to eliminate, immediately, the payroll tax.

Mr. Speaker, the tax measures that the Government will take, will, of course, be announced, in due course, in the Budget. It is not appropriate for me or any other official of Government to express a view as to what we are going to do except in the budgetary process or some other process that is part of a governmental tax reform process.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier might want to check his facts, but my understanding is that not nearly every other province in this country has a similar tax. My understanding is that there are two for sure, and possibly a third one, Manitoba, which I understand is considering eliminating the payroll tax.

MS. VERGE: They have decided to phase it out.

MR. SIMMS: They already have decided, I think, to phase it out. So it is not accurate to suggest that this is a similar tax to most other jurisdictions in Canada. Perhaps he was not aware of that. Now that he is aware of it, if, in fact, he confirms it, maybe he might want to reconsider his answer.

But I want to get to another issue. Other provinces, I believe, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and, most recently, the Province of Quebec, have either cancelled or they have announced plans to postpone their thinking or their plans to harmonize their provincial sales tax with the GST because of the harmful effects they feel it might have on their own economies at this point in time.

Would the Premier consider following the example set by those particular jurisdictions or at the very least perhaps delay any plans he might have for broadening the RST for a period of a year say?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do know that Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba at least, and Newfoundland, but those other three provinces besides Newfoundland, and I will find out what other provinces, if any, have it, but that amounts, Mr. Speaker, to two-thirds of the population of the country. So that is a fair indication that most Canadians are subject to this particular tax, that is at least two-thirds of the population are subject to this particular tax.

With respect to what the Government is doing in terms of the RST and the consideration that is being given to harmonizing the RST with the GST we are, Mr. Speaker, looking at that as was announced in the Budget last year. There was a White Paper tabled and we have invited commentary from different sectors, business and labour sectors in the Province to get their response to the proposal so that the Government can take all these concerns into account. We are at this very time, Mr. Speaker, extensively engaged in a thorough assessment of it. I can assure the House that we will not be implementing a proposal that will be harmful to the Province, whatever we bring forward we feel confident we can justify it as being in the best interest of the Province.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: If I may, I thank the Premier for the answer.

I wonder if the Premier would go a little bit further because let's face it the Budget was brought down nearly seven months ago and certainly that has been enough time, I think, to deal with it in Cabinet. The Budget was brought down some time in March I think it was. I wonder, if the Government decides to proceed with some form of tax reform which could, in the opinion of some people, perhaps damage our economy, it depends, I wonder if he would at least assure the people of this Province that any tax proposals he puts forward in terms of a reform package would be referred to a committee of the Legislature to allow that committee to have full public hearings around the Province so that the people of this Province would have an opportunity to have their say and express their views as to whether or not it will hurt them or not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a commitment to that. When we bring in tax proposals it may well be part of our overall budgetary process so we cannot hold that up on the basis of such a commitment.

I do point out that we put forward a variety of proposals and issues for consideration and people throughout the Province have been writing in and expressing their views over the last six months. So that has already been done extensively. Now, if circumstances are such that we can do it, then I have no quarrel with allowing it to be fully and thoroughly discussed through that method. But normally taxation measures are part of a budgetary process that must be debated and implemented within a reasonable time, and the time to take it around the Province through a committee is not really available in those circumstances. That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons why we took the approach we did last year of outlining a number of suggestions for consideration and putting it out for public consideration at that time.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question: In recent days the Premier has been quoted through the news media as saying that he now feels that the deficit for the current fiscal year may be even more severe than was predicted in the Minister's last Budget. In other words the Premier is starting to pave the way to admit that the Opposition's estimates were far more dependable once again this year than the Minister's were.

Would the Minister like to tell us, what are the latest projections of the deficit? What can we expect to see at the end of this fiscal year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity of saying that when we started off last March we were estimating that our deficit on current account would be $54 million and our expenditures on capital account would be $240 or $241 million, for a total deficit of $295 million.

We are expecting a six month statement shortly from our officials. But based on the figures to the end of August, five months, our current account situation has deteriorated by about $13 million, which is largely the result of the special payments to get the economy going - those special events, hiring and so on, about $14 million. On the other hand our capital account is under-expended by about $17 million. So that looking at it right at this moment it looks like our projected current account deficit might be as much as $67 million with our capital account about $224 million.

Now, I had better bring you up to date on something else that happened. The other day all provinces got notification from the Federal Government about equalization. Our equalization was down something like $17 million. But we had made provision for $15 million in the estimates that I just told you about. So that is an extra $2 million on current account. So that it looks like now we are up to $69 million deficit, or a $15 million overrun. But our capital account is still about $17 million below, so that on balance we are a bit to the good, about $2 million, putting current and capital together which we must, I guess. Or you do not have to, but it is one way of doing it, and the way I prefer to do it, to look at both overruns.

Now there is a cloud - I might as well come up front. If my answer is too long, Mr. Speaker, I will stop.

MR. SPEAKER: I was about to remind the Minister (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Maybe the Member might want to ask another question.

MR. SPEAKER: As long as I did not hear any complaints from the other side. The Member wanted to get the answer.

MR. WINDSOR: It has been so long since we have heard the Minister (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: So the Minister can answer. Quickly, please.

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, you just love hearing my voice, right? Almost as much as I do. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, our officials in the Department of Finance try to estimate what is happening to the Canadian economy and what might happen to equalization payments. Because as you know the equalization payments depend to some extent on what is happening nationally, and on other events - population changes and things like that. So we look at whatever good figures come out. The official ones are those that come out of Statistics Canada; they are not available yet. But we will know more finally in January or February.

But in the meantime we have been looking at figures that have been released by the Conference Board. The Conference Board is now predicting that we might be hit in January or February with a total of $20 million extra, that includes the $17 million. Or, they are not predicting but our officials, looking at conference board data on the economy, are predicting that we might go down as much as $20 million of which $17 million is already anticipated. That is an extra $3 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that an extra $20 million or an extra $3 million?

DR. KITCHEN: No, an extra $3 million. The figures that are released by the Royal Bank that we plug into our calculations indicate it might go as high as $40 million so that is about as good as we come up with at the moment. There is an old set of estimates, a couple of months old, that we got from the Toronto Dominion Bank which indicates that it might be even worse than that, but our best guess at the moment is that we might be hit by another $3 to $20 million extra. Now, that is the best we can say over and above where we are now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl on a supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: I thank the Minister for that information. After a whole Summer's silence it is nice to finally hear the Minister give some information as it relates to the financial situation of the Province. The Minister has just told us, and quite correctly in fact, told us that the Federal Government has just given them some indication of what the normal semi-annual adjustment to transfer payments would be. It is approximately $17 million. It may go up by plus $10 or plus $20, or minus $10 or minus $20 every year. It is amazing therefore the Premier had to fly off to an emergency meeting in Halifax last week to meet with the other Premiers because of this situation. The Minister now is confirming that there was nothing so startling about that adjustment whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister this, then, since he has given us some idea of what federal transfers will be: He has given us some idea that capital account will be down, no great surprise, because this Government deliberately refused to allow municipalities to call tenders for water and sewer and road work. They are very deliberately trying to balance current account, or trying to make it look as if current account is being balanced, by leaving a positive variance in capital account. The Minister is wrong, he cannot put two of them together. Current account is current account and that is the measure of Government's performance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would the hon. Member get to his question?

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I will get to my question. Would the Minister please tell us what are the latest projections for provincial revenues from provincial sources? Will he tell us where RST revenues will be this year, and particularly where will payroll tax be? How much will payroll tax net this fiscal year in comparison to his estimates in the Budget?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have the figures on revenues, (inaudible) source revenues for the end of September, the first six months, and at the moment our revenues are $700,000 higher than we had anticipated for this time. They are up above projection by $700,000. Now, the RST is down by about $9.5 million. The personal income tax is down by about $2 million. The gasoline tax is up by $5 million. Lottery revenues are up by $3 million. Health and post-secondary is up by $1.5. The mining tax and royalties are up by $1.1, and others $1.6. That all balances up to about $700,000. But looking ahead to what it might be at the end of the year is an interesting situation, in that RST revenues there are certain, I would not like to call them windfalls, but results of tax audits which captured certain funds that were not anticipated so that may be a bit higher than we had anticipated. Generally speaking we are not down on our own source revenues at the moment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

The Premier is also saying, as we can see, it looks like the deficit for this year is now going to be nearly $70 million, and he is saying it could probably be over $100 million next year. Obviously that is a very serious deficit situation this Government is faced with this year. Will the Minister tell me if he is considering more tax increases, cuts in services, and layoffs in the public service to deal with the projected deficit for this year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if he is talking about the current year or the year to come.

MR. WINSOR: Next year.

DR. KITCHEN: The year to come, 1992-93. At the moment, Mr. Speaker, as one would imagine, we are considering what we might do for next year but we have yet to make any firm decisions and I would like to pass on the answers to that question until we have discussed it in Cabinet; but at the moment it looks like the deficit for next year would have to be controlled.

One of the things we have to keep in mind of course, is that we have, by reducing the size of the public service as we did by about 2,500 positions, we have substantially alleviated, on a recurring basis, a major problem. The amount of money that that involves does not have to be spent next year or the year after, or the year after or the year after; unlike, when the hon. members were in Government, they kept increasing their expenditures and their recurring expenditures. This was a major move that has great cost savings built into it in the future.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education, but in his absence I will ask the Premier.

Is the Government intending to introduce legislation in the House of Assembly to change the legal status of the Marine Institute, by eliminating the autonomous legal entity called The Newfoundland and Labrador Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology, and to make the Marine Institute a division of Memorial University of Newfoundland, and if so, well, is it the Government's aim to introduce legislation and have it passed before this session ends?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: As to the precise timing and so on, I would prefer to wait until the Minister of Education is available to give the details, but I can tell you that the Government intends to introduce legislation to bring together Memorial University and the Marine Institute, to provide for a better, we think, a better system of post-secondary education than is now being delivered at the Marine Institute and more within the limits of the financial ability of the Government. There are a variety of reasons and I have no doubt the Minister will spell it all out when the debate occurs, but yes, we do intend to introduce legislation.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why, in the field of post-secondary education, is the Government making the same mistake as they made in the field of municipal amalgamation? Why the rush, why the lack of consultation with the people directly affected, the students and the faculty at the Institute? Why the high-handed, arrogant, dictatorial approach? Why the secrecy? Why the confusion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: They may be good questions, if they were soundly and factually based; but in fact, Mr. Speaker, this proposal was made I believe about a year ago when the White Paper was tabled, and the Government included all of these things and these possible considerations in the White Paper. During the discussion on the White Paper, all of these things were discussed and arose, so, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of secrecy or anything like that; the Government proposed a very thorough consideration of post-secondary education in the White Paper.

Now I do not suggest that we are doing exactly what was recommended in the White Paper or exactly what came out of any of the discussions, but when we put it all together, Mr. Speaker, we believe that this is the right course to follow, to provide for good quality, post-secondary education and ensure its reasonable availability within the limits of the financial capability of this Province.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the Premier has basically outlined why and how this is all happening because he feels that it is the proper thing to do.

The students however, and the Student Council, leaders who are responsible for 800 students, feel that there are secret back room discussions ongoing with three people involved; the Minister, the Deputy Minister and Dr. Art May, the President of the University, and probably four people, because in the background undoubtedly, there is the Premier.

Why is not Government involving the students and faculty in the discussions about the future of their own institute?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister has met on one or two occasions with the students and representatives of the students. I know that I have a meeting scheduled for, I believe it is Thursday or Friday of this week, with representatives of the students so that we will be meeting with them, and the Minister has met with them in the past. There are no secret back room negotiations or discussions going on anywhere in Government in relation to the matter, but, Mr. Speaker, Government has the responsibility to govern and to lead in the governing of the Province and what we propose to do is put out for public discussion, and there is public reaction from groups that are interested including students, including Members of the Opposition, including others interested in the education programs in the Province and so on, so there will be an opportunity for input by everybody. The objective is to benefit the students in the long run not hurt them, and ensure that we provide for an even better quality of education than we are able to provide for at the moment - that is the Government's objective.

Now, there may be a variety of views as to how that might best be achieved or one group or another may have a particular preference for one particular approach or another. I can understand that and I respect the difference of views but the Government must discharge its responsibility in the overall to the people of this Province.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again the Premier is just saying it does not matter what anybody else thinks anyway: we are going to do what we want to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: Will he tell us then: is the Government contemplating transferring any courses, programs or functions of the present Marine Institute to Cabot Institute? Can he assure the faculty of the Marine Institute they will continue to teach all the courses for training programs for the fishing industry and other marine industries? And, will he tell us if the actual physical building, will it continue to be known as the Newfoundland and Labrador Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology into the future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me hasten to say at the outset that I said just the opposite of what the hon. Member said. It does matter to us and that is why we put out proposals for discussion, that is why we propose beforehand before we implement any decisions.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. Member can speak whenever it is her turn to speak, or whenever she wants to stand on her feet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we put out proposals for consideration and we get points of view and we listen to people. Now, when you get diametrically the opposite point of view in some areas you have to do something differently than one or the other is suggesting, so it is understandable that there should be different points of view, but it is Government's responsibility, as hon. Members opposite should understand, to provide for the overall general best interest of the Province and that means on some occasions we have to disappoint one group or another as to what they would prefer to see done, because there are differing opinions as to what should be done and what should be the tax burden on the people of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as to the details of the name and so on I would again prefer to leave that to the Minister, but I do know that the intention is to ensure the continuation of programs, some on a degree basis, to enhance the programs that are there now and have them affiliated directly with Memorial University so as to give them an even better level of recognition through the recognition that Memorial has at the moment, and continue on other technical and training programs that are in place at the moment and they will continue, I am told, as well. But again as to the specific details I would prefer to have the Minister address that when he is here, and I expect he will be here tomorrow. He is at a meeting today.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations. On October 4, the Minister announced a major employment strategy to deal with the ever increasing unemployment rate in this Province. The Minister announced that day some $5 million for the Department of Social Services through its community development program. In my particular district, Mr. Speaker, the town of Musgrave Harbour were asked to submit proposals. They did so, and hours after they were told the money was spent.

Is the Minister aware that most of the money of this $5 million was already approved, already allocated prior to his announcement? How does the Minister explain that $5 million was spent practically overnight?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the hon. Member for Fogo for the question.

I am a little disappointed actually. I would try to answer the question if I understood what he represented to be the truth of the matter. If you want to find out the details of exactly what has happened in the Social Services component of our Emergency Employment Response Programme, then you could probably ask the question directly to the Minister responsible for Social Services. It certainly is not my understanding, as one of the ministers involved in the Committee responsible for the delivery of this programme, that what was represented to this House by the member opposite is what has occurred. That is, to my knowledge, far from the truth.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Let me ask the Minister of Social Services, then, How much of the $5 million announced in the Budget has already been allocated for programme proposals put forward prior to that date, with the minister, in effect, only announcing a (inaudible) of money to cover previously approved programmes.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with my colleague. The hon. member does not have all his facts straight. The money was not spent overnight, it took three to four weeks to spend it. And the monies he is talking about that was so quickly spent was in response to programmes that we had already recommended to the department, and an overrun of the current CD programme.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. HOGAN: They were approved, Mr. Speaker, to enable us to get the programme on the road quickly, and to respond to the need that is out there in the community.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is time for a very quick supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister, in the same release, announced some $4 million to be spent in four different departments. He said, and I quote, `The responsible minister will provide the details.' Well, has the Department of Environment, the Department of Employment and Labour, and the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs announced the details of their proposal? What are they, and when were they announced to the public of this Province? Only the Department of Forestry has announced any details. What happened to the other three?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the things we had hoped to do with the programme, and are confident that we have had success to date, was to minimize the amount of time for delivery so that we would not have to set up new bureaucratic structures, and that we could use already existing agencies to deliver the funds into the hands of the workers who needed the money and the work right away. We have every confidence that, to date, certainly in the Department of Forestry and Agriculture, just about the full amount has been allocated, in the Department of Environment and Lands, projects for the full amount and, as a matter of fact, they are now looking to other departments for more monies, because they have projects to the total amount allocated for that department. In the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs they have their list of projects approved now, ready for announcement by the appropriate minister. And, in the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, to date, a quarter of a million dollars has been allocated. In Labrador, there are already projects that are on the ground with people working and employed. There are other monies that we are holding in this department for one reason only, and that is, to fill in any geographic gaps that may have occurred in the allocation of monies from the other departments.

Mr. Speaker, we expect fully, by the end of this week, that all of the money will be allocated in the short-term `make work' portion of the Emergency Employment Response Programme for the benefit of workers who need the work and the money in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

o o o

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: I want to make sure I approach this in a proper way without questioning His Honour in the Chair, so I will ask for a point of clarification. I was standing in my place as a member of the House of Assembly on several occasions after the Leader of the Opposition stood in his place. I guess it is because I am so far at the back, next to the wall, that His Honour, the Speaker did not see me. I want to have clarification, or understanding, so that the backbenchers here would know what opportunity they have to be recognized in Question Period, not questioning the Chair, by any means, but just for clarification.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank - I'm sorry, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Quite alright, the Member for Grand Bank first, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to respond to the hon. member's - I guess, point of order or bringing it to the Speaker's attention. It is a fact that he did rise in his place a number of times, because, from where I sit, I can observe that he did. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think, being in the legislature for the period of time the hon. member has been here, that he knows the recognition of questioners is at full discretion and judgement of the Speaker. Really, in an indirect way, I think, the member is questioning the Speaker's judgement, and I don't think we can have any tolerance for that here in this legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order or point of enquiry. The member is right, I suppose, to stand and ask why the Speaker did not recognize him. I think the hon. the Opposition House Leader gave a partial answer. The Speaker has been over the past little while accustomed to looking to the right all the time and it was near the end of Question Period when I recognized the hon. member was standing. The Chair can only recognize, first of all, when aware that someone is standing. I believe it is a well-known fact in the House that anybody has the right to ask a question, but the major portion of Question Period does go to the Opposition, and the Speaker tries to keep that in mind. This being the first day of the House, I don't think the member can say he was unduly discriminated against.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two pre-commitments. One is for the Department of Education, pre-commitment for the printing of Environmental Science 3205 textbook: $130,000 for the coming fiscal year and $130,000 for the year after that. There is also, a second pre-commitment, for the Department of Forestry and Agriculture, having to do with contracts under the Canada-Newfoundland Environmental Sustainability initiative. That will require some budgetary appropriations for the next year in the vicinity of $400,000. These are the pre-commitments.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would like, with your permission, to table two special warrants. The first has to do with the Executive Council, for the Economic Strategic Planning Committee, in the amount of $500,000. The second Lieutenant-Governor's warrant, in the amount of $821,000, for the Department of Forestry and Agriculture, has to do with an agreement that we have to make with the Federal Government, the Canada-Newfoundland Subsidiary Agreement, on a livestock feed initiative, ALFI, they call it. Of that $821,000, five-sixths will be recoverable from the Federal Government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, 1973."

I also give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of additional supplementary supply to Her Majesty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Geographical Names Board Act," major stuff, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Surveyors In The Province," another major piece of legislation.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland Volunteer War Service Medal."

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition on behalf of the students and faculty at the Marine Institute. The petition is to the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened. It is a petition of the undersigned students, staff and faculty of the Newfoundland and Labrador Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology, and the general public of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The prayer of the petition says: `Whereas the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has expressed the intention of having Memorial University of Newfoundland take over the Marine Institute, and whereas it is our conviction that such a change would impact negatively on the Marine Institute and its students and faculty, therefore, your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to maintain the autonomy of the Marine Institute, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.'

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether it is any good for them to pray or not, the way this Government operates, because it is quite clear from the answers we were given today by the Premier that a decision has already been made.

Thinking back, I remember some of us talking about the White Paper when it was presented several months ago, when we said it was not a White Paper on education, it was a fait accompli already; it was a list of hard-line decisions to be made by the present Government, on which they would elicit, I suppose, some discussion so that they could say, `We have consulted on this,' and then go ahead and make their own decisions, anyway. Unfortunately, by the time they came to making the decisions, they went even further than some of the suggestions in the White Paper and have completely wiped out, it appears, the Marine Institute, as we know it today.

There are several points of concern about the takeover or the amalgamation process involved here between the University and the Marine Institute. There may be - and the students, faculty and staff will admit that perhaps there are positive factors involved here - a number of areas where sharing can take place, but there are a number of areas perhaps unknown to the Government, because they are not closely involved in the everyday workings of the Marine Institute, nor are they any way close to the everyday problems being experienced by the students, especially those who come from the smaller areas for the short-term courses et cetera around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a suggestion by the students and staff that perhaps Government should consult more widely, that before they go ahead and jump to bring in legislation to finalize the marriage between the Marine Institute and Memorial University, perhaps they should look at all the factors involved because it is too late, as they say, to close the door after the horse is out. There is no rush in doing this.

Everyone will agree that we have to improve the education system in our Province. Education is a continuously changing process and we must keep up with the great demands that are there that confront us from day to day. Changes have to be made, consolidations have to take place, but the proper ones must take place because, in the process of education, surely, those involved in the decision-making, themselves, learned something. Hopefully, we have learned through mistakes of the past not to jump into things without properly looking at all the angles and all the factors involved.

Government, in particular, after the schemozzle they made of the amalgamation of municipalities in the Province, all the heartaches, the pain, the concern they have caused around the Province, the chaos, should have learned not to jump into things before they properly think them out.

The people of this Province, the municipal authorities, the same as the students who are directly involved, know how the process works; they know what will work, more importantly, and can probably advise governments and other decision-makers as to how to go about properly doing what has to be done. It is their future, and if there is a better way to do things then, undoubtedly, it is they who are primarily concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HEARN: So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the students, I present the petition and, undoubtedly, over the next few days and weeks we will have a lot more to say about this issue. Thank you.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought that someone from the Government side would rise and speak to this petition presented to the legislature today, on behalf of the students and faculty of the Marine Institute. Because, what we are witnessing again today, is another cause for concern when we talk about democracy or lack thereof that has taken place in our Province over the last couple of years. So I think it is very, very important that Government slow down, whatever it has in mind, and, of course, the picture is not clear yet as to what Government's intentions are for the Marine Institute and its affiliation with Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I see the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader, laughing at that, but, based upon the answers given by the Premier, himself, today, it seems to me to be a little bit fuzzy as to just what the Government plans to do, what the final decisions, the final results and the impact on the students and faculty at the Marine Institute will be. So, I guess, what this petition is asking, Mr. Speaker, is that Government slow down what it is doing and take the time to consult with the students, particularly, and with faculty at the institute, to further discuss, to have two-way dialogue, to consult - which we hear so much about these days, consultations or lack of consultations - to get the input of those students, and the faculty, the people who teach at the Marine Institute.

Now, having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that, since the former President of the Marine Institute, I think was seconded or moved by Government - I believe he became Deputy Minister of Fisheries, Mr. O'Reilly has been acting President - that things have sort of been in a stage of uncertainty at the Marine Institute which has continued for a period of months. And I think that is too long, really, to have people not knowing about their future.

I am not suggesting that Government should be hasty and not consult, but I think that things at the Marine Institute have not been as they should be, for a period of about a year, and I, Mr. Speaker, would like to join with my colleague, who so ably presented the petition, in supporting the petition, and call upon the Premier and the Administration to slow down, and consult with the students and the faculty to make sure that what is being done in this process, in the end result, will mean better education and better educational opportunities for those who are at that institute at present and those who will be at the institute in the future.

In conclusion, having said those things, Mr. Speaker, and supporting the petition, I have to say quite honestly, it is my own personal feeling and conviction that the old post-secondary issue in St. John's with Memorial University, Cabot Institute and the Marine Institute certainly needed to be looked at, but I think we should be very, very sure that what we are doing is the proper thing.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If I might, I would ask the leave of the House, before you proceed with another petition, to let me do something that I inexcusably neglected to do at the outset, when I rushed to congratulate the new hon. Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. I neglected to acknowledge and express congratulations in respect of another notable political event that has occurred since we last sat in this Chamber. The appointment of the hon. the Member for Grand Bank as Opposition House Leader was not the event I had in mind, with great respect to the hon. member, of course, but the event I had in mind was the selection of the hon. the Member for Grand Falls to be the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and, of course, in consequence of that, the official Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the media are not now in the Chamber - looking up there, I see that they have all disappeared - and I can only sincerely hope that some are within earshot so that they can carry to the public of this Province, the sincere congratulations of the Government and the members of the Government caucus to the hon. the Member for Grand Falls on his having been selected as the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and being, as a result, the now Leader of the Opposition.

I am encouraged by the comments that I have heard the hon. member make since his selection as Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the party. I hark back to when I was chosen to that august position when we sat on the opposite side. One of the first speeches I made in the House was that I would like to see the decorum of the House improve and I committed myself to using every possible endeavour to do that. Now, we have two of us that are of a like mind. He is sitting on the opposite side and has responsibility for the leadership of all Members opposite and I am sitting on this side and I have responsibility for the leadership of all Members on this side. Now, I cannot absolutely guarantee that no hon. Member will breach the normal rules of demeanour in the House and be offensive, but I can assure you that if any hon. Member does so it will be without my approval and with my expressed disapproval, because I, like the hon. Member for Grand Falls, share his point of view, that we should get on with the governing of the people's business and the conduct of the people's business in this House, expressing our strong differences of opinion, making our arguments on the basis of merit on the issues involved, and not casting aspersions on the character of any individual Member who is expressing a point of view or making a speech. So, at the same time that I express to him the most sincere congratulations, and I say that to him most sincerely, of all Members on this side of the House, and indeed of all supporters of the Liberal Party in the Province, I wish him well but he will understand, of course, if I put a limit on that wish to wish him a high level of success as Leader of the Opposition but not too much success in the next election. I know he will understand that is not ill-will but self preservation that motivates that, and that my good wishes for him are none the less very sincere.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: I must say at the outset that I am very embarrassed, mildly embarrassed I should say, and perhaps my face shows it, I do not know. I am certainly not used to hearing the Premier make such comments about me, anyway, perhaps about other Members of the Opposition, but I cannot recall if he was ever so generous in his compliments as he was on this particular occasion, so I am somewhat taken aback by it. I appreciate the comments. I have no doubt that they are sincere and I appreciate them very, very much. The comments I have made publicly about the performance of the Opposition in the Legislature I can assure him are not by my instructions necessarily. I hope to lead the Party obviously in that way, but I can assure him that what he heard me talk about in terms of decorum from Members on this side of the House are the wishes and desires of the Members of this side, our team, so that is where that came from and, of course, I express their views publicly on every occasion I get. I will attempt to work with our team in ensuring that decorum is preserved in the Legislature. As a former Speaker of the House I recognize that I was perhaps one of the most guilty ones of interjecting and interfering. I loved it, I enjoyed it, and I still do, but I have made a commitment to bite my tongue more often but not on every single occasion. I would not want anyone to get the impression that there will be absolute quiet because there will not be. I would not want anyone to get the impression there will not be any interjections because there will be. It depends on the performance of the Ministers on that side of the House. In terms of the length of stay in this particular position we will have to leave that up to the ultimate judge and that is the people of the Province. We will see what they think in a year and a half or so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I think we were into Petitions.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to present a petition of municipal leaders in the Humber Valley area. I will read the prayer of the petition and then comment on it. The petition of the undersigned residents of Western Newfoundland: whereas the Provincial Government closed the western swine breeding station at Pynn's Brook and moved the stock and equipment to the central swine breeding station near St. John's in July 1991; whereas the western swine breeding station had been highly successful in producing genetically superior animals in a unique disease free environment; whereas the Government appointed task force on Agri-Foods chaired by Dr. Bud Hulan praised the western swine breeding station's achievements; touted future prospects for exporting breeding stock; and specifically recommended that it continue to operate; and whereas the Hulan Task Force recommended that the central swine breeding station near St. John's be closed. Therefore your petitioners urge the Provincial Government to reinstate the western swine breeding station at Pynn's Brook, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Now as my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, remarked when he was presenting a petition of faculty and students of the Marine Institute, it is questionable whether citizens prayers for action on the part of this high-handed Government will make any difference.

The municipal leaders who signed this petition in earlier forms through representations made by their respective councils have already protested the Government's move to close the western swine breeding station. But those representations have so far fallen on deaf ears.

Mr. Speaker, in some instances the Government has failed to do research or consult people before making decisions, before implementing changes. In this instance the Government appointed agricultural experts, including Dr. Bud Hulan. This 'real change' Liberal administration commissioned that group of agricultural experts to make a study, consult people, and then give a report to the Government. Last winter the Hulan Task Force gave a comprehensive report to the Government, and that report specifically in recommendation twelve called on the Government to retain and operate the western swine breeding station.

In the report, as is said in the recitals of the petition, the commissioners remarked on the high degree of success of that operation at Pynn's Brook, talked about how the stock is genetically superior. Over the years of research at Pynn's Brook, progressively superior stock were produced.

The Hulan Task Force also pointed out that this Island of Newfoundland is perhaps the only area in the whole world which has a disease free swine status, and because it is an island it is an ideal environment in which to continue to improve the breeding of swine.

The Hulan report - this is page fifty-three of the Hulan Task Force report - talks about export opportunities for the genetically superior breeding stock produced at Pynn's Brook to be sold outside of Newfoundland to other provinces of Canada, and indeed to other nations of the world.

Mr. Speaker, when the move came in the summer, people in western Newfoundland thought this was another example of the overpass syndrome being at work, another example of St. John's taking away from -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Members time is up.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I will have to conclude later. Let me sum up by simply expressing my support for the prayer of the petition urging the Provincial Government to reinstate the western swine breeding station at Pynn's Brook.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say a few brief words in support of the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member for Humber East.

Western station has been replace with the central station, and centralization, Mr. Speaker, would appear to be a very prominent theme for this particular administration. Whether it comes to cottage hospital downgradings, the community college restructuring, matters relating to the Marine Institute, centralization appears to be the soul goal of this particular administration harking back to the days of the sixties.

It is rather strange, Mr. Speaker, that this Government would commission a report of agricultural experts who would bring in a report that basically praises one particular agricultural research facility, is less than generous in its praise of the agricultural facility known as the central station, yet here we have a Government that has decided to close the western station and keep the central station open, and move the animals and ancillary facilities to the central station here in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, this reaction of this particular administration, two studies, is not at all uncommon. The previous administration studied the economy under one Dr. House. The current administration brought in an economic recovery team to implement the good doctor's report to reform the Newfoundland economy. Some two and a half or three years later this Government now says we do not know what we are doing, but we want to consult with people, and we want to find out what is going on.

So throwing out the reports of commissions, going against the experts, this is nothing strange at all, Mr. Speaker. I support the prayer of the petition. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Before moving on to Orders of the Day, on behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the Speaker's Gallery Mr. Walter Hodder, a former Member of this Legislature. As a matter of fact, Mr. Hodder served from 1962 to 1971, and he is the father of the Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Motion two, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend Certain Departmental Acts and The Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act, 1973," carried. (Bill 36).

On motion, Bill No. 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion three, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Status Of Women Advisory Council Act," carried. (Bill 35).

On motion, Bill No. 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order four, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The Province." (Bill No. 1).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased today to speak in second reading and to introduce Bill No. 1, "An Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The Province." It has been a long time coming. For years and years there has been a fair amount of comment in terms of this Province having its own Auditor General's Act. I remember sitting in Opposition and as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee making that point to several Ministers of the day. Trying to make the case for the desirability of the Auditor General being controlled by his own piece of legislation.

Notice was given of this Bill almost two years ago. The Bill was given to committee. The Committee held hearings and received quite a bit of input in terms of the proposed legislation. As a matter of fact I believe at the time there was quite a lot of controversy concerning a couple of sections of this particular Bill. But anyway, the Committee report came back and we have, as Government, reprinted the Bill taking into account some of the Committee recommendations. It is here today for second reading. When we get to the Committee stage of the Bill of course it will be open to suggestions for further amendments from the Legislative Review Committee. But I think that by and large we have, at this point in time, taken care of most of their concerns.

I would like to first of all speak for a few minutes about the desirability of having this Act. I think it is an important symbol. Symbolically it is very important for the Office of the Auditor General to be controlled by its own piece of legislation rather than simply to be an arm of the Department of Finance reporting directly to the Minister of Finance. Not that I have got anything against the Minister of Finance. I think he is a great fellow as he showed here today. He is a great fellow. I have nothing against the Minister of Finance, and I would not mind reporting to him any day at all.

However, the Auditor General feels that perhaps there should be a little more autonomy given to that role. That the Auditor General should not be subservient to a branch of government but in fact should be more an independent arm of the Legislature or of government that does not answer specifically to any one Minister. It is important in terms of perception, because obviously the Auditor General - as the person responsible for checking on government expenditures - should be perceived to be independent as well as being independent. I am not saying that the Auditor General was not independent seven or eight years ago. He may have been. But the perception was always there that there was no independence and no autonomy. So it is very important from the point of view of his function that he be accorded this autonomy that he or she wants.

In the Bill itself there are some sections that I suppose need to be stressed and need some pointing out. The first part of the Bill is simply some definitions and saying what the Office is and so on. There is a clause that caused some concern during the Committee hearings, Clause number 5. It had to do with tenure of office of the Auditor General. Built into this Bill is a ten year term. "The Auditor General holds office for a term of ten years," and "may be removed" by cause of course, by a resolution of the House of Assembly. "Once having served as Auditor General" the "person is not eligible for re-appointment to that office." In other words it is a tenured term and only a one tenure term. That caused some comment during the Committee hearings.

I am sure that Members opposite, when they get around to discussing this Bill, will state a case perhaps to have more than a ten year term or two ten year terms or whatever, and I guess I will deal with their specific objections after they are raised. But we feel that in that particular position, a term be established, that we know ahead of time that there is a definite term; that an Auditor General not be appointed for life, or for a longer term, but that we know right from day one what the term is going to be so that the conditions of employment can be geared towards that term; conditions of employment that are satisfactory both to, I guess, Government and the House, and the Auditor General -the prospective Auditor General.

Clause No. 10 is one that also deserves some note. It is the statement that "The Auditor General is the Auditor of the financial statements and accounts of the Province and shall make those examinations and enquiries", and the wording of this is important, "shall make those examinations and enquiries that the Auditor General considers necessary to enable him or her to report as required by this Act." - a very broad description in this instance of the duties of the Auditor General.

The Report on the Financial Statements: "The Auditor General shall examine the several financial statements required by the FAA to be included in the public accounts of the Province, and any other statement as required to be audited by the Auditor General under this Act, or another statement that the Minister of Finance may present for audit, and shall express his or her opinion as to whether the financial statements present fairly the financial positions, results of operations, changes in the financial position of the Province in accordance with the disclosed accounting policies of the Provincial Government, and on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year, together with reservations the Auditor General may have."

Now that generally outlines the normal duty of an Auditor General, the normal duty of an Auditor General. But it goes on concerning the reports of the Auditor General, to hint at something a bit broader, I guess: "The Auditor General", Section 12, "Shall as he or she considers necessary, but at least annually, report to the House of Assembly on the work of the office; of whether in carrying out the work of the office, the Auditor General received all of the information, including reports and explanations that the Auditor General required; the results of the Auditor General's examinations; and audits, examinations and inquiries performed under this Act." So he or she shall report at least annually, but more often than annually if deemed necessary. I think that is an important section.

Then there is a description in some detail of what kinds of things the Auditor General should examine, and I have to go through this because there is a very important point to be made right at the end of this: "The Report of the Auditor General shall include the results of the Auditor General's examination of the accounts of the Province, and shall call attention to anything the Auditor General considers significant." Now that is pretty broad, but then it gets a little specific. "Including instances where collections of public money have not been effected as required under the various acts, regulations, and so on; collections of public money have not been fully accounted for, or have not been properly reflected in the accounts."

(b) "Disbursements of public money (i) have not been made in accordance with the authority of the supply vote, have not complied with regulations, have not been properly reflected in the accounts, or have not been made for the purpose for which it was appropriated" in the House; so both the collections of public money and the disbursements of public money, all aspects of it.

The Auditor General: he or she also reports on whether the accounts have been faithfully and properly kept; pretty general. Whether assets acquired, administered or otherwise held are not adequately safeguarded or accounted for; accounting systems and management control systems that relate to revenue, disbursements, the safeguarding or use of assets or the determination of liabilities were not in existence, were inadequate or had not been complied with. Now so far it is a listing of the collections, the safeguarding of the collections, as well as disbursements, and the safeguards attached thereto.

But Section (f) is the one that I would like to point out: The Auditor General shall call attention to anything the Auditor General considers significant, including instances where, and this is in his report, "factors or circumstances relating to an expenditure of public money which in the opinion of the Auditor General", not in the opinion of Government, not in the opinion of Your Honour, the Speaker, not in the opinion of a politician, but "which in the opinion of the Auditor General should be brought to the attention of the House of Assembly." Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that this is an extremely broad mandate for a bill, an Auditor General's Act, to include a clause which indicates that the Auditor General in his report shall deal with factors or circumstances relating to an expenditure of public money which in the opinion of the Auditor General should be brought to the attention of the House of Assembly. It is an extremely broad mandate, perhaps the broadest mandate ever given to an Auditor General. Now, immediately after that there is a Sub-section three to Clause 12 and there was some debate as to whether or not that should be there. It is simply that Paragraph 2 (f), the one I just stressed and which I indicated gave a very broad mandate to the Auditor General, that paragraph shall not be construed as entitling the Auditor General to question the merits of policy objectives of the Government. Some people might say it is strange to have a statement like that in the act. The reason it is there is very simple. The Auditor General is suppose to comment on the expenditure and collection of public money, and the Auditor General can point out where money could have been better spent, I guess. If we, or if any Government, and I say we in the sense that Government and the Governments change every so often, but this act stays the way it is, if Government decides because of a policy objective to fund something, the Auditor General can quite rightly point out that perhaps the funding of that project or whatever it may be, existed and perhaps could have been done in a better way, that is a legitimate question but it is not legitimate for the Auditor General to comment on the policy objective in Government of doing that. An obvious example is some of the expenditures in the past for the Marystown Shipyard. An Auditor General could quite properly comment that this could have been done cheaper somewhere else and perhaps express the opinion that there were so many million dollars that could have been saved here. Government's objective rightly so was a policy one and the policy was to maintain a certain level of employment in an area, to retain expertise in an area, for a specific length of time. The Auditor General does not comment on the correctness of that particular policy of Government. The Auditor General may comment on the financial transaction, so we thought that had to be in there because what we do not need is an individual out there who was not privy to any of the Cabinet discussions and the reasons for making a policy and then all of a sudden making pronouncements on the merits of a particular policy. We felt that the expertise of the Auditor General would be within the domain of the expenditure of money rather that the development of policy.

Section 14 deals with the audit of agencies of the Crown and other agencies: "Where an auditor has not been appointed to audit an agency of the Crown or a Crown controlled corporation the Auditor General shall be the auditor." In other words the Crown corporations can have their own auditors and so on, but in instances where they do not get their own auditor the Auditor General becomes the auditor of these corporations. Somewhere later on, of course, it gives the Auditor General the right to charge in terms of the work the Auditor General has done for that corporation.

Subsection 2 of Clause 14: "where the auditor of an agency of the Crown, or a Crown controlled corporation, is other than the Auditor General, so where a Crown corporation gets its own auditor the auditor shall, the auditor hired by the Crown corporation, deliver to the Auditor General at the completion of the audit a copy of the auditor's report, his or her recommendations and so on, make available immediately to the Auditor General when so requested by the Auditor General all working papers, reports, schedules, other documents and so on, and provide immediately to the Auditor General when so requested by the Auditor General a full explanation of work performed, the various audit tests performed, and other information relating to the audit within the knowledge of that auditor in respect to the agency or corporation."

The Auditor General we envision every so often would perhaps do an audit of one of the Crowns. In that instance all the information should be provided to him.

Subsection (3) I believe is very important to tie that together and to stress it. It says: "Where the auditor general is of the opinion" - and remember again - "Where the auditor general is of the opinion that the information, explanation or document that is provided, made available" or whatever "is insufficient to permit the auditor general to exercise his or her powers or duties..., the auditor general may conduct or cause to be conducted an additional examination and investigation of the records," and so on. So that is to guarantee that there be no difficulty in the Auditor General obtaining the information he or she wants. If in fact there is difficulty in obtaining the information then there is another course of action that the Auditor General can take. But I think that is very important to tie down, in that instance: the powers of the Auditor General with relation to Crown corporations.

The Auditor General may do special assignments. I do not think this is really any different from the old responsibilities under the Financial Administration Act. Clause 16 (1): "The Auditor General may, where in his or her own opinion such an assignment does not interfere with the Auditor General's primary responsibilities under this Act, whenever the Lieutenant-Governor in Council so requests or the House of Assembly or the Public Accounts Committee by resolution so requires, inquire into and report on a matter relating to the financial affairs of the province or to public property or inquire into and report on a person or organization that has received financial aid from the government of the province or in respect of which financial aid from the government of the province is sought."

So special assignments can be requested of the Auditor General and if it does not interfere with the normal duties - and these special directions can come from Cabinet, the House of Assembly or the Public Accounts Committee and so on, a variety of sources - that the Auditor General will then do that special investigation and report back on it separately.

There are a couple of other instances I guess where there were comments made to the Committee. One refers to the pension plan. It starts off, Clause 25 (1): "All persons employed in the office are employees for the purposes of the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991," that is pretty straightforward. "Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may by order permit the Auditor General to participate in the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991," alright? So the Auditor General is dealt with separately here. "May by order permit the Auditor General to participate in the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 or may by order stipulate other pension arrangements for the Auditor General upon his or her appointment under this Act."

Now, the Auditor General is dealt with separately because of the ten year term, obviously. Perhaps the Auditor General may very well be someone who is already working with the Auditor General's office. In which case it would be to his advantage to remain in the Public Service Pensions plan and in that case he or she can remain in the Public Service Pensions plan. However, if the Auditor General is from outside, it is really not of any great benefit to somebody coming in from outside to become part of the Public Service Pensions plan, knowing that they are only going to be there ten years and then they are going to be gone. Ten years is not that much. So in these instances other pension arrangements - perhaps private arrangements that the individual already has or something - can be subscribed to. In that instance then the Auditor General would not be part of the Public Service Pensions plan. So there had to be special arrangements made for Auditor Generals who may have special circumstances. Of course, it allows for some bargaining at the same time.

Here is one that I found particularly interesting, because it is a very great exception in government. Well, one other exception, I suppose. Section 30: "Subject to The Public Tender Act, 1984, the Auditor General may engage within the limits of the appropriation approved by the Legislature for his or her office" - and here is the thing that I am interested in - "and without the approval of the Treasury Board...." Now it is not very often that there are expenditures made in this Government without the approval of the Treasury Board and this is one of the few examples. "The professional services including counsel, consultants, accountants, and other experts and so on that he deems necessary to do a particular job.' So the Auditor General is even given relief from Treasury Board, which at times can be rather difficult.

Another point: obviously the question has been asked who audits the Auditor General?.. so there is a provision in paragraph 32, which refers to the audit of the office of the Auditor General, and the commission, which is the Internal Economy Commission under the definitions, shall appoint a qualified auditor to audit annually the office. And then it points out that this audit that is funded by the IEC has the same powers as the Auditor General in relation to this particular function and carries out the same duties, so the Auditor General is audited.

Now I know, Mr. Speaker, that I have not dealt with every clause in here. There may very well be some objections from members opposite and some criticisms about specific clauses. I look forward to hearing them, I will take note of them, and I will try to deal with them before we finish the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate, before my time runs out, that I am very pleased to be introducing this Bill, and I am proud of it. I think it gives us a Bill, an Auditor General's Act that is a superb Act. I am not saying it is perfect because obviously as time goes on there will be changes. I would imagine there will be amendments every now and then to the Auditor General's Act, but it is an excellent instrument right now to guarantee the impartiality and the autonomy of the Auditor General and to give him or her the comfort that they are running an operation that is separate from the Government that they are auditing, and that they have the freedom and the ability to do the job the way that we envision the job should be done. So I am very pleased at this point to introduce Bill No. 1, the new Auditor General's Act.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say first of all that we welcome this particular piece of legislation. The main point of disagreement that I have with the Government House Leader is his confidence in the Minister of Finance. I am afraid we do not share that. Any act that takes any power away from the Minister of Finance, we welcome it, Mr. Speaker. If we could get control of the public purse away from the Minister of Finance we would welcome that. If we could get his driver's licence away from him we think that would be a positive thing. If we could have a provision that he is not allowed out after dark without supervision I think that would be a positive step.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. We welcome this piece of legislation. It is, as the House Leader pointed out in fact, better than most other pieces of legislation in Canada today. Not every province has such a piece of legislation, and so Newfoundland, for a change, is leading the way.

It was, I think, four years ago that I first made agreement with the former Auditor General that he should have his own act. At that time, as the House Leader pointed out during his debate of his introduction of the Bill, there was tremendous pressure from the Auditor General of Canada and Auditor Generals all across Canada to have the authority to look at value for money spent. I think as I did then and as I do now that that is getting into an area that is outside the prerogative of an Auditor General, and I agree with the comments of the House Leader when he says that Government must have the ability to set policy and to decide how money is spent. Unless it is totally ridiculous, Government must have that authority. The Auditor General must ensure that money is spent in accordance with the policies established by Government from time to time, and in accordance with the appropriations of the House of Assembly who are the final arbitrators, in fact, of the public purse, and that is the real role of the Auditor General.

Now, this act goes as close to giving the Auditor General control over value for money as any act in Canada, perhaps closer than most acts in Canada, because it is a very broad act. There is a clause here which says that the Auditor General may comment on any matter that he deems appropriate, so that is a pretty broad brush. Clause 12(3) says, "Paragraph (2)(f) shall not be construed as entitling the auditor general to question the merits of policy objectives of the Government." So, it is clear that the Auditor General does not have that authority, yet he has a very broad mandate to comment on any matter that he feels needs to be brought to the attention of the House of Assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line here, and the most important aspect of this act, is that the Auditor General is now an officer of the House and no longer reports to the Minister of Finance. As I said four years ago, I agreed with the former Auditor General that, indeed, we would bring forward a separate act for the Auditor General, and most of the provisions in this act are, in fact, extracted from The Financial Administration Act, so they are not changed but they are tidied up, modernized, made more specific, made more clear, and clearly now, I think, define the role of the Auditor General.

I think the most important thing is that the Auditor General is now an officer of the House. The Auditor General will no longer be subject to the Minister of Finance or to Government, per se. Government, of course, having a majority membership on the Internal Economy Commission, still has a measure of control. I do not think you could have any less than that.

I might take this opportunity to point out that, unfortunately, we no longer have an Ombudsman, who also was an officer of the House, and who was the last opportunity for private persons to appeal through the Ombudsman against any decision or action of Government or government employee. I think it was a retrograde step, a complete contrast to creating an Auditor General who is now an officer of the House, that this Government eliminated the Ombudsman. I think that was very unfortunate. It is too bad Government did not take the same approach, as it relates to the Ombudsman's office, as they have taken, as it relates to the Auditor General.

This act improves the independence of the Auditor General's office tremendously. It provides for the Auditor General to be appointed by Government; obviously Government chooses the person who is to be appointed. Once appointed by a resolution of the House of Assembly, it is important that the Auditor General not be subject to action by Government, and that is why the Auditor General is given a ten-year term. Now, the House Leader, when he spoke to that point, said there was some thought that perhaps the Auditor General should be eligible for re-appointment to a second term. I can see arguments on both sides. Perhaps an extremely competent Auditor General might be given consideration for a second term appointment but, on the other hand, perhaps this particular office - and I think this particular office is different from almost any other office that you consider - perhaps this particular office needs new thoughts, after ten years.

But I think, even more importantly, getting back again to the importance of the Auditor General being totally independent and not under any power of government, if an Auditor General were hoping to be re-appointed, would he not, therefore, be somewhat subject to the vagrancies of Government. So, I would submit that I agree with this particular clause, one ten-year term. Clearly and concisely, he knows when he is being appointed that he is there for ten years, he cannot be dismissed without good cause by Government and by a resolution of this honourable House. Now, small comfort with this particular Government, unfortunately. We have seen this Government use resolutions of the House of Assembly to do many things that they cannot do legally or morally outside. We have seen many, many examples of that, where they have used their power in the House of Assembly to get around legislation, to do things that they cannot legally do otherwise.

MS. VERGE: Or cancel legislation, or amend it.

MR. WINDSOR: - or, cancel or amend legislation. So that gives us small comfort, but it is the best comfort that the Auditor General can give. Unfortunately, Government, still as a Government, still have a majority in the House of Assembly, and they can pass whatever laws are necessary to allow them to do whatever they choose to do, but that is at least the best protection that the Auditor General can give.

Now, the House Leader talked about pension for the Auditor General, and again, I agree with the bill, in that it provides that the Auditor General can negotiate up front, and I would submit that the Auditor General's pension plan should be negotiated at the time of negotiating the full salary and benefits package, because you cannot do it down the road. If there is anything left to negotiate with Government later, then, once again, the Auditor General is subject to Government and is appealing to Government. So, I submit that all of these matters have to be dealt with beforehand as part of a complete and comprehensive package, providing for a pension; because it is only a ten-year term, indeed, I think this is probably one of the few cases where we can. There are others, the House of Assembly being one, where, because of the lack of security and the often short tenure, a special pension provision may be made. And I think this is one case where special pension provisions should be made for the Auditor General, to make allowances for the short term of office. Again, it will depend on whether he is coming from the private or the public sector, as to what might be necessary there.

But the flexibility is in this act, and I again say it is important that it be done before the appointment is made so that there is nothing left to check. And, annual increments should be built in, as well. Some formula should be negotiated to provide for annual increments so that the Auditor General is not forced to, and is not able to go back to Government to look for any changes. In other words, once he is appointed, he is there for ten years and he is not subject to the will of Government.

One item here, Mr. Speaker, deals with access to information. The Government House Leader might clarify this particular question. It is Section 19, which states that: "Notwithstanding sections 17 and 18, the auditor general shall not be permitted access to reports arising out of the conduct of lawful police investigations or to information in the records listed in paragraphs 9(1)(b) to (f) of The Freedom of Information Act except for the information in the records disclosed under subsection 9(2) of that Act." In other words, items that are protected by Freedom of Information are not generally available to the Auditor General, and that is understandable.

One question that arises, though, are Cabinet Minutes. It has been the tradition in the past for the Auditor General to be provided copies of Minutes of Council for his information. I don't know how he could operate without having Minutes of Council made available to him, and, on a timely basis; he must know the decisions of Cabinet if he is to determine whether or not the finances of the Province are being dealt with in accordance with those Minutes of Cabinet. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Minutes of Cabinet are excluded, so there may need to be a clarification or simply a statement to the fact that what has been taking place in the past will continue. Because, to my knowledge, he has been given access to all Minutes of Council, and I have no reason to believe that he would be denied those in future but, just for clarification, perhaps the President of Treasury Board would address that issue so that it is very clear that he will still have access to that.

It is interesting that all Crown corporations and agencies are here. I think this came from the Legislation Review Committee, of which I was not a part; but I understand there was concern expressed there as to what Crown corporations meant. And I understand now, the act having stated `whether corporated or unincorporated, 50% or more of the members of which or 50% or more of the members of the board of management or board of directors of which, are appointed' by Government. So that clarifies, I think, that school boards and hospital boards are now subject and will continue to be subject to the Auditor General, and so they should be. It is a major area of expenditure for Government and I think the accounts of school boards and hospital boards -

MS. VERGE: School boards are not covered, but hospitals boards are, (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: My colleague tells me that school boards are not covered but hospital boards are; perhaps you could check and clarify that for us. It is an area of major expenditure for Government. I was under the impression that school boards and hospital boards were covered by this. Perhaps we could have that checked. That is Section 2(1)(a): "`agency of the Crown' gives a definition of agency, defines which agencies are there. It is covered by 2(1)a), and down in 2(1)(e), "`Crown controlled corporation.'" So it is Crown corporations and Crown controlled corporations.

MR. HEARN: Yes, boards are, school boards are.

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

MS. VERGE: Yes, I was looking under (e) (inaudible).

MR. HEARN: School boards are okay, 50 per cent or more of the members are (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: So the school boards are not covered then by the Auditor General?

MR. HEARN: Yes, they are covered, they are.

MR. WINDSOR: We have a difference of opinion on this side as to whether school boards are covered or not. Maybe the House Leader will clarify that once and for all.

MR. HEARN: The change has been made. They made the changes from (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Again, it is important to recognize that the Auditor General is an officer of the House. This is a good opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for me to say that the Public Accounts Committee, of course, is a committee of the House which works very closely with the Auditor General. I have the honour now, of being appointed to that Committee as Chairman. I want to, if I may, at this point in time, extend my congratulations to my colleague from St. Mary's - The Capes, who acted as Chairman of the last Public Accounts Committee, and to other members of the Committee who may or may not have been re-appointed.

My experience over the past several years is that that Committee has functioned extremely well and has provided an invaluable role in examining the public accounts. The Auditor General becomes very much the officer of the House that works so closely with the Public Accounts Committee, he, being the person who examines the accounts, and the Public Accounts Committee often being considered as the watchdog of government. Well, the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee, together, as an officer and as a committee of the House of Assembly are the final arbiters, I guess, or the final protectors of the public purse. They, more than any other arm of government or of the House, have the power to safeguard the public purse and to ensure that government is, indeed, acting in accordance with the Financial Administration Act and good financial and accounting procedures.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a great deal more that one could say about this act. Again, it is important to recognize - and I was talking about the authority of the Auditor General - that he was not elected, that he has, in fact, been appointed by the House, and therefore, should stay away from policy to a greater or lesser degree.

Again, this act provides that the House of Assembly - not only does the Auditor General examine matters arising from his audit of public accounts, but he, of course, can and must respond to requests from the House of Assembly or the Public Accounts Committee. Again, this ties the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General together, in that the Public Accounts Committee has the power to ask the Auditor General to undertake specific tasks. Clause 16(1): to "inquire into and report on a matter relating to the financial affairs of the province or to public property or enquire into and report on a person or organization that has received financial aid from the government of the province or in respect of which financial aid from the government of the province is sought."

So this gives broad powers to the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General, working together to examine areas, and where government has financed private enterprise, particularly, which would be of great interest, obviously, to all hon. members of the House.

The House leader drew attention to the fact that the Auditor General may make expenditures in accordance with his budget without approval of Treasury Board. Again, that is just another example of where the Auditor General is totally autonomous, and so he should be. It is a small little clause but a very important one, a very, very important one. My experience would tell me the Auditor General has never particularly had any problem getting approval to hire consultants or individuals or purchase services that he needs to carry out the duties of his office. Nevertheless, it once again eliminates the need for the Auditor General to refer to Government for approval of anything, and that is very, very important to confirm his independence.

Clause 32: "The commission shall appoint a qualified auditor to audit annually the office" of the Auditor General. Again, it is important that the Auditor General be audited. It is not only important to appear to be correct, it is also important to be shown to be correct, Mr. Speaker. I think that is a new provision, in fact. The approval of the budget of the Auditor General will now be submitted to the commission, in other words, the Internal Economy Commission, again removing that from the Minister of Finance. That is an important aspect of this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that the Auditor General does again have the freedom from having to go to the Minister of Finance.

So, Mr. Speaker, we find very little to find fault with in this legislation, outside of the couple of minor points that I have asked to be clarified. Perhaps the House Leader can clarify those for us. Other than that, I think it is a progressive piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that we had promised to the Auditor General about four years ago and that has been coming forward ever since. It is, in the view of our Auditor General, having spoken with him recently, perhaps as good as, if not better than most pieces of legislation presently in place in Canada. I think we are again leading the way, and so we should. It is not perfect by any means. No doubt the Auditor General may well come back, as he is entitled to and as he should, if he finds some areas of weakness here over the coming months and years, for minor amendments to the bill.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we support this particular piece of legislation.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I join with my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl, in expressing my support for the principle of this bill, "An Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General." I am going to speak briefly, largely based on my experience as a member of the Social Legislation Review Committee which examined an earlier version of this bill more than a year ago.

Beginning in the Spring of 1990, the Social Legislation Review Committee, chaired very capably by the Member for Carbonear, examined the Government's first draft of an Auditor General's Act. We invited to our deliberations, Auditors General of all the Canadian jurisdictions, and we were fortunate in that the National Association of Auditors General had a meeting in St. John's in July of 1990. During their visit the Auditor General of Canada and the Auditors General of two or three of the provinces, including Ontario and Alberta, accepted the Committee's invitation and came to our hearings, held in the old House of Assembly Chamber, where they gave us the benefit of their experience and their views about our proposed new act. Thanks to their contribution and other submissions, as well as deliberations of the Committee members, ourselves, we passed on to the Government recommendations for some modifications of the original bill, and I think most of them have been taken into account in preparing this final draft of a bill for the full House of Assembly.

I think the President of Treasury Board was quite sincere in making the comment he did about the importance of this legislation. As a former Chairperson of the Province's Public Accounts Committee, he, from that experience, saw, a couple of years ago, the need to have a separate act for the Auditor General. He has consistently pursued that objective since the Government changed and since he has held several positions in the Cabinet. He spoke quite eloquently about the importance of having an appropriate legal framework to ensure that not only does the Auditor General, in fact, function impartially and independent of any political interference from the executive branch of the Government, but that there not even be any reason to suspect that there might be interference or that there might be the prospect of a Cabinet reward or the withholding of a reward based on the Auditor General's performance.

As I said, I think the President of Treasury Board was sincere in making those comments, however when any objective onlooker examines the record of the Wells Administration in dealing with offices that are supposed to function at arms length from the Cabinet, then one has reason to be suspicious.

This is an Administration which in a short two and a half years, through the use of its majority in this House of Assembly, has altered the composition of the Public Utilities Board, has changed the nature of the board, reduced the number of members, and then set up the Cabinet to discriminate among the former members. In fact the Cabinet rejected some former members while retaining others. The Cabinet unceremoniously got rid of Andy Wells, who had pleased many consumers in the Province through his vigilance and through his astute questioning of expenses of the public utilities.

Then we saw the Government, through the use of the Liberal majority in this Chamber, completely eliminate the office of the Ombudsman. That office was created by a special act of this Legislature. The legal framework was designed to ensure the impartiality of the Ombudsman. The Act provided for the Ombudsman's appointment for a term of five years. The Wells 'real change' Administration made quite a change with respect to the Ombudsman. The Administration used its majority in the House to cancel the Act and eliminate the office altogether. More recently we saw the Administration use its majority in this Chamber in enacting a new Provincial Court Act, one provision of which was to shorten the term of office of the Chief Provincial Court Judge.

So while today we have before us a President of Treasury Board, who I think is sincere in saying that he wants an independent office of the Auditor General, and he wants to have a legal framework to ensure that, we have to shake our heads at the inconsistency between those words and the deeds of his Administration in tampering with and even eliminating other offices that were designed to function at arms length from the Cabinet.

Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me take this occasion to ask: what has happened to the Legislative Review Committees? Now we know that the Member for Carbonear is no longer chairing the Social Legislation Review Committee, but since he left the Committee has not met, not even once. The Social Legislation Review Committee has not functioned since last March. The Government has not put before that Committee even one bill in the field of Health or Education or Social Services or Justice. Now we all know that these are areas in need, in serious need in some instances, of legislative reform. We have even heard Ministers opposite make promises about a new schools act, about legislation to re-align colleges and institutes in the post-secondary education field. We have heard not much from the current Minister of Social Services but a lot from his predecessor about good intentions of bringing in a long awaited and badly needed Child Welfare Act, an overhaul of the child welfare legislation. The previous Minister of Social Services said that he would have before the Committee and the Legislature a new Child Care or Day Care Act.

The Minister of Education last Spring rejected a proposal I made, a motion I made to amend the School's Act to give parents the right to chose the school nearest to the family home for their child, regardless of the family's religious affiliation. The Minister declined to support that amendment saying he would rather wait until he presented his bill for a whole new revised School's Act this Fall. Where is the School's Act? Why has not a draft of the School's Act been given to the Social Legislation Review Committee? In the case of justice I know that the Law Reform Commission two and a half years ago gave the Government a comprehensive report recommending a new Limitations of Action Act. That report was done following extensive consultation with legal practitioners and others in the Province. What happened to the new limitations legislation? Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Legislation Review Committee system, which was a good innovation of this Administration, has been abandoned by the Administration and obviously all their talk and even promises about new legislation has amounted to nothing. They are badly behind in their legislative program. The only legislation this Administration has ready for this Fall sitting of the Legislature are a few bills that are left over from last year. This Auditor General's Bill was dealt with by the Legislation Review Committee more than a year ago. It could have been passed last Spring as far as we in the official Opposition are concerned. Finally, they are presenting it now. Beyond this Auditor General's Bill, Mr. Speaker, all they have are a few minor housekeeping bills. Now, they may be waiting to impose some heavy duty measures on us, bypassing the Review Committees - we will see. I would like to know what happened to the Legislation Review Committees? Is the Government still committed to that Review process? What happened to all the good legislation, the reform legislation, specifically the bills I mentioned? Promises were made, statements were made, but we still have not seen any bills.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would also like to take the opportunity to state that this is a very good piece of legislation, originally piloted by my colleague to my right, the Member for Mount Pearl, followed through undoubtedly by the President of Treasury Board, who himself had a great interest in the Auditor General's office when he was the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The Act, undoubtedly, has been brought in after a fair amount of discussion with the Auditor General's office and this sort of worries me because it is very unlike Government to discuss legislation with anyone. This is a prime example of the success you can have in bringing in proper legislation, or rules and regulations, if you go out and discuss things with the people affected, because undoubtedly then you can come up with a piece of legislation, or anything else, which is agreeable to all. There are a few points in this which are certainly worthy of note because they have given the Auditor General controls above and beyond which he already had. Certainly, his independence is undoubtedly greater. It has been strengthened in this new Act and I think that is extremely important for a person in his position.

The Auditor General, I understand, will now be reporting to the House through the Speaker, rather than through the Minister of Finance. A lot of people thought the Auditor General came under the Department of Finance, which takes away this independence that we talk about.

The ten-year nonrenewable term, as was mentioned by my colleague from Mount Pearl, I think is probably a positive step also, because the person going into the job knows what is there and he does not have to worry whether or not what he says or does during that term will effect whether he is appointed again to the position or just turfed out.

The pension arrangements that are there, or at least the openings to come up with some proper pension arrangements, are also positive. Because if you tell somebody your position is only for ten years, especially if you are dealing with a person who may not be at the end of a career, then undoubtedly some special arrangements would have to be made above and beyond others who would go through a lengthy term in an office and retire after reaching a certain age with a certain number of years in. I think that is also very important.

The broadness of the Act gives the Auditor General a fair amount of scope in relation to his commentary on value for money. It does not really give him value for money auditing, and I think that is right and proper, because governments are elected to govern and there are times when they have to be more concerned with certain things rather than the bottom line. Once again this might be a new thing for this present Government to look at, but decisions sometimes have to be made based upon social needs. If you judge all government decisions based upon value for the dollars spent, then maybe we would not be getting the proper value for the dollars. As I say, that is why governments are elected, to make such decisions, and sometimes you have to make decisions whereby you may not be getting the best value for the dollar spent, but it is for the greater good of the people who are affected and involved.

The Act, however, does give the Auditor General the right to comment, and that is extremely important. Those of us who have been fairly closely involved with the office of the Auditor General, those of us who have had the privilege to sit on the Public Accounts Committee in particular, are well aware of the importance of that office. There is no doubt about the fact that the reports that come to this hon. House, that have been coming over the last number of years, there is very little, as we would say, political meat in these reports anymore. One of the reasons is because of the great work being done by the Auditor General, but also, of course, I think it is a tribute, as we have said publicly before, to the great public service that we have in this Province, as well as the guidelines that have been put in place by the previous administration.

I am not surprised that we have a very good Act because it has been reviewed and screened by the Review Committee, chaired by the Member for Carbonear originally, well not originally the Member for Carbonear but he originally chaired the Review Committee that looked at this Act. I am not surprised it is a good Act because the member made a very good contribution to the Public Accounts Committee when he was there. In fact, he was one of the leading lights on the Public Accounts Committee. His contributions were always worthy of note. I think the member enjoyed being on the Public Accounts Committee because we did have two and a half or three good years together on that Committee. I would like, at this time, to pay tribute not only to him but to the other members who served on the Public Accounts Committee, the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for LaPoile who was on the Committee and also - who was the other member we had from that side of the House?.. the Member for Carbonear, and, of course, my vice-chair at the time, the Member for Placentia. We were joined by one of the newer members towards the end, I think for one meeting. Not to forget, of course, the members on this side, the Member for Burin -Placentia West and the Member for Green Bay, who sat on the Committee with us also. Hopefully some of the things we started will be continued by the new Public Accounts Chairman and his group. I am certainly sure they will.

One of the questions raised in prior discussions, was whether or not the Auditor General has the right now to go in and look at hospital boards and school boards. I am under the impression, and maybe the President of Treasury Board when he speaks later will clarify this point, the Auditor General can now audit school boards and hospital boards if he so wishes. So maybe we can get that clarified. There was some question as to whether or not he had that authority. My reading is that as we have more than 50 per cent of the school board members elected now and so on, that the Auditor General can audit school boards, but it might be worthwhile looking at it. Because I think it is extremely important that the Auditor General have the power to look at hospital boards and school boards.

In some of our deliberations over this past year or so, we dealt with some hospital boards, and even though they showed they were doing a tremendous job in very adverse conditions quite often, especially when you are trying to run hospitals in rural Newfoundland where it is hard to attract professional staff and so on. I suppose, there are a number of occasions where people misinterpret the way some of the boards spend some of their money, so if the Auditor General has a chance to get in there, it will be a help to them plus clarify I think, for the good of the Government itself and the public, why and how these boards operate and spend some of the dollars they have to spend to attract professional staff to the area.

Our hearings, I think, showed that we were not out there witch-hunting. We were giving the groups and agencies a chance sometimes to bring some of their problems to the fore, chances that they had not had in the past, and hopefully the hearings were beneficial to all.

One section of the Act, I think it is Section 15, raises some concern, and it states: "Where during the course of an audit, the Auditor General becomes aware of an improper retention or misappropriation of public money or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or other Act, the Auditor General shall immediately report the improper retention or misappropriation of public money or other activity to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council."

One of the concerns there is the magnitude perhaps of the problem because I remember some of the things we dealt with, and in some of the hearings there were a number of little petty things raised, you know, ten dollars in petty cash was missing and where do you draw the line, because as is written of course he has to comply with the Act, and if he is going to be running to Government saying well, in auditing such a thing out of the cookie jar there was twenty-five cents missing or what have you, it is a criminal action so we have to report it. So, undoubtedly that can be clarified because I think it is a concern perhaps for his office and some of his auditors and those of us who have been involved.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly think that it is a tremendous piece of legislation. Undoubtedly it will be in the forefront of such legislation in the country, and that is nothing strange because once again we are quite often looked upon as being behind everybody else in this country. We have said it before, whether it be in the field of education or in the field of auditing, we can hold our head with anybody. I think some of the things we are doing certainly put us in the forefront and not running behind in this country. So, I congratulate the Government on bringing in this piece of legislation which I state again was already put in place and the spade work was done by this side and we were glad to be a part of it also.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board, if he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were some points raised by some of the hon. Members opposite and I would like to thank the Member for Mount Pearl and the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes for their contribution and suggestions as to explanations or changes that may be needed.

There were a few points which I will deal with now. In terms of the Minutes of Council being made available to the Auditor General, I think, as the Member for Mount Pearl realizes it is absolute necessary, and the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes as well, that in order for an Auditor General to determine whether in fact spending was done as intended by the Executive Council then Minutes have to be available. I do not think there is any doubt of the intention of providing the Minutes. However, it might be grounds for an amendment or something in the Committee stage to make that adequately clear. The Auditor General obviously cannot carry out the function of the job unless he knows what the original decisions were in the first place. So, that is an important point. I would just like to state the intention of Government and to suggest that may be this could be specifically stated.

In terms of Section 2, and this was a concern for me as well, which had to do with definitions but in essence, even though they are only definitions they are very important from the point of view of the intent of the whole piece of legislation. Originally, in the first piece of legislation that went to the Legislation Review Committees the wording was different. I am not sure if I can answer the Member's question totally to his satisfaction, but I can say that the wording was different when the first piece of legislation went to the Legislation Review Committee, and the Legislation Review Committee suggested a change.

Now in his comments the current acting Auditor General, making a submission on behalf of the staff of the Auditor General's office, indicated that if we were to change it this way, that we would, in fact, get these groups that the Member for Mount Pearl talked about, and would be adequate to allow audits of these groups. However, like him I am still not 100 per cent sure so I am going to go back and check a second time, but my understanding is that it does take in school boards, hospital boards, all of them, but because that is such an important expenditure, such a large expenditure, I think we had better be absolutely certain before we finish the bill. I have that assurance so far that it does.

Section 15 has to do with criminal activity. The first part of section 15, "where the Auditor General becomes aware of an improper retention or misappropriation of public money, the Auditor General shall immediately report the improper retention or other activity to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council." I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, because I can see where this could become rather picky, and it could generate an awful lot of unnecessary activity and information coming into the Cabinet. So we will take his concerns under advisement. Obviously I would suspect that the Auditor General would not bring every minor little ten dollar detail to the attention of Cabinet, but obviously the attention of some major or larger misappropriation or pattern of misappropriation, or whatever it happens to be.

The second section of number 15 though is put in there to ensure that it becomes public knowledge in essence, that a report has been made to Cabinet so the Cabinet cannot sit on it, and that is another very important part of any such report. "In addition to reporting to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the Auditor General shall attach to his or her annual report to the House of Assembly a list containing a general description of the incidents and dates on which they were reported to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council." So that Cabinet, once it receives the report, has to be prepared to act on it rather quickly. So these were the major points that were brought up, and if I missed any I am sure that Members opposite will remind me later.

The Member for Humber East also had some comments, but they centred largely around the fact that this could have been passed last Spring. I would remind Your Honour and Members of the House that the way things were going last Spring we would have had to bring in closure to go out and buy an eraser or something, so it was not one of those things that could have been easily passed last Spring. That was not the mood of the Legislature last Spring. So I would just like to remind the Member for Humber East of that as well as Your Honour; this was not something that could have easily been done last Spring.

There was one point brought up by the Member for Humber East that was a valid point and it had to do, not with this particular legislation, but with the functioning of the Committees. I am glad she raised that point because we will now see to it that the committee structure is back in operation and functioning properly as quickly as we can. It is a very good point, and sometimes I tend to overlook some of these things that are going on, and maybe I should be keeping a closer eye on them. So I will now get back to that and make sure that the review committees get back to work again.

I appreciate that point brought up by the Member for Humber East, however the majority of what she had to say did not make much sense. She talked about Andy Wells, her good buddy, and the fact that he was booted off the Public Utilities Board. She talked about Andy Wells being kicked off the Public Utilities Board. I do not know what the relevance is. She did not get it right. Andy Wells was offered the job of Consumer Advocate for the Government. He was very good at that job. He was superb at doing that job. He was asked if he was interested in doing it in a different way, not sitting on the board but in a different way. He was asked if he would consider continuing with that job without sitting on the board and he said, no, he was not interested, I guess because it did not carry $70,000 or $80,000 a year with it. So anyway, if his interest was with the consumers he would have accepted the job and done the superb job that he had done for a number of years.

She mentioned the Ombudsman and a few things like that, which really contributed nothing to the discussion and which is why, at the beginning of this particular speech, I thanked the Member for Mount Pearl and the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes and omitted the third name.

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of things brought up that I am going back and have a look at again because I want to make sure that these things are as they are supposed to be. As soon as the bill comes back again, in terms of debate in the House for the Committee Stage where we can get into some detail, where you can suggest amendments, if there are any amendments that are necessary at that point in time, I would suggest that we do it. It would also provide more time for the members of the committee, because there are some members from our side who sat on that committee who had some input into suggested changes. I am sure that they will have an opportunity at that point in time to express their opinions.

So, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would like to move second reading of Bill No. 1.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 1)

MR. BAKER: Order 6, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Dealers Act." (Bill No. 10)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, Clause 1 of this bill would amend the "grandfather" provision in section 8 of the Hearing Aid Dealers Act to clearly indicate that only those practising for a period immediately before the commencement of the Act may be "grandfathered" into the hearing aid dealers profession. At present, a person who practiced for a period of several years before that commencement could be "grandfathered".

This is causing a considerable amount of trouble for people in the hearing aid profession, Mr. Speaker. People are coming forward and saying, 'Look, I was six months working in this area twenty-five years ago and, therefore, I would want to be grandfathered in.' But clearly the intent of the original act was that the grandfathering provision would refer solely to people who had been practising for a certain amount of time just prior to this bill being proclaimed.

So, Section 8. (1) now reads, "Every person who can demonstrate to the Board that he or she has been practising as a hearing aid dealer for not less than two years prior to the coming into force of this Act shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled to have his or her name entered in the register and receive a licence." The amendment would state clearly that this grandfathering only applies to people who were practising immediately before.

"Clause 2 of the Bill would amend section 13 of the Act to more properly reflect the original intention of the law which was to ensure mandatory licensing. As the provision now reads, it prohibits a person from holding himself or herself out as a hearing aid dealer unless that person is registered and licensed under the Act.

The provision does not prohibit individuals from practising as Hearing Aid Dealers, only from claiming to be registered when they are not.

No person shall, after sixty practice days from the date this Act comes into force, hold himself or herself out as a Hearing Aid Dealer, who is registered and licensed under this Act, or in any manner seek to convey the impression of being a Hearing Aid Dealer, registered and licensed under this Act, unless that person is registered and licensed. Clause 3, would make the amendments retro-active to the original commencement of the date of the Act, Mr. Speaker.

I would certainly listen very much to any suggestion that the Opposition might have on this particular bill, but I would certainly hope that they would give it their consent so that we can deal with these so called minor problems which are in that Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We, as the official Opposition basically do not have much problem with the two minor amendments to the Act; having looked around the House of Assembly and seeing the number of people who are wearing hearing aids, perhaps this is an important piece of legislation and those who need them, my colleague from Mount Pearl constantly refers to the fact that he cannot hear what you are saying, so perhaps we need some more to be dispensed - Oh, he has one in his pocket as well!

Well, Mr. Speaker, these two minor amendments, the grandfathering clause which would basically allow only people who have been engaged in the profession in recent years to take part, we have no problems with that, with the advances in technology and the concern that people now have, we feel that it is only appropriate that only people who have legitimately practised the trade should be allowed to dispense and deal with hearing aids.

With the second provision, Clause 13, The limitation to practice; it only seems natural that if you have a licensing or some kind of a regulatory body, then those should be the only people who would be allowed to dispense hearing aids, so, Mr. Speaker, there is not much to say on it. It is obvious that this is a minor piece of tidying up of legislation covering two provisions; one, to make sure that only those who are legitimate hearing aid dispensers can practice and secondly, to give some teeth to the legislation that requires you to be registered, so only registered practitioners could dispense hearing aids. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a few comments on it, being one of the people in the House of Assembly who has used a hearing aid for the past several years I guess.

I just have a few questions which I hope the Minister will answer in due course and I hope that the Minister is listening, because I am wondering, who is behind bringing in this piece of legislation and for what reasons have they been brought in, to grandfather those who have already been in the practice and business, thus preventing other people from getting involved in this as I understand it.

I would like to know what kind of guidelines the Minister is going to put in place in terms of - once you grandfather those who have already been involved in it that looks after them, but what kind of guidelines are you going to put in place, or, be in place for people who want to join up to be part of the hearing aid trade, after the fact?

I am sure that those of us who have been involved with the various people who - I know the President of Treasury Board, my colleague for Mount Pearl, some former colleagues of this Legislature have to use hearing aids and all benefited, various people who are all extremely professional in that field, but I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, as to why this is happening? Is it because of pressure on the Minister by a group who is out there, the Hearing Aid Dealers, to prevent other people from becoming actively involved in the dispensing of hearing aids, or why would the people be grandfathered in who are not already into it? What are the reasons for this being done?

I know there is a reason for it. The Minister did not state it in his presentation; I certainly do not object to the legislation by the way, but I just wondered if the Minister would let us know when he speaks to the bill, why this is necessary?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. If he speaks now, he will close the debate.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any machiavellian reason as to why this is being done. I am not sure if the hon. Member understands properly what we are doing. The Act allows people to be grandfathered in. But what has happened, people are coming forward and saying: look, twenty-five years ago I worked for six months and now I want to be grandfathered in. But the intent of the Act is to make sure that people who are in this profession know the business. It is an area where there is some potential for some abuse. The intent is to make sure that people who are selling hearing aids are running an above the board business and they know what they are doing. So I am not aware of any undue lobbying but I certainly will check within the Department and if we are doing something here which is not proper - and I do not think for a minute we are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: No. Okay, thank you. In the meantime I want to thank hon. Members for taking part in this vigourous debate. I like the thrust and the blow and the back and forth of any debate, Mr. Speaker, and I think what we have seen here was an excellent example of that. If this is any indication of the way the Opposition is going to carry on over the next few weeks and months I look forward to a very stimulating few months in this House. I certainly will take all their suggestions and all the vigourous debate, I will take it under advisement. And certainly feel that I have come out of this exercise somewhat chastened, Mr. Speaker, but nevertheless confident that the laws which are enacted in this legislation will be well looked after and that their interests will be well served by the Members of the Opposition. Thank you very much.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Dealers Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow, by leave. (Bill No. 10).

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of The Province Respecting Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies". (Bill No. 8).

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Having read the title, Mr. Speaker, you have pretty well taken over my Act here. Let me just say that we did have a reciprocal taxation agreement in place between the Federal and Provincial governments which expired January 1, 1991 when the Goods and Service Tax Act was passed. So we entered into a new agreement with the Federal Government which became effective at that time, which now requires the ratification, confirmation and adoption by this House. Let me make a few points with respect to it.

According to the Constitution of Canada provinces do not have to pay the Federal tax, neither does the Federal Government have to pay the provincial tax, unless they so wish. In this agreement there are certain points that are made whereby we pay some of each other's taxes. Let me indicate just what these are. The Federal Government would pay our Provincial gasoline tax, tobacco tax, motor vehicle registration fees, and we would pay their excise tax on fuel and air transportation tax on airline tickets.

Also, I might add that there are certain - the Crown is defined for Newfoundland as including a number of Crown corporations, but some are excluded. For instance, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing with respect to social housing programmes is afforded special treatment under the GST legislation, by which they pay and 57 per cent is rebated by the Federal Government, the same as in municipalities, because in Canada generally social housing is a municipal affair. In Newfoundland, though, social housing comes under a Crown Corporation, and it was felt that the Federal Government wanted to treat our housing corporation like they treated municipal housing in the rest of Canada. (Inaudible) gave us a 57 per cent rebate and this cost us some money. But, because some of the federal Crown corporations, which are sort of commercial, do pay our retail sales tax under this agreement, on the whole, it balances out slightly in our favour. The new agreement is slightly in our favour, just as the old agreement was slightly in our favour. So, what we are basically doing then, Mr. Speaker, is ratifying the agreement which was entered into in January and making whatever amendments were appropriate at that point. I think what I would like to do now is listen to comments and suggestions from the members of the Opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is not a great deal to be said about this particular piece of legislation. Once again, we are asked to approve something retroactively. This has been signed some months ago, I understand, by the Minister of Finance and by the Premier.

I have a couple of questions, I guess, for clarification if for nothing else. In looking at the list of agencies in Schedule A, I notice the Liquor Corporation is not included, so I assume, therefore, we do not pay GST in the sale of alcohol beverages. Is that correct? Maybe the minister can confirm that for me?

I was concerned about Section 5, dealing with housing. It is clear from this that purchases relating to the construction and the delivery of public housing, or social housing, are tax exempt. Am I to take it from that, that we are paying GST on the provision of economic rental units, on the development of sub-divisions, and these types of developments?

DR. KITCHEN: We are.

MR. WINDSOR: I think we have been in the past. Can the Minister confirm that we have been paying federal sales tax and GST since it came into being?

DR. KITCHEN: We have been paying that.

MR. WINDSOR: We have been paying it. In other words, that, in itself, the fact that GST is now applied to land developments and to the construction of economic rental housing units, other than public housing, has greatly increased the cost of housing in the Province. Is that accurate? The minister is nodding, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister is not sure, obviously, but he is saying, yes. That is a matter of concern, Mr. Speaker. The cost of housing in this Province has been incredibly high. I understand that as the GST works on the purchase of a home, there is a reduced amount on house construction, 4 per cent, I believe, is applied. I am just wondering, does that applies here. Does that 4 per cent apply in this case, the reduced GST? Other than that, Mr. Speaker, it is after the fact, once again. What can we do? The deal has been done, it has been entered into. It is basically a fairly routine piece of legislation with just those two or three questions.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance speaks now, he will close the debate.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, the Federal Government has decided that the social housing aspects would be given the same treatment, as I indicated, that municipalities would be getting throughout Canada, because, in municipalities, social housing is handled in other parts of Canada, whereas we handle it through the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. So the decision was made that we would be treated the same way. Members might know that under the GST, hospitals get 83 per cent of their GST rebated, schools get 68 per cent of their GST rebated, universities 67 per cent and municipalities 57 per cent, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, for social housing, is treated as a municipality. For other activities, they are treated as a commercial entity and pay full GST, and that costs us $160,000 per annum. I do not know if it answers fully the member's question, but that is the information I have.

Mr. Speaker, if there is nothing else to be said, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of The Province Respecting Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 8).

MR. BAKER: Order No. 7, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Optometry Act, 1981". (Bill. No. 9).

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, The Optometry Act was passed in 1981 and Section 45 of that Act enables optometrists to use a topical anesthetic during the course of their practice. The specific drugs that they may use are outlined in subsection (2) of Section 45 of this act.

Now, the optometry profession have requested permission to use additional diagnostic drugs during the course of their practice. These drugs, generally speaking, will enable the optometrist to better diagnose vision problems. It is noted that these drugs are diagnostic drugs, as opposed to therapeutic drugs, which are used to treat the eye problems. After discussing this matter with the optometry profession and reviewing it within the Department of Health, it was agreed that we would recommend that optometrists be allowed to use these additional diagnostic drugs.

The specific drugs and strengths are outlined in the amending bill, and the bill would also allow the Newfoundland Optometric Board to prescribe any specific qualifications of practitioners who may use these drugs, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker. This bill, again, as the minister indicated, is one that enables optometrists in this Province in their diagnosis of patients' problems, to use some medication, topical anesthetics, so that they can make proper diagnosis. If it is a tool that can increase the performance of optometrists in this Province then we, on this side, certainly do not have any problems with it.

However, with optometry in this Province, we do have some problems. The minister, last year, took the basic vision assessments that were normally covered under the optometry programme, out of the Medicare programme. In addition to that, this Government has now seen fit to not allow optometrists to recall patients for routine examinations that are often necessary. A constituent of mine, only last week, was told by her specialists that she needed to come back. The optometrist said she needed a six-month checkup and she was told that it would not be paid for under Medicare, she would have to pay for it herself. The lady was unable to come up with that amount of money.

So, while this aspect of the bill might be positive, there are numerous other things that have happened in this Province related to the optometry programme which are not at all positive. The Government seems intent on decreasing the level of service. The optometrists want to improve their ability to perform, while the Government wants to penalize those who can less afford to pay. Certainly, we would like to see some amendments to this bill to allow people to have eye examinations whenever necessary, not only every two years, as is presently the practice.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, this bill looks very simple and straightforward, but I have had some dealings with this particular issue over a number of years, actually. It is an issue that has been around. I think I first dealt with it in 1976 when I first became involved in a dispute between the optometrists and ophthalmologists. There was a real question here as to whether or not optometrists are qualified to administer these drugs. Now, the minister points out, quite correctly, that these are diagnostic drugs, but I am told by the ophthalmologists that there is a real danger of a reaction to these drugs, as there is to any drug or any medical procedure, there is always the possibility of an allergic reaction or some sort of reaction, and that the optometrist is not qualified to deal with the results of any kind of a reaction. It is for this reason that the ophthalmologists have, for years, opposed the approval of the optometrists using these drugs.

I am curious as to why, all of a sudden, Government has changed, because it has been the Department of Health that has always advised against it. In fact, when I first got involved in it, I became involved through a constituent who was asking, an optometrist who wanted to use these drugs. I came up against a brick wall at that point in time and was told by my colleague, the former Member for Humber East, I think, Dr. Farrell, and other medical people at the time, there was a matter of concern here. I am wondering are we restricting the drugs that can be used? Are the ones that are being permitted to be used by optometrists now considered to be safe and there is no danger of a reaction to that particular drug? I am just curious as to why the Department of Health now seems to have totally reversed its position on this particular matter.

It seems like a very routine bill. All it does is say you may use diagnostic drugs, but it is a total reversal of position. I am wondering now are these drugs now considered to be safe, or are we restricting the use to particular drugs that are safe, and can we be assured that there is no danger of a reaction? Perhaps the Minister would address that.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister speaks now he closes the debate on the bill.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as hon. Members point out this seems to be a very minor piece of legislation, but it is not near as minor as one would think. I think there are a lot of connotations to this Bill.

One connotation, Mr. Speaker, is to point out just how committed this Administration is to the role of the optometrist in the overall delivery of health care. As the Member for Mount Pearl pointed out, it goes back to 1976 when optometrists were asking for this diagnostic tool so that they could properly carry out their work, and yet for some reason, Mr. Speaker, the previous administration totally neglected their request and did not even bother to inquire as to whether or not there was a safety issue, they just kept this particular sector of the health care system down for years and ignored them, Mr. Speaker, when they have a considerable level of expertise.

Optometrists are well trained professionals. They have to attend a university for about five years, they have to go through a period of internship, so they are well trained qualified people. Now when they made this request to me, unlike the previous administration, I took the time to see exactly what they were asking for, and whether or not the peoples safety would be jeopardized, and whether or not this particular group should be allowed to administer these particular drugs.

One of the first groups that I went to were the ophthalmologists, Mr. Speaker, to get their suggestions on the whole issue. I had quite a lot of discussions with the ophthalmologists. At one time the ophthalmologists indeed did say to me that may be the safety of the public would not be guaranteed if the optometrists were using those particular drugs. Then I made some checks right across the nation, and I learned that in all of the other provinces optometrists are doing exactly this, so then I went back to the ophthalmologists and I said: Now come on boys, let's not be trying to protect any turf here. I want to know what is right, what is in the best interest of the people of the Province, not whether or not we are going to protect someone's turf. Can you tell me, based solely on delivery of health care, whether or not this group of professionals should be allowed to administer this particular non-therapeutic drug, Mr. Speaker?

The ophthalmologist, then realizing that they were confronted with someone who was not going to deal in hearsay or maybe or rumour or perhaps, but they were dealing now with an Administration which dealt in facts and which wants to call a spade as it really is. Not as some old boys' club would have it be. Not to someone who would protect someone's job.

I have been assured unequivocally that the safety of the people is in no way endangered. In fact the safety of the people is more assured. Because now when they go to have their eyes examined from an optometrist they can indeed have their eyes tested properly.

Now the Member for Fogo made the point that since this Administration made our changes that optometrists are no longer allowed to recall patients to have their eyes examined. What foolishness, what tripe. The fact of the matter is optometrists can recall people every hour, every day, of the year. Year in, year out, they can examine them at 4:55 p.m. and say come back again at 5:00 p.m., come back 5:05 p.m.. We have done nothing that would interfere with optometrists recalling their patients. They can call them just when they like. What we have done is said to the people of this Province that when you go to have your eyes examined it is not insured under Medicare. Nothing to do with recalling. If someone perceives a connection between these two, well I would like for him to point it out to me. I see no connection. The optometrists can recall their patients as often as they like, day in and day out.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that and having squashed the foolish objections that the Opposition put forward to this, I would move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Optometry Act, 1981," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow, by leave.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a minute or so left. There are a couple of points I would like to raise. First of all, it is our intention to continue on with some of the bills that are on the order paper tomorrow. There will be more detail after discussions tomorrow morning with the Opposition House Leader. There is a possibility that we may get into Supplementary Supply but that is something we will straighten out tomorrow morning.

The matter that I would like to raise, and it may take longer than a couple of minutes, is one that has to do with the rules and the rules committee. We were supposed to have a trial period for the new rules of the House but it was only some of the rules, or some of the changes that would have effect now. There were all kinds of rules and regulations about the Speaker, about the Chairman of Committees and this kind of thing and that rules other than that would be tried out for a trial period. I am in the process of getting a shortened version of that done. Perhaps, again sometime tomorrow we can get together and have a look at that shortened version with a view to, on the first sitting day in November perhaps starting with, as a trial period for the new rules.

I just wanted to mention that because I know that some members have mentioned that to me and before this became an issue I just wanted to point out that it is being dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow and that the House do now adjourn.

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