The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

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

I think it is worthy of note this morning that I had the opportunity last evening to attend the national darts dinner, and I think it is even more worthy of note that, after the week, Newfoundland not only captured the Canada Cup, but the players from Newfoundland, all over the Province, also captured the mixed doubles, the men's doubles, and - I'm not sure of the other one now. Anyway, we have three championships. The ladies' singles and the men's singles are on today. We have a good chance of winning the ladies' singles.

Something else I was told last night was that these groups, from all across Canada, which is really encouraging - a lot of them are staying on, going fishing, going hunting - not hunting, but fishing, and taking their holidays here in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: It is not unusual, I say to members opposite, for some people to go hunting out of season.

I certainly offer congratulations. I think it is `a real good show' on behalf of the Province and the dart players in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like, for this side of the House, to share the sentiments expressed by my friend from St. John's South. Obviously, I have somewhat of a vested interest, in that one of my constituents has made a name for himself in darts, internationally. As a matter of fact, Albert Anstey, from Burin, is ranked in the world, I think, in number three position. I am delighted to see that Albert has done well again this time as have all the other people who participated from Newfoundland. It is that type of participation that has given Newfoundland world recognition, and I am delighted to see that some of them are going to stay here on holiday and spend their money.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is always good to see Newfoundlanders do well at national events, particularly when the events are being held here in this Province. They are deserving of the congratulations of this House and we welcome them here to this Province.

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

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to outline to this hon. House my position on the decision of the Agricultural Products Marketing Board with respect to the manufacture and sale of reconstituted milk in this Province.

Reconstituted milk is made by combining powdered milk with butter or cream and water. It has been manufactured in this Province for years, and ten years ago, reconstituted milk represented 25 per cent of all the milk consumed here in this Province. However, processors voluntarily withdrew from reconstituted milk in favour of fluid milk from Newfoundland farms. Today, reconstituted milk is only 1.7 per cent of the sales on the Island. Meanwhile, our dairy industry has been able to expand until we now have sixty dairy farms and are approximately self-sufficient in fluid milk. This has been an agricultural success story.

Mr. Speaker, the only plant on the Island of Newfoundland producing reconstituted milk, which has been operating since 1965, is in Lewisporte. It is owned by the Brookfield Dairy Group and employs six people. The plant possibly creates an equal number of indirect jobs. There is, however, another plant in Labrador which produces milk for the military establishment there.

Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland Milk Marketing Board regulates the production, processing and sale of milk in this Province. They had sought approval from the Agricultural Products Marketing Board to stop production of reconstituted milk by December 31, 1993. The Agricultural Products Marketing Board felt that that was not in the best interests of all parties, and ordered that production should continue until the end of 1994. The Labrador production should also be allowed to continue, but only for the military market. The Agricultural Products Marketing Board has advised the Newfoundland Milk Marketing Board that they would reconsider this matter and permit gazetting of a revised order along these lines.

Mr. Speaker, it is very rare for a minister to intervene in decisions of such boards, but this has been a particularly sensitive issue and I have decided to ask for the board's recommendation to be modified. I have considered all factors and I am satisfied that I have reached a fair resolution to the issue.

After much deliberation, Mr. Speaker, I have decided to inform the Agricultural Products Marketing Board that the proposed order should not be approved or gazetted in its current form. I agree that the Lewisporte plant should be allowed to continue in reconstituted milk to the end of 1994, and that production should be limited to the average of the years 1990 to 1992. However, I believe that production should be allowed to continue beyond 1994, but only if Central Dairies, the only competitor of Brookfield, is allowed to produce an equal volume beginning in 1995 with the same limitations. I am therefore asking the board to implement this policy. The Labrador production would be permitted to continue, of course.

I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this is the limit of production of reconstituted milk that will be allowed. If there is increased demand for fluid milk, it must be met by local production from our dairy farms. I would also like to put dairy processors on notice that the production of reconstituted milk will be closely monitored as to volume and fat content and all relevant regulations will be strictly enforced.

Mr. Speaker, government have made it possible for the diary industry to prosper in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it cannot be reasonably argued that the volume of reconstituted milk produced at Lewisporte will cause serious injury to the fluid milk industry or inhibit its future growth and expansion. However, there is the matter of job loss in the area, as well, and that is a concern for me. This government is always concerned when people face economic hardship. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure diary producers that this decision does not diminish goverment's support for supply management or for their industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

to the minister's statement, which I have just received, basically I can say it is simply a response for the interim. I think there are many questions and concerns still to be addressed. Obviously, there are people in the industry who are going to disagree with this point. As it regards the question of the jobs, it is something we agree with - that has to be a concern of everybody. But I think the bottom line in all of this is that it is unfinished business and it will continue after 1994. What has to be looked at here is the long term, down the road, because I am sure there are going to be concerns and arguments brought forward yet. So, basically, I think the statement is a slowdown or an interim answer to what is going to come in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of all hon. members, I would like to welcome to the public galleries the former Member for St. George's, Mr. Larry Short.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this government has reintroduced a piece of legislation that was first introduced last December and then withdrawn. In effect, the bill gives a tax break of about $150,000, we are told, to a company known as Fortis Trust, which is a subsidiary of Fortis Incorporated, a company that also owns Newfoundland Power. I ask the Premier: Why is this government so determined to give such a large tax break to this particular company? It is one of the most privileged and protected companies in the world, I suppose. I ask him: Why doesn't he instead, give a tax break of some sort to all the other businesses in this Province which are scrambling to survive under the burden of new taxes and increased taxation brought on by his own government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that tax break is given to any company that is prepared to do what Fortis Trust is doing, providing for a means of investment in this Province, providing for an opportunity for people in the Province to invest in local businesses. What we can't do - to respond to narrow-minded political commentary - is prevent the fair operation of our law so as to attract, particularly, Newfoundland investors to invest in this Province. We don't want to maintain a tax structure or a tax position that deters investment in this Province - that is why we cut the corporate income tax from 17 per cent to 16 per cent; that is why we cut the small business tax from 10 per cent to 5 per cent; that is why we cut the manufacturing and processing tax from 17 per cent to 7.5 per cent. That is why we are doing it - to promote job opportunities and promote investments in this Province. And, for the Opposition to resort to this, to lead people to believe that this is somehow special treatment for Fortis Trust because it is Fortis Trust, is absolutely disgusting!

MR. WINDSOR: You are disgusting!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So we are told that this is not meant for Fortis Trust, this is not a special break for Fortis Trust, yet we were told by the Minister of Finance, in December, that is the only company that will benefit from it, number one. Number two, the Premier says it is for investment purposes, to try to encourage investment down the road. Can the Premier tell the House: Why is the legislation structured in such a way as to make it retroactive to last October?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Because, Mr. Speaker, that is when the legislation was intended to be brought in, I assume, and it wasn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't brought in.

PREMIER WELLS: It was brought in - it was introduced in the House, it was debated on second reading here in the House and died on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, any business company wanting to operate on exactly the same basis and provide the business and investment opportunity, the savings opportunity, is entitled to that benefit -anybody!

MR. WINDSOR: What happened to the stocks savings plan?

PREMIER WELLS: It cost the Province too much money. It cost the Province an immense amount of money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The procedure in Question Period is one question at a time. If the hon. the Member for Mount wishes to ask a question, I will recognize him in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I would like to finish the answer now, Mr. Speaker, without interruption.

Mr. Speaker, that taxation would induce companies like Fortis Trust who are providing for investment opportunities for Newfoundlanders who want to invest in savings companies, would provide a circumstance where they would not be prepared to capitalize the company properly and so investors would not get protection. We don't want circumstances where investors lose their money in circumstances as has been done in other cases here, in the case of Principal Trust and others, where there have been significant losses. We want to have the maximum level of protection, and in particular, Mr. Speaker, we would like to see companies like NewTel Enterprises, which makes a lot of money in this Province, and like Fortis which makes a lot of money in this Province - we want to see them reinvest their money here and create opportunities here, and every chance we can get to cause them to do just that, we will do it, because we have the interest of this Province at heart.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: The Premier can be as loud and boisterous as he wants to be in answering this question, the fact of the matter is this is a tax break for buddies of the Premier and buddies of the Minister of Justice - that's what is happening. Now, the Premier avoided answering the question. He is trying to convince the members of this House of Assembly and the public that this is meant to encourage investment down the road. Why is it retroactive to last October? Answer that question directly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the comments of the Leader of the Opposition are offensive and insulting!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me remind members of this House that I was chairman of the board of the company that has become Fortis Trust, before I got involved in politics. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to be pushed or have the government pushed or intimidated by sleazy political comments to prevent the fair treatment of every business in this Province, and I will not succumb to such pressures by the Leader of the Opposition. We will govern this Province on a fair and balanced basis, Mr. Speaker, and not otherwise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted that the Premier is offended by my question, absolutely delighted, because he deserves to be offended by it, and that is the reason for the question. But a good offence, I guess, is the answer to a defence in this case. He still has not answered the question. If he will answer the question honestly and directly, then he won't get this kind of questioning.

Why is this legislation retroactive to last October? It does not fit with his argument that it is meant for the future, to encourage investment, because only Fortis Trust will benefit, and they will get a tax break now for last year, because of this legislation, as well as this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh yeah, sure!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill was originally introduced into the House last Fall, I believe early in November, and for a variety of reasons, including agreements reached between House Leaders and so on, at the closing of the House, was one of several bills left on the Order Paper. We have simply re-introduced it.

MR. SIMMS: Everybody knows that.

MR. BAKER: Well, that is what I am explaining. I am giving you the answer to your question.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was designed to correct a tremendous inequity in our tax system, whereby we give one tax treatment for the large trust companies and banks, and yet for the smaller ones that want to start out and are in business, our tax system charges them forty to fifty times the effective rate for the larger businesses.

Mr. Speaker, this bill simply corrects an inequity in our tax system that will allow smaller trust companies to develop and grow, and when they develop and grow to the point where they become large trust companies, they will be treated on the same basis.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Social Services.

For some time now, the Department of Social Services has been sending out letters to people around the Province - and I am really familiar with this in my district, in particular - saying that government's records indicate they have an overpayment, and outlining some of the different reasons for it.

Can the minister now inform the House if the letters that have been sent out demanding the payments are resulting from the hiring of investigators for the ten new jobs created in this year's budget? Will he confirm that? And will the minister tell the House how far back his department has gone in trying to collect? Has it gone back one year, two years, five, ten, fifteen, twenty? Will the minister tell that to the House?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I don't think that the matter of the overpayments has anything to do with the ten investigators, because they haven't started working yet; so I don't think there is any relationship between these two. It is hardly possible.

With respect to the overpayments, as the hon. member knows, when people are paid in excess of what they deserve, or they are given an overpayment in any respect, then it is the obligation of government, on behalf of taxpayers, to collect this money. How far we go back, I have no idea, but I only know, in my own experience in this job, that they have gone back many, many years. Whether the Department of Social Services is selecting a particular point in time, I have no idea, but I will check it out for the hon. member.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of a letter that was sent to a lady in my district requesting the sum of $629.71. She was told that was considered an overpayment that resulted when she and her late husband had an overlap of social assistance and his UI benefits in 1973 - twenty years ago, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Shocking!

MR. TOBIN: Her late husband.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: In view of the fact that this lady's husband predeceased her some six years ago, and in view of the fact that this government, last night and this morning, this day, is helping one of the most powerful corporate giants in this Province save some $150,000 a year, will he make a commitment now to the House to have this $629.71 that was incurred some twenty years ago written off for this lady?

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

MR. LUSH: Quite apart from the convoluted nonsense that the member got in near the end of the question, it is the intention and the desire of government to deal with every problem in a most sensitive manner. I can tell the hon. member that this problem is no different from any other, that it will be dealt with. It has to be investigated. There is nothing to suggest that this is insensitive merely because the government says it wants to collect the money that is owed it. It is collected on behalf of the taxpayers of this Province. The insensitivity would result if, after the letter, certain events took place demonstrating insensitivity. If that is the case, certainly we will look into it. But it is the responsibility of government to collect monies that were paid in excess, on behalf of the taxpayers of this Province, and time has nothing to do with it. But each case is analyzed, assessed and dealt with in terms of the circumstances that surround that particular case.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: This government is just about to institute a social strategy for this Province. How can they develop a social strategy - first of all, you have to have a social conscience, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: How can the minister explain the word `sensitivity' when they just sent a letter to a sixty-five-year-old woman, living alone, almost completely blind, whose husband predeceased her six years ago, who raised nine children without any help from government? How can the minister call that `sensitivity'? Would he take it upon himself today to contact his department and his officials to have this measly, lousy $629.71 written off for this lady?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: I can tell the hon. member that the policy of this government in terms of dealing with the social needs of this Province in terms of trying to safeguard the safety social net of this Province is one that is responsible, efficient and effective, and is governed by the fiscal ability of the Province to pay. That is it, Mr. Speaker. That is the essence of the policy of this government and of the department.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, we passed some legislation, a bill called the guarantee loan act. The Premier, prior to the 1989 election, stated the policy of his party at the time that he didn't agree with government-guaranteed loans. Obviously, we see they have gone back to that. In fact, he even threatened to cancel some of the loans that were in place at the time. Would the Premier like to tell us now, in view of the gifts he is giving Fortis, what is the policy of this government relating to government-guaranteed loans to corporations that need assistance?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what an assessment would show but I must ask the minister to do it. I think he would find that the number of guaranteed loans has greatly diminished in the last four years. I think that is what would be found but I will ask him to check it out, and I will table it in the House and provide a comparison, say, with the previous four years - because that is always good - so you get a fair standard by which to judge. I will ask him to do that.

Our basic approach is a change from former governments, not just the former Conservative Government, from the former Liberal Government, too. We looked at the results over the last thirty-odd years and it was clear that we were not achieving a high degree of success by guaranteeing loans - that usually got the government in further and further and further. Once you made the first guarantee, you made another to back it up and you got in so deep. Usually, the people who were seeking guarantees had no substantial capital resources themselves and no ability to meet difficult times or problems that arose. So government would have to guarantee some more and you got into the quagmires like we got into in the past with the Linerboard Mill, the Come By Chance Oil Refinery, like the cucumber proposal in Mount Pearl, all of those got the government into circumstances where they lost vast sums of money. We took a different approach. The approach that we took, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be far better for the government to look at providing tax incentives or equity investment to induce those that had more substantial resources themselves to invest. That is why you will see a significant reduction in the number of guaranteed loans.

I heard the hon. member's comment the other day that the government should be getting a share of the interest earned by banks where the loans are guaranteed. I met with the banks three years ago and told them that was the government's position and, as a result, we put in place a guarantee fee. And now, any time the government guarantees any indebtedness, we get a guarantee fee and we don't expect that the banks will hike up to cover that. They should be giving credit on the basis of the level of security that they have. Now, they did say to me at the time: `But there is another problem. There is the administration cost and our interest rates are determined, not only on the basis of risk element, but on the basis of the level of administration that is necessary. If loans are troublesome, we still have the same level of administration costs.' Well, I can see there may be some merit in that, but at least, there should be a return for government.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am sure when the minister does his study, he will find, in fact, that there are far less guarantees. He will also find that there are 20,000 more people unemployed in this Province and record numbers of bankruptcies in this Province, Mr. Speaker - that is what the minister will find when he does his study.

I want to ask the Premier this: What is he doing to attract investment to this Province? We see Premier McKenna of New Brunswick now, rated one of the most active Premiers in Canada. He is in Central Canada every month attracting business to his province. We know what Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador is not doing. We know the Premier is running across Canada talking about the Constitution, trying to raise his own national political image. What is he doing to create jobs and attract business to this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me deal with both points. First, with respect to the reduced number of guarantees and its relationship to the number of unemployed. I will point out to the hon. member that there were fewer - a smaller portion of our workforce unemployed in this recession than in the 1982 recession when he had personal responsibility. The figures are there, the Stats Can figures are there. They are not my figures and they are not the hon. member's figures, they are the figures of Stats Can. Now, I know he doesn't like it, it gets him stirred up. As you can see, he tries to prevent the truth from coming out but the truth sets reasonable people free. Other people, like the hon. member, feel chained by it because it doesn't help them any and I can understand his position.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the other point, I agree with the hon. member, that it is desirable to make every conceivable effort, travel wherever it is necessary, promote wherever it is necessary, make whatever reasonable adjustments in our tax laws, in our regulations that are necessary and fair to promote business investment in this Province, because it is only from such business investment that job opportunities will come. There is not much point in doing it at times during the middle of a recession when the economic world is facing immense difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, we have been preparing for a push that is to take place now. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has laid the groundwork for a business prospecting system and that, Mr. Speaker, is in progress. I will be doing a good deal of the promotion and travelling myself. Most of it will be done by the hon. minister and it will be done by others. Mr. Speaker, we intend to rebuild the economy of this Province, as we started out, but every fair-minded person knows and understands that you can't do that in the middle of a recession, and it is no good wasting your money and efforts trying to do it at that time. Do it when success can be achieved.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Will the Premier like to tell me now, then, is this the way he proposes to build the economy, by giving great tax breaks, $150,000 a year, retroactively, by passing retroactive legislation to deal with Fortis, by passing retroactive legislation to overrule the courts so that companies in this Province will not get the tax exemptions that the courts ruled they were entitled to? Is this the way he proposes to do it? Does he propose to do it, Mr. Speaker, by chasing away business people, who asked the Premier directly if he is prepared to support an investment in this Province that would create about 1,000 jobs? Is that the way he proposes to create jobs in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me deal again with a couple of points. Retroactive legislation: every now and then, it is necessary to do something retroactively, like, Mr. Speaker, when we came to power, we had to bring in legislation to retroactively approve the loans that the hon. members put forward for Sprung that they didn't have the courage to bring to the House, because they knew they couldn't justify it to the people of this Province. We had to bring it in because of what that hon. member failed to do, Mr. Speaker, because they didn't have the political courage to face the people and say: Here is the $24 million that we want you taxpayers to pay. We had to go and get the authority from the House and from the people of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are times when retroactive legislation is necessary and we had to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Overruled (inaudible) twice this session.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Do you see what I mean, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Overruling the Province (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The truth really gets him disturbed. There is nothing as offensive to the hon. member as truth and he does his absolute best to try to prevent it from being heard -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - including constant shouting like this; and all of that, Mr. Speaker, really spells out the reality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) give it away.

PREMIER WELLS: Let the Member for Burin - Placentia West - I will deal with him on that question.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) sign (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, I wasn't. I will deal with him on that question. When he has the decency to ask the question as a direct question I will do it, but let's not divert from the real issue now. Let me answer the question raised by the Member for Mount Pearl. Every time they don't like answers, this is what they do, you get this shouting match to prevent the answers from being given.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government has laid out its Strategic Economic Plan and it has taken certain steps with respect to it. I just mentioned the business prospecting initiative that the government will be undertaking. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will be spelling it out in considerably more detail. We have already taken steps with respect to the reduction of corporate tax from 17 per cent to 16 per cent, small business tax from 10 per cent to 5 per cent; the manufacturing and processing corporate tax from 17 per cent down to 7.5 per cent. Those are incentives intended to do it. There are others, Mr. Speaker, that are coming and the hon. members will stand and pound their desks with pride at the action that the government is taking in the future and I am looking forward to the day, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who has taken over responsibility for the fate of the King George V Building in St. John's East, a building of historical importance and architectural significance.

One idea which I have suggested to the minister is that this may be a proper site for the new federal community correctional centre that is being established in St. John's East, and I would ask the minister, whether he has had an opportunity to pursue that and whether he has any hope or expectation that that is a possible use for that building, to refurbish it and make it useful and save the building from destruction?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, Mr. Speaker, we have called tenders for the sale of the King George V Building. It was delayed somewhat because of the accommodations that had to be made for a number of organizations around the Province, but we have certainly given consideration to talking to the Federal Government of the need for a correctional centre in downtown St. John's, and in fact, just as early as yesterday afternoon, my deputy minister was ready to talk to the people. Hopefully, that will work out to the satisfaction of everybody. Certainly, we will encourage it to the best of our ability, and probably, within the next week or two, we will be able to get more firm information and an answer as to whether the federal government is really interested.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. I heard this morning on CBC a doctor saying there are being additional cutbacks at the clinic in Grand Bank. This doctor essentially said that he cannot practice medicine under the present conditions and it is about time that the people said, `enough is enough'. Your government has already taken away the cottage hospital and now the clinic will only have X ray services in the morning and lab services in the afternoon. I ask the minister: Is this is the first step in phasing out this clinic altogether?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That hospital board had a certain amount of money on which to operate this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. minister.

DR. KITCHEN: A certain proposal was put forward that didn't seem to be acceptable to a number of people in the area and the hospital board changed their methodology and did something else to save the money we had. I have no apologies to make to the people of the Grand Bank area. Compared to other parts of the Province, they are exceptionally well looked after as far as health is concerned, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Is it part of the government's plan to take similar steps with other clinics across the Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, when the Budget is drawn up in the Province and the amounts of money that can be spent by the various boards are allotted, our policy is to stick to these amounts. Now, hospital boards put forward a plan by which they will meet these fiscal objectives and if the plan looks to our officials to be totally unacceptable, we discuss it with them, and they may want to offer other suggestions. Eventually, something is worked out that is the best we can do under the circumstances. That is how it is done. What often happens, though, is that people uninvolved in the health care system themselves - sometimes a council might get involved or somebody might kick up a bit of fuss, like some hon. members opposite do in their areas, and they get people all riled up about nothing; and then, that puts the hospital boards in a very difficult position and they find it very difficult to manage because other people are after them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) health care.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to ask a question later on when his time comes, he is welcome.

In the meantime, we are going to live within our budgets as best we can in all the hospital boards. We are running into a difficult financial crisis in the Province but, at the same time, our hospital system in this Province is a model for Canada.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a brief question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Part of the curriculum in Grade V deals with an appreciation of Newfoundland culture and it is very common for teachers to broaden the horizons of children by taking them to the Newfoundland Museum, as part of that culture broadening. It has been brought to my attention that a very disappointed handicapped wheelchair person from my district could not participate in his class trip because the Newfoundland Museum is not wheelchair accessible. I ask the minister: What is he doing to ensure that essential public buildings are made accessible to handicapped people when culture is part of the curriculum here in this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As hon. members opposite would know, any buildings in the Province that have been built and erected since 1981 and beyond have had to comply with the accessibility standards that are now common, not only in the Province, but throughout the country. In all government buildings, as renovations and modifications are being done, one of the things that is happening as soon as it can - because there are a lot of public buildings throughout the Province, many of them built before 1981 when these requirements were not part of the code in Newfoundland or in the country. As they can be brought up to standard the first thing that is being done to public buildings is to make sure they are accessible. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who has overall responsibility for the public buildings in the Province, has a list and they are being done as quickly as possible. And, as modifications occur, according to budgetary allocations in any one year, one of the very first priorities given is the accessibility considerations.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to table the answer to the question that I took under notice yesterday in terms of the Student Employment Program.

The basic information shows that there were 687 applications received, with a request asking for 1,425 summer jobs. The criteria, the basic calculations being done in the department, is to break the applications down by work weeks requested; so there have been 17,079 work weeks requested in total. The total funding requested has been $1,733,433, of which, of course, we have $600,000 to try to meet the need. To date, up to yesterday when the question was asked, there are 254 jobs currently approved, allowing for 2,061 work weeks, and pending, ready to come to my office soon for signature, are another 161 jobs which will provide for another 1,332 work weeks. All of it, I expect, will be done by some time next week.

Finally, in response to the question, as well, Mr. Speaker, this doesn't preclude, and never has precluded, people from hiring students. These are just the ones that will get some subsidy from the government. I table the information, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of some 550 people in the three separate communities of Wings Point, Clarke's Head and Victoria Cove.

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I support the petition and would like to tell the hon. House that the amount of road we are talking about here is relatively small but relatively important - very, very important, to the three communities of Wings Point, Clarke's Head and Victoria Cove.

Mr. Speaker, for the ministers, and for those people in the Legislature who are not familiar, the amount of road that we are talking about here is approximately 3.0 kilometres. I think the Minister of Finance will be familiar with it; he toured it this Spring.

There are three community roads off the Lewisporte loop road, and because of the small amount - I know the government has, at this point in time this year, committed most of its funds. Because there is this pavement around this - the maintenance around this bit of road that is off those three communities requires a different mode of operation for the Department of Transportation. The roads, sometimes, in that area are not kept up to the standard they should be.

Mr. Speaker, those roads are extremely rough in the Spring, as the Minister of Finance is well aware. He drove over them in the worst part of the year. I understand that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will be looking at that district, as well - in the next couple of weeks, I guess, Minister? We would hope that with the capabilities of those two very fair gentlemen, and with them putting their efforts into getting this road done, that, indeed, the prayer of this petition will be answered.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the petition be placed upon the Table of the House and referred to the department to which it relates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The one thing I want to say at the very beginning is that this government and this minister have the total responsibility of approximately 8,400 kilometres of road within the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. EFFORD: Eight thousand, four hundred, I think is the figure - that we are responsible for.

When you look at the amounts of money that we have to spend each and every year in the Capital Works Program, approximately $25 million, you have to understand that it has to be done on a priority basis.

The one assurance I can give the hon. the Member for Fogo is that over the Summer months, being the new minister in this department, I want to familiarize myself with the needs of the people around the Province and try to get established on a priority basis what roads should be done under the next Capital Works Program, and I will be attempting to visit as many areas over the Summer months as I possibly can.

I can say that you will never find enough money to do all the roads that need to be done.

MR. TOBIN: It is not going to be fair, I tell you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He will be fair.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will be watching.

MR. EFFORD: I am sure hon. members opposite will be watching, but we have to remember that for seventeen years, in a lot of districts in the Province, the roads weren't done as well as they could have been done. So, in order to be fair, you have to make sure that those roads which were neglected for seventeen years are kept up to today's standards.

The intention is next year for me to be able to make decisions based on priority. Because people in rural areas of the Province, including Fogo, deserve to be treated as well as people living in any other part of Newfoundland. So what I will say, Mr. Speaker, is that I will be visiting over the Summer months as many districts as I possibly can, and I will make decisions accordingly in the coming capital works program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a fair list next year, I guarantee you! (Inaudible) will be looking forward to next year.

MR. EFFORD: Fairness and balance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no hesitation at all in supporting the petition from the Member for Fogo. It is very important that people have good roads. I come from a place that was Tory for years - in, for years, a Liberal district. One tiny area was Tory, and they had to wait until the Tories got in, twenty-five years after Confederation, to get a bit of pavement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes. When they did start to pave, it was during an election, and there were stables and children covered in. Anyway, I'm here today, pleased to be able to support the member's area in getting a bit of pavement. The tragedy is, with all the budgetary cuts over the past four years, we are heading into the fifth year with more cuts and there are other people who need roads done - always needing roads done. And I ask the minister, who is supposed to be fair - I find we have to keep a close eye on the man. But anyway, I hope you are successful over the Summer, Sir. We will be checking on this in the Fall. Thank you very much.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The consensus is that we should first ask the House to address the third readings, which are Orders 3 through 13. With that done, we will go on and do Committee on Bill No. 21, which is Order 16, the Financial Corporations Capital Tax Act. We will take probably five or ten minutes on that, I say to my friend from Grand Bank. There surely can't be very much that the Opposition haven't said eighteen times.

When that is done, we will then deal with the rest of the legislation, put it through its stages, and then get on to the Budget Speech. I understand my friend from Placentia is going to make his maiden speech and, depending on the result in the courts, it may be his departing speech. At least it will be his first speech and we will look forward to hearing that. Then, we will do the Supply Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if we could begin with the third readings.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered passed, and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act," (Bill No. 8).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act," (Bill No. 9).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act, The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, And The Memorial University Pensions Act," (Bill No. 10).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act," (Bill No. 18).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act," (Bill No. 17).

A bill, "An Act To Amend the St. John's Municipal Elections Act," (Bill No. 19).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act," (Bill No. 20).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act," (Bill No. 11).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act," (Bill No. 16).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act," (Bill No. 24).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," (Bill No. 23).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you be good enough to put the House into Committee of the Whole, please?

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill No. 21. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure it was the appropriate piece of legislation. We are quite willing to carry the bill now, as soon as we get the answer to one small question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Ask and it shall be answered, says the Member for St. John's South.

I guess the question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Premier is not here. It is a follow-up to the question I asked in Question Period, and I meant it quite sincerely because it is a question that has not been asked, I say to the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Has not been answered. It has been asked often enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, the answer was not given, I say to the Member for Eagle River. Can the member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would be quite happy to let the Member for Eagle River get up and tell us why that bill is retroactive to last year. Can he explain it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No? You cannot? Well then, Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The minister is ready to answer the question? Great.

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

MR. BAKER: First of all, let me comment that the Leader of the Opposition, in asking this question, used a word that really has not - you cannot use that word to characterize the discussion on this bill, and that word was `sincerity`, I believe. He sincerely wanted an answer. That word `sincerely` does not characterize the type of debate that I have seen on this bill at all.

Mr. Chairman, the answer was given in Question Period. The bill was introduced last Fall. These were the dates that were on the bill last Fall. That is a common occurrence in terms of tax bills, that there is a date announced and the debate is done afterwards. As a matter of fact, most tax bills that are passed in this hon. House are not actually passed until well after the date of announcement, which normally is in a Budget Speech, so it is not unusual. It is a common occurrence for tax legislation to have a small amount of retroactivity. The bill was prepared last Fall and we just followed through with the same bill.

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

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not a satisfactory answer. If the minister wanted to make the answer sound feasible, by saying the bill was introduced last Fall and all that kind of stuff, can he tell me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I could almost buy it, except for this one little point, I say to the minister, and he should pay attention to the point that I am trying to make and maybe it will help in the answer. I say to the minister, I almost could believe what he had to say, except for this one little point. He is trying to say it is because of last Fall, so we are just reintroducing it and so on and so forth. The bill, last Fall, was introduced in this House November 30, 1992 - November 30th. Why then is this bill retroactive to take effect November 1st? Could he tell us that? This is the date - November 30th is the date -

AN HON. MEMBER: It was brought back up just before Christmas.

MR. SIMMS: Second reading was not done, for example, until December. This was November 30th when the bill had first reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: November 30th.

MR. SIMMS: November 30th is the day that the bill received first reading - the bill, introduced in the House November 30th - but this bill says it is retroactive, shall not apply to a corporation - blah, blah, blah - come into force on November 1, 1992. Okay? So why is it retroactive to November 1, 1992?

Can he answer this for me: Does it not, in fact, or in effect now, offer this $150,000 tax break, or whatever the amount is, to Fortis now for last year as well as for this year? Can he confirm that, and that in fact now what we have done is give them $150,000 tax break for last year simply because the bill was not passed last year in the Fall?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, the members opposite, sometimes I wonder. Again, I will go back to what I said yesterday. I will just assume that they don't understand and can't read the legislation and so on, so I'll go over that again.

Mr. Speaker, the clause in contention here, Clause 2, simply says that: "This Act shall be considered to have come into force on November 1, 1992...," okay? Now, they stop there. Members of the Opposition stop there. They don't read any further. You can't do that to a piece of legislation. You can't simply take half of a sentence and assume that that half of the sentence is the operative part in the legislation. That sentence goes on to say: "... but shall not apply until the beginning of the next fiscal year after..." that date. Shall not apply until the beginning of the fiscal year after that date. So if a corporation, for instance, has a fiscal year that began in December, or January or February, or that begins in June this month or July, and so on, that it will not apply until the beginning of that next fiscal year after that date.

So it is meant to cover what's remaining in this year, certainly. It's meant to correct the mistake in legislation and to correct it as quickly as possible during this particular time. It's meant to correct it as quickly as possible so that companies, when they come to the end of their fiscal year - if their fiscal year doesn't begin till after November 1, okay, 1992, then the end of their fiscal year is not till November 1, 1993. Which means that that's the first consideration that would be give. So in actual fact a consideration wouldn't be given until the end of that fiscal year, which is still in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the fuss is about. I wish hon. members would read legislation properly before they get up and comment on it and try to twist and turn and squirm and try to make something out of a situation that does not exist.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I give the minister `A' for effort. He tried to confuse the issue as best as he could because he really doesn't know the answer to the question, and that's the difficulty here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Can he tell us when the fiscal year of Fortis Trust begins? Does he know that?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I have no idea in the world when the fiscal year of any company in this Province begins, let alone Fortis Trust. That's precisely the point that I've been trying to make. Members opposite think that this was done, perhaps written by Fortis Trust or something. That this was done in consultation with these people. It was not. It was not done that way. I don't know the year ends of any companies. I suppose it covers the spectrum. I know the year end of the government. Members opposite don't seem - or there have been times in history when members opposite have not recognised when the year end came, because they've not brought in a budget before the year end dealing with the next year. Some of the members sitting on the front bench there had no concept of the year end of the Province.

I'm telling them, Mr. Speaker, that I know when the year end of the Province comes, I know that. But I have no concept at all of when the year end of Fortis Trust is.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, if ever I heard a joke it was just then by the Minister of Finance, accusing us of not knowing when the fiscal year was. This is from the same minister and the same government that ever since it's been in power brought in two budgets every year for the last four or five years. Who can tell when the fiscal year is? He doesn't know.

That's all irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there is a point here of serious difference. Because there is suspicion. The minister may say it wasn't done in consultation -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister knows.

MR. SIMMS: - with Fortis Trust or anything, but - perhaps the minister doesn't know.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he knows.

MR. SIMMS: Perhaps he doesn't know if there was any consultation with anybody in Fortis Incorporated, Fortis Trust.

AN HON. MEMBER: No idea.

MR. SIMMS: He has no idea. Now. He just said it there. He has no idea. We have been hearing all kinds of rumours that may be there was consultation with some members of the government, some members of the Cabinet. That is the reason why there's been such a fuss on this piece of legislation. Because for the life of us we cannot see why the government is so hell-bent and determined to bring in this change in this piece of legislation which will benefit only at the moment, one company, Fortis Trust, Fortis Incorporated, which will be the company ultimately benefitting, so we have trouble understanding that to begin with, but then, when you look at the piece of legislation and you see that it is retroactive to last year, October 31, November 1, effective and if their fiscal year is November or is December, then they are going to get the benefit last year as well as in this year also. We have every reason to be suspicious.

Now, let me make a suggestion to the Minister of Finance, who would clear it up very quickly because, while he says that this is, you know, a piece of legislation that was brought in last year and died on the Order Paper - there have been lots of legislation over the years die on the Order Paper in the Fall, and when it is reintroduced in the Spring session or the new session of the Legislature later on, March, April, May or whenever, it is not all retroactive to last Fall because the bill was brought in last Fall. Now the minister knows better than that; that is a kind of a weak defence, so, there is no reason in our minds for this bill to be retroactive to November 1st, but since we have it this far in the process, why does he not just clear it all up and say that the act shall be considered to come into force on, let us say June 1, of this year, if he follows what I am saying? In other words, make it current not retroactive, because that suspicion will be there, that it is a little favour being done for some company, only one company in this case as the minister himself has admitted, who would benefit as far as he knows who would benefit, so why should we not be suspicious, why should we not ask the questions, why this legislation, this bill, this new bill, this is a new bill, this is not last year's bill, it is a new bill so why is this new bill retroactive to last November?

Simply because he had a bill similar to it last November does not mean it should be retroactive, so make it effective June 1 of this year, which is a reasonable time, a current period and then there will be no more argument on the thing. I mean, we have argued all we can and said all we can say without repeating ourselves, but if we could only get an answer from the minister, I asked the Premier in Question Period today, I asked him why it was retroactive and he tried to argue it and defend it until ultimately, the final time I asked the Premier a question, he referred to the Minister of Finance, so the Minister of Finance got up and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You can answer it. You have not been able to answer, you cannot answer, that is the problem, so - my friend here has been trying desperately to get a word in. My friend is repeating what I am saying: why are we making it retroactive to give them $150,000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No. - $150,000 last year as well as giving them another $150,000 this year, that is what it amounts to, a $300,000 tax break, so I say to the minister, we have every reason to be suspicious about this. The people of the Province have every reason to be suspicious about this because we have not been given a satisfactory answer to our question: why is it retroactive? If you want to change it to June 1, then we can do that and agree to it and get on with it, I will move an amendment if the minister wants to or he can move it himself.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can accept the fact, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition said that they are confused over there. I can also accept the fact as he stated, that they are very suspicious. I can understand the suspicion because, in the absence of knowledge there is always suspicion, Mr. Chairman. In the absence of knowledge there is always suspicion, in the absence of understanding, there is always suspicion.

Mr. Chairman, what we are doing here, is, correcting an inequity and the members make the point that I had said in the Fall, I had said last December that as far as I knew, there was only one company in existence right now which fits that category we are talking about. Now, Mr. Chairman, nothing could make the point better than that fact. The point is, that it is under our tax system because of an inequity that was there and it was never intended to be there, but an inequity that is there. It is impossible for small trust companies to start and develop because our tax system had an effective level of forty to fifty times more than we taxed the large companies. So, we are saying: no, let us treat the smaller companies on the same basis as the larger companies and allow small companies to be able to get into business and grow - small trust companies. So, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to correct that. This is not a tax break, it is a recognition of the fact that we as a government, and the previous government who was part of this and so on and still existed under that legislation, that governments have put a tremendous roadblock in the way of development of small trust companies. It so happens that Fortis Trust is the only one that I know of. There may be some others out there who have tried to come into existence over the last number of years or that actually exists but I only know of one, Fortis Trust, and that has become the topic of a lot of discussion over the last six months here. Nothing could make the point better, that it is impossible for small trust companies to develop and grow in this Province because the large trust companies have a monopoly - because of our tax system, we have given them a monopoly and we want to take that monopoly away to allow the smaller companies to grow. Now, that is the essence of this Bill. It is not what company benefits now - obviously there is a company that benefits now. If there have been other companies that have started up in the last while that I do not know about, they will benefit as well because - and maybe they have because the notice had been given of this legislation in the Fall. Our intentions were expressed very clearly in the Fall, we did not try to hide anything, we are quite open about it and, Mr. Chairman, this particular bill died on the Order Paper in the Fall.

The Leader of the Opposition makes the point: well that is normal. Lots of bills die on the Order Paper and so on. Mr. Chairman, it is not normal for this government. It was normal. I can remember one instance in a Fall sitting when members opposite were sitting on the government side and there were thirty or forty pieces of legislation sitting on the Order Paper and they all died. Not one single one got through in the Fall sitting because they were taking such a hammering in question period that they decided to close the House and never hold a Fall sitting again. About forty pieces of legislation died on the Order Paper that Fall because the Premier of the day got upset because of the hammering that we were giving them in question period.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is normal for members opposite to leave dozens, twenty, thirty, forty pieces of legislation on the Order Paper and let them die because they wanted to scurry out of the Legislature with their tail between their legs. They wanted to get out of here because of the vicious hammering that they were taking during question period. So, Mr. Chairman, it was normal than for legislation to die but it is not normal now. There are a couple of pieces that we normally leave on the Order Paper to pick up again. I believe this was because of a deal between the House leaders that this particular piece of legislation was left on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do is correct an inequity in the system. Members opposite can get up and rant and rave and play all the politics they want with it but the fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that we must correct this inequity. We are determined not to hide from this, we are determined to go ahead with it and I guess that is all I can say to the Leader of the Opposition.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I have to say to the Minister of Finance, I do not know where his backbone is but he does not seem to be very enthused about this particular piece of legislation. He seems to be letting himself be pushed around by the Premier and the Minister of Justice. They must be ramming it down his throat, that is the only answer I can give. He has turned into a bit of a jellyfish over there, no backbone at all. I cannot understand what is wrong with him or what is happening to him. It is very weak defence, very, very weak defence. Oh, back five years ago there were bills left -I mean all of that stuff has nothing to do with the question that I have been asking. Why is it retroactive? A very simple question but I cannot get the answer. He talks about: we are doing this to correct an inequity, to correct a mistake. Yet in question period the Premier says: we are doing it because it is a new initiative of this government to try to encourage investment. It is not a mistake, it is not an inequity, it is a new initiative by the government to try to encourage small trust companies and other businesses to come to Newfoundland and Labrador.

DR. KITCHEN: You are against it.

MR. SIMMS: I am not against it. I say to the Minister of Health that I am not against it. I am very strongly supportive of it. I say to the Minister of Health that I support that initiative to encourage investment and if that is the reason, why is it retroactive to last October? That is my question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Yes, to encourage them retroactively to last October. Now, even the Minister of Health can see through this one. There is something - what is that saying about the state of Denmark?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is something rotten.

MR. SIMMS: Something rotten, yes. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark. I was going to say something fishy in the state of Denmark.

Mr. Chairman, I guess we are at the stage in the debate where there is not much left for us to do. If the minister and the government refuses to answer our very clear question about retroactivity what else can we do? We can try to stymie the debate, carry on discussion in the committee stage, try to keep the House going until July or August. You can try all that stuff. We did it in December successfully. In fact the government backed down and withdrew the bill. There is not much else we can do about it at this stage except maybe move an amendment and hope that the government will see fit to acknowledge the point we are making, support the amendment, and clear this whole matter up right away because I can assure the Minister of Finance that he is going to get the same questions outside the House from the press and from the media, that very specific question. They are going to say, Mr. Minister: if it is your intent to make this change in order to encourage investment to come to this Province from here on in, why do you need to make it retroactive to last October if it is not to benefit Fortis Trust? That is the question the minister is going to have to answer outside the House. I feel very certain that the press are going to ask that question and I hope they have much better success than I did in Question Period today, and we did as a party in debate on this Bill.

I am going to try and plead with the minister's conscience, make one last attempt, by moving an amendment, which I am assured by the clerk of the House is perfectly in order. I do not think the Chair will have to retire or anything, but he may wish to. The amendment will be to move that Section 2 of the act be deleted. I think that is the right word I say to the clerk, be deleted, and replaced with the following words, (2): this act shall be considered to have come into force on June 1, 1993 but shall not apply to a corporation until the beginning of its next fiscal year after May 31, 1993. Mr. Chairman, do I need a seconder for that in committee?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I second it, if you do.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I so move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the House ready for the amendment?

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on this amendment. I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition and the other members of the Opposition have against Newfoundland headquartered companies growing. In this Province we need desperately pools of capital to develop our industries and one of the main problems we have had over the years, and we all know we have had them, the basic decisions of lending in this Province are not made in Newfoundland, they are made in the corporate headquarters of the banks and the trust companies which are in Toronto, Montreal, and sometimes Halifax. They are not made here.

What we are trying to do is to establish local trust companies that will grow where the decision making power in that trust company is in this Province, so that when companies go looking for loans, mortgages, or whatever, they will be dealing with a trust company, a financial institution, that understands the Province intimately, unlike the bankers sometimes in Toronto or the trust companies in Toronto, Montreal and Halifax. What we need in this Province are financial institutions that understand this Province, that are of this Province, and that is the key point, I believe, that the hon. members opposite are missing. Perhaps there may be some connection between the members opposite and some of the mainland banks, I do not know.

Looking at the last leadership convention in Ottawa recently you really wonder where the connections are. What connections do they have? I believe what we should do in this Province is develop our local companies because we must have pools of capital. Just as we gave the guarantee to credit unions so that they can develop, we also must help local trust companies be able to guarantee their deposits, which is what this thing does, thereby enabling them to attract deposits from people in this Province at rates that are comparable to what is being paid by others, and to develop good, profitable financial corporations that can help the other corporations and the other parts of this Province develop.

That's been a weakness in this Province going back for centuries. We've never had the capital in this Province to develop. We're trying to establish the means by which this Province can develop pools of capital, so that they won't have to develop on the whimsical decisions of ACOA, or even on our own Enterprise Newfoundland. These are good things too, but we must go beyond depending on governments. One of the members opposite spoke this morning about government guarantees, about loan guarantees. That's not a very good way to go. Because if a company goes for a loan guarantee they have to pay interest at high rates. Very often, what's happening here, is that when you get loans that are guaranteed, the companies very often have a great difficulty going ahead.

What we have to have in this Province are large pools of capital that can be lent, that can be invested. This Bill is a way. Now, the reason this Bill is necessary: the details of the Bill are quite clear. What has been happening is that in order to get the guarantee - all trust companies in Canada are regulated by the Canadian Deposit Guarantee Corporation. They're regulated in Ottawa. They're not regulated in Newfoundland, they're regulated in Ottawa. Because they're regulated there - we in this Province don't guarantee the deposits of trust companies because we don't control them. We have some control over credit unions. We monitor credit unions in this Province and therefore we have some confidence in giving guarantees to credit unions.

We don't have the same control over trust companies and banks, because that is a federal responsibility. So we cannot guarantee deposits through trust companies. What we can do is make the playing field level. In order to develop a trust company in this Province, or anywhere else in Canada, that will carry the guarantee that the deposit corporation gives, it must have a paid up capital of $5 million.

A trust company starting off doesn't need to have $5 million in capital. In these particular cases, in order to be a trust company, you have to have $5 million in capital.

The banks, the large trust companies on mainland Canada, have many millions of dollars of capital. Because they're so huge. Then they run afoul with respect to our own capital tax. Our capital tax is I believe 3 per cent on the paid up capital. Three per cent on the paid up capital for a bank is very little, because all that's taxed is the amount of capital that's proportionate to this Province, not on their total paid up capital. So when we levy 3 per cent on capital it's not 3 per cent on the Bank of Montreal's capital, it's only 3 per cent on that proportion which they have in the Province, which is relatively small - and similarly, with respect to trust companies.

But when we levy 3 per cent on a small company which is forced to have $5 million capital which they don't really need, because they're starting off, we tax them $150,000 right off the bat. That cuts into the possibility of their being able to exist. For that reason we want to provide a cushion so that they can go up to $10 million capital before the tax cuts in. We believe that's a very fair way of handling it and that is why the Bill has been brought in. We have been trying to bring it in for a number of years, but finally the Minister of Finance very courageously brought this Bill before the House. After having had it deferred at the last session, he is now bringing it forward again, and I give him great credit for it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, Clause 1 carried.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to join in the debate this morning because I have heard a lot of commentary from the Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Finance, and the Premier, talking about the development of pools of capital and business in this Province. Well here we have a situation where this business we are talking about promoting and developing was already set up. It was already here - nothing designed to encourage this business to be set up. It was already here. They knew the rules. I am sure they have the ability. They have the legal advice. They have the financial knowledge.

They are doing so well with Newfoundland Light that they decided to create Fortis, a reverse buy out, takeover, upside down finagle to the Public Utilities Board, without the knowledge of the Public Utilities Board, without the consent of the Public Utilities Board, without the consent of the Legislature or the people of Newfoundland. They did this reverse takeover, sold all the shares of Newfoundland Light to a company they created, Fortis Inc., which was not controlled, whereas Newfoundland Light was, and so the cash cow, Newfoundland Light, pouring money into Fortis Inc., at a guaranteed rate of investment, to create a business to make more money, which is all very well. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with them making money.

What do we do? They decide they want to set up a trust company. Well that is all well and good. They set up a trust company, and I am sure they read the Financial Corporations Tax Act. I am sure they read the rules and regulations. I am sure they read the trust rules and regulations. They spent two or three years doing it. They set up a trust company, and now it is here. We are still getting this explanation that they have to have $5 million set aside with which they are doing nothing.

Mr. Chairman, we have not seen any evidence of that. We have not seen any of the rules about that. That money is all available, is placed in capital producing, or interest producing deposits. It is available to them. They may have to pay tax on it, but they also claim interest and they also get interest earned on that money that may be in reserve, but it is a different form. Monies not out in mortgages is in some other form of treasury bills or something else.

To suggest that this is designed to encourage further development of capital pools is ridiculous, because we have not seen any evidence of anybody whatsoever, any other company, any other bodies interested in this kinds of development. This is a one company arrangement here that is being provided to benefit solely Fortis Trust, and that is what is wrong with it.

They may as well have called it the Fortis bill. If they wanted to just do this to come clean on it, they would have called it the Fortis Trust bill, the Fortis Trust legislation. It is designed to assist this particular company, because we do not have any other companies that qualify, or any indication that any other companies or bodies are interested in this kind of business.

If the government was truly interested in developing these kinds of financial vehicles, we would see some action in the areas such as the Province of Quebec has set up, and some other provinces are looking at the solidarity type funds, the labour sponsored venture capital funds. We have not seen that here yet.

We have yet to see any special arrangements made to ensure that the pension funds of this Province are reinvested here. We have not seen that yet. I know that the former Minister of Finance was interested in that, and I have had a couple of discussions with him about that over the last couple of years, but we have not seen any action on that. What we have seen is two attempts, taking up a lot of House time because of the nature of the matters, to deal with one special piece of legislation for one company.

So where are the plans? Where are the initiatives in the area of maintaining or keeping the capital pools that we do have, the pension funds, the Memorial University pension fund, the public service pension fund, the union pension funds, many of which are invested outside this Province, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Kilbride well knows that the pension funds that the construction unions have developed over the years for their members, most of them, or many of them, are even managed outside the Province, let alone invested outside the Province. They're managed outside. They're managed in Toronto, in Nova Scotia. They're invested outside the Province. In fact, they're controlled in many cases outside the Province.

So we have no efforts and no initiatives to try and encourage these pension funds to be invested here in this Province for the benefit of our labour force, for the benefit of our people, for the benefit of our businesses. We don't see anything like that. Why not? When are we going to see it? When are we going to hear in this House something positive that's designed to encourage these pension funds to invest their monies, their capital, the savings of Newfoundlanders for their retirement, into this Province instead of having it out in the world market or invested on the Toronto stock exchange, or invested in real estate in downtown Toronto or New York or wherever it's invested?

I'm not saying that all pension funds or all monies, all savings, the savings of the Member for Port de Grave, that it all should be invested in Newfoundland. But it should be designed to encourage these pension funds - in particular the pension funds - to maintain their capital pools and investment in this Province.

That can be done through tax incentives to individuals, it can be done through government facilitating the rules for that, but we don't see any of that. All we see are specific one-shot deals in this case to look after Fortis Trust. It's not presented as part of an overall scheme. Presented in fact in a very devious way. Yet, still yesterday, members such as the Member for St. John's South, getting up in this House and pretending that he's read through the Act. He didn't see Fortis named anywhere in this Act. He didn't see any specific mention of Fortis Trust. Trying to pretend to the people of this Province that you can fool them by passing a piece of legislation and not mentioning the one company that's affected by it, that's going to get $300,000 from the people of Newfoundland when this Bill is passed today, $300,000! Not $150,000, but $300,000 to cover last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: November 1, 1992 to November 1, 1993.

MR. HARRIS: To cover last year and this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not $300,000.

MR. HARRIS: That's going to be $150,000 for each and every year to come. We have seen people getting up in this House - government back benchers getting up in this House - trying to keep up the pretence that this is a piece of legislation designed for the overall benefit of all small trust companies in Newfoundland, as if there were a number of them in this Province. When we all know that there's only one trust company affected and this is done at the request of this particular company.

I find it distasteful to continue to hear references to this overall plan and scheme when we all know what it's designed for and what it's done to help. And when we hear this same government, with the kind of attitude that's expressed in its attempts to collect from this woman that the Member for Humber Valley raised today, $629.17 for twenty years ago. Somebody may have - and we don't know even whether they did - but they're now claiming an overpayment from 1973. It's a wonder they haven't tacked interest on it for twenty years and had it up to $3,000.

MR. WOODFORD: Living alone, blind, (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: A widow woman, Mr. Speaker, living alone, unable to see, being attacked by this government to the tune of $629 for something that was a mistake that was made by the government twenty years ago. Surely, surely there is something wrong with a government who with one hand is lashing out $150,000 to one of the wealthiest companies in Canada, and on the other hand is seeking to deprive a senior citizen of the amount of $620 for something that was a mistake that government made over twenty years ago.

You know we hear all the time from this government, day after day, week after week, every time an issue comes up with the people of Newfoundland: just cannot afford it, we just cannot afford to meet every need that comes by. The Premier gets up and he pontificates about how we, the people of Newfoundland, the taxpayers, just cannot afford it, but, Mr. Chairman, if we cannot afford it, we cannot afford to subsidize Fortis Trust. We should be able to forgive an error that government made twenty years ago for a poor senior citizen, we should be able to forgive that, but no.

The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture wants to talk about the dairy industry. Well, he is lucky, Mr. Chairman, that this House is closing today because we could have a discussion about the dairy industry in this Province that would go on for several weeks, and a lot of information would come out in this House about the dairy industry in this Province and the efforts that the government has not made to support the dairy industry, and the actions of the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture in destroying that industry.

He wants to double the amount of imported products into this Province, he wants to double the amount of imported butterfat and imported milk products to this Province at the expense of the growth of the dairy industry, instead of working on a plan to make sure that the six employees, some of whom are active in the reconstituted milk part of the business and the others who are active in the fluid milk part of the business, and all of them could be easily looked after, Mr. Chairman, but instead, no, no, we are going to make everybody pay in that situation, meanwhile we will go out and we will attack this poor woman in Western Newfoundland for a mistake that government made twenty years ago to the tune of $629.

That is the kind of government that we have, Mr. Chairman, insensitive to the real needs of people but quite sensitive, quite responsive to the request of companies such as Fortis Trust to have the rules changed to suit them because they have the influence, they have the power, they have the access to the seat of government, they have the access to the Ministers of the Crown, they have the access to the power and to the government and they -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I say to the Member for Port de Grave, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the people's House goes on to record the statements of hon. members about issues of the day. We have a large number of young people in the House today listening to the issues that are before the House today and these young people, they missed Question Period, when the Member for Humber Valley was asking about a mistake that the Department of Social Services made twenty years ago, twenty years ago, and now are asking a sixty-five-year-old woman to repay to the government $629 that was, they say, overpaid to her husband twenty years ago. The man is dead for six years and they are now asking his widow who lives alone, who is blind and who cannot understand why the government is hounding her and at the same time today, in this House we are being asked to pass a piece of legislation that gives a $150,000 a year break to a friend of the government, Fortis Trust, the company who gathers together all the money that they make from electricity.

Every person in this Province is contributing to the wealth of Fortis Trust through Newfoundland Light and Power. All of this capital is gathered together and now they have a trust company. Well, that is all very well, they have a trust company and they should play by the rules. If they wanted to see this changed as an incentive for them to get into business, well than they should have proposed it a few years ago. They were planning to do it but they could not do it unless they had a level playing field or some special rules in place. Then you could say yes, it is an incentive but this company decided to go ahead and establish knowing what the rules were. Maybe they knew something that we did not, Mr. Chairman, maybe they knew that they could get the rules changed to suit them by coming to this House and coming to the government and saying: well, they are the friends of Fortis and we can expect them to change the rules to suit us. That is what we are dealing with here this morning, Mr. Chairman. I understand that the Opposition Leader has an amendment to make. I do not know if it has been made yet or not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It has been made. Well I certainly support that amendment, Mr. Chairman, at the very least. I would rather prefer the amendment that the Member for St. John's South seemed to be interested in - in treating the legislation as one to encourage the development of small trust companies by excluding the operation of this act from Fortis Trust and that all new trust companies benefit from this legislation but if it is really designed to assist small trust companies and encourage new trust companies to come to Newfoundland, well then let them encourage new trust companies. We already have one new trust company and let them encourage others by excluding Fortis Trust. That is not a bad idea and I expect that the Member for St. John's South in this committee, will move that amendment once we have dealt with the amendment of the Member for Grand Falls, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

So, we have two amendments to deal with; the Member for Grand Falls amendment and the Member for St. John's amendment, to exclude Fortis Trust from the application of this Bill so that the true intention will be recognized that this is designed to encourage new trust companies to come to Newfoundland. That is the kind of thing that the government is into, they always have two sets of rules. For example with Workers' Compensation, we have one rule for people who are on before January 1st, 1993, we have another rule for people who are on after January 1st, 1993. The people who are on after January 1st, 1993, will get less from Workers' Compensation, the ones before that will get more. There is no reason why we cannot have the same rule apply to Fortis Trust and to the other trust companies. Any new trust companies who come on will get the benefit of this rule, any existing ones will have to live by the rules that were in effect when they started their businesses. They knew what the rules were, they knew what the tax regime was and they set up, so let them live by the rules that were in existence.

If the Member for St. John's South is right and this is designed to encourage new businesses that would not otherwise be here, well then let it apply to all the new ones. Let the people who are in business under the rules, live by the rules that they went into business under, the same way as Workers' Compensation, the same way as the government has decided to make new rules for new people who are injured in the workforce today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: There is nothing wrong with two rules, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I will have another chance when the Member for St. John's South moves his amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are dealing with Clause 2 and in Clause 2 there is an amendment, shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Division! Ring the bells.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order by the hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. SIMMS: What exactly is going on here now? There was a vote -

AN HON. MEMBER: We are calling for division.

MR. SIMMS: Are you the Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: There was a vote called on the amendment, the vote passed unanimously, in fact. There wasn't a `nay' vote cast. Three or four, ten seconds later, one member stands up and calls for division. That's not the appropriate -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. -

MR. SIMMS: That's not the appropriate procedure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is not the appropriate procedure, Mr. Chairman. Clearly the amendment was carried. There's no question about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: So I mean, this is going to be nothing other than a charade by the government side, which has lost a vote, or else they supported the amendment. I thought they supported the amendment, and that was the reason why there was no reaction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SIMMS: Well, there was no vote. You can't call division five minutes after the bells are ringing. Mr. Chairman, I think that this matter should be considered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair has called for division.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The House has called for division.

MR. SIMMS: But they didn't. They didn't use the proper procedure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There were several members standing over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: One person over there then stood, one member only.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. The vote that was taken, the Chairman of the Committee called for all those in favour of the amendment, and there was quite a number of people who said `aye', and asked for the `nays', and there was not one single member said `nay'. So the vote was carried unanimously. The purpose of a division is to determine whether or not the voice vote, and the Chair's calling of the voice vote, is accurate, when there's some confusion about whether or not there are `ayes' or `nays', or what the number of them are.

In this case there is no confusion. None whatsoever. There was not one single dissenting vote to the unanimous support of that amendment. I think, Mr. Chairman, you have to make a ruling as to whether or not a division is possible when there's been a unanimous voice vote. There was an unanimous -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Not one single dissenting vote. The Chair called for the `ayes' and heard it, and called for the `nays' and there was not one single `nay'!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: That's the first point, Mr. Chairman, on the point of order. That it's not even possible to have a division when there's been not one single dissenting vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: And secondly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair has asked for order so that the hon. member can present his point of order, please.

MR. HARRIS: Secondly, Mr. Chairman, when the division was called for - and that's the important time - when division was called and asked for, there was only member standing. The Minister of Health stood in his place and said: division. There was not one other member standing when division was called for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Therefore a division is - for those two reasons - Number one, there were no dissenting votes to count; number two, there was no proper division called for in any event. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Chair to make the ruling on both of those points.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on the point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Further to that point. I don't want to reiterate what's already been said by the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for St. John's East, but they are so correct. There was not a sound when the Chair asked for those against the amendment - not a sound. I would suggest to the Chair that you listen to the tape. That you recess and you listen to the tape. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it was the quietest time that I've seen this Legislature since I've been here when Your Honour asked for the `nays'. There was not a sound.

The other point I want to make is yes, there was one person who rose in his place, the Minister of Health, to ask for a division. When everyone else realized that they had been caught, there were other members on their feet, but they were not even in their own places. They were scrambling to their seats when the Minister of Health asked for division. Those members who were on their feet were making their way to their seats. They were not in their proper places.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Member for Eagle River is one of the guilty ones, I say to him. He's one of the guilty ones.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Rushing across the House!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So, Mr. Chairman, there's one way to resolve this. There's one way to resolve it. It's very obvious that the amendment has been upheld, it's been carried. There's one way to resolve it, to prevent a kerfuffle here this morning, and that is for Your Honour to recess and go listen to the tape. You will not hear one `nay' vote, not one.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, sixth edition, page 231, paragraph 815(1), which deals with divisions in Committee. It indicates that any member of a committee - and this is just to deal with one point that members opposite -: "Any member of a committee may ask the Chairman for a recorded division either before the question is put or following a division by a show of hands."

The argument they're making that only one stood up properly, if in fact that happened, is not valid. Because it says: "Any member of a committee may ask the Chairman for a recorded division either before the question is put or following a division by a show of hands." So I'd refer Your Honour then -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I'll read it again for the Leader of the Opposition who has difficulty understanding the English language. It says: "Any member of a committee may ask the Chairman for a recorded division either" - the operative work is either - "before the question is put or following a division by a show of hands." So it only takes one request, Mr. Chairman, one individual, to ask for a division.

However, Mr. Chairman, I should point out to Your Honour -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: I should point to Your Honour that it's very easy for members opposite to say that there was only one person that called for division. If Your Honour saw other people standing, if it was obvious that a division was called for, then Your Honour's decision will stand, of course. There's no recording in House proceedings as to how many members are standing, or where they're standing, or whether they're in their proper place, or whether they're five inches beyond their proper place, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to simply refer that reference to Your Honour for consideration.

I think it was obvious that the intent of members on this side was to have a division call. The purpose of a division call is to counteract the possibility where a few members, a minority of members, shout an answer, a response, and the majority of members simply indicate a response. The volume of sound in terms of a vote may go one way, whereas in actual fact the numbers of the vote may go another way. That's the purpose of calling for division and it must be that way to avoid chaos in the House. Because if it were not that way then members would always be shouting and screaming as loudly as possible, and this would become a contest not in exercise of legislative authority, but it would become a contest in who could shout loudest.

Mr. Chairman, I put to Your Honour that for the proper functioning of this House we should proceed with the division.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, there are two things here I want to point out. The reference that the Minister of Finance just passed on to Your Honour talks about committees that sit in committee rooms in the House of Commons and outside the House of Commons (inaudible). That's the reference he's talking about when he's talking about paragraphs 812, 813, 814 and 815. So that is an absolute silly kind of reference to put to the Chairman. It is not even relevant. We are talking about debate in Committee of the Whole in this Legislature, by precedent, by Standing Orders, and by rules, and the rules are clear, as they have been in the past. The other thing I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister of Justice, who has declared in this particular case that he has a conflict of interest, still communicated with the Minister of Finance, sending up a note to him on how to deal with this matter and how to deal with the debate on this particular point of order. Now, there is something wrong with that. That surely is not proper either, so we are all going to play this properly ,and if we are not going to play it properly I suggest and recommend strongly to Your Honour that you recess for a few minutes, listen to the tape of the proceedings, you look at the rules and the precedence that we followed in the past. In this instance they were caught with their parliamentary pants down once more. They were caught asleep and they did not know what had happened to them. Now, that is exactly what happened to them and the amendment was carried. In my view it was an excellent amendment anyway.

I thought the Minister of Finance had agreed to accept it and that is the reason why there was no vote against the amendment. I suggest to Your Honour that would probably be the wise way to proceed here and I think when you do that you will find very clearly that the government lost the amendment. We won the vote on the amendment and we should get on with the next item of business.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Just to add to what my friend the Leader of the Opposition said, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, as we know, without any question, the Standing Orders of this House govern. Only when there is no Standing Order to cover a particular question do we then refer to Beauchesne or to anything else. I refer, Your Honour, to Standing Order 82 (e) which clearly states the same procedure for a division in the House shall be followed in the Committee of the Whole. I tell, Your Honour, we are in the Committee of the Whole. Our Standing Orders are very, very, clear. Tradition and precedence in this House is very, very, clear, so are the rules we must follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have all weekend. I am in no hurry to get out of here. Let me repeat. Standing Order 82 (e) is very clear, that the same rules of procedure for division in the House shall be used in Committee of the Whole. Now, for the hon. Minister of Finance to stand up and refer to some obscure section of Beauchesne that refers to committees outside the House of Assembly is utter foolishness. It is very, very, clear. Standing Order 82 (d) says, 'the Yeas and Nays shall not be entered upon the Minutes unless demanded by three Members." Clearly there were not three members standing - and the bells shall ring for not more than ten minutes, Mr. Chairman. It is very clear there were not three members standing. The point my friend for St. John's East made is also a very valid point. How can you have a division when there was no dispute? It was unanimous in the House, Mr. Speaker. The verbal vote was unanimous. How can you divide something that is unanimous? The point is that we certainly do follow the rules that are applied in the House. The point brought up by the Minister of Finance is nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If there are no further submissions the Chair would like to recess for awhile and deal with this matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by hon. members, that the division was not in order. Re the call by the members for division on the vote, the Chair has reviewed the tapes and from that review the Chair clearly put the amendment and asked for the `ayes' and then there was a pause and then the call for the 'nay' vote, there was another short pause and then the Chair declared that the amendment was carried. Immediately following that call, there was a call for Division from several members on the government side, the tape clearly indicates that and then the Chair asked for the bells to ring and called Division. The precedent of course in this House, as the hon. Member for St. John's East, raised a point concerning the fact that there was unanimous consent, but the precedent in this House, on several occasions particularly on the Private Members Bills, where it had appeared that the voice vote was unanimous, there were calls for Division, so clearly, a call for Division following any voice vote is in order and the Chair declares that Division is in order and the Chair calls for a Division. Ring the bells.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the House ready for the vote?

All those in favour of the amendment, please rise:

Mr. Matthews, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Windsor, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Careen, Mr. Harris.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those against the amendment, please rise:

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture (Mr. Flight).

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister of Social Services was not in his place, Mr. Chairman, when the question was put.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister of Social Services cannot (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

All those against the motion, please rise:

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture (Mr. Flight), The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation (Mr. Effort), The hon. the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Lush), The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs (Mr. Reid), The hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Baker), The hon. the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Carter), Mr. Barrett, Mr. Murphy, The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy (Dr. Gibbons), The hon. the Minister of Health (Mr. Decker), The hon. the Minister of Tourism and Culture (Mr. Walsh), The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands (Ms. Cowan), Mr. Noel, Mr. Tulk, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Penney, Mr. K. Aylward, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Dumaresque, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Whelan, Mr. Smith, Mr. Matthews, Dr. Hulan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

CLERK (Mr. Noel): Chairperson, nine in favour of the motion and twenty-five against the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair declares the amendment defeated.

MR. WINDSOR: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, on a point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, not to delay the issue, I do not wish to belay the point, I simply want to clarify the point that when the question was put, the Minister of Social Services was not in his place, he was standing behind Your Honour. Standing Order, 82 (c), clearly states: "No member shall be entitled to vote in any division unless he was in his place when the question was put." The member was not entitled to vote. I simply want that recorded for the record, Mr. Chairman, so that we do not sleep on our rights on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

My understanding is that when the vote was put, the hon. member was not in his place, is that what -

MR. WINDSOR: He was behind Your Honour putting your Hansard back on your desk.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? He was here when the vote was called.

MR. WINDSOR: No he was not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. LUSH: Your Honour, I was returning a document to the table and to the Chair and just as I put the book on the Chair I think they called for the vote. If that is against the rules - my understanding is that if a member is inside the Bar of the House, is inside the Bar, he is not permitted but if that is so I am not going to - I will have my name wiped from the vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I would not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 21 carried without amendments and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that it has considered the matters to it referred and has directed him to report Bill No. 21, carried without amendment. When shall the report be received?

MR. ROBERTS: Now, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we call third reading, just to ensure that childishness does not take over from common sense, I move that the House do not adjourn at noon.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Government House Leader could repeat that? You want to put the motion to adjourn -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do not adjourn at noon.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, do not adjourn, I am sorry, okay.

The motion is that the House do not adjourn at noon.

All those in favour of the motion, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

I say with caution, the vote carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 21.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Corporations Capital Tax Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 21).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1, which is the Budget Debate, I understand that my friend for Placentia wishes to speak and we will gladly listen to him. I understand there will be no other speakers but that is up to members who have not spoken yet. Could we call Motion 1, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, before calling Motion 1, I would like to welcome to the public gallery thirty-five students from Holy Redeemer School, Spaniards Bay. I believe they are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. John Drover and Ms. Jeannette Pottier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Motion 1.

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been here for this past number of days and while there is sort of a honeymoon going on, I was a bit sidetracked -

AN HON. MEMBER: A honeymoon?

MR. CAREEN: Yes, a honeymoon. Some people on a honeymoon tend to forget some of the other aspects that are going on. Today it came jumping back, the reason why I ran in Placentia and the reason why the people of Placentia District put in a PC.

Mr. Speaker, I am both proud and humbled to be able to take part in the session here. My great-great-grandfather in 1857, John English, was elected to the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, and he had something in common with my little friend for St. Mary's - The Capes, because we share a common ancestry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Little?

MR. CAREEN: Yes, little. Compared to me you're little. This House is our house. It's the seat of democracy in this Province. It's too bad other people who live within our districts cannot for a short period of time at least partake in what we go through here, right or wrong or luke-warm, or whatever we try to do on times.

Today I will talk about my home. Not the home I was born in, in Point Lance, St. Mary's Bay, or the one I was raised in in Placentia when we moved there in 1951. Nor the residence I maintain in Jerseyside since I got married some twenty-odd years ago. My home now is the district of Placentia, the area between Southern Harbour and Point Verde.

I would like to extend congratulations, before I proceed, to all members who were elected and re-elected. To the Premier: a large responsibility has been put back on his shoulders. I will ask him to temper decisions with compassion, because we find ourselves in a bad position. To the Leader of the NDP: while his numbers are not the same as others, he shares a great responsibility. To the Leader of the Opposition, the man from Grand Falls, who has been a great coach to me since I came here, and a great support.

I would like to extend a sincere thank you to the supporters, the dedicated volunteers who helped me get elected in the district of Placentia. You can't pay volunteers, you can't pay people who come in 9:00 p.m. and have to driven home 12:00 a.m. or 1:00 a.m. in the morning to get rest. They can never be replaced. I would like to extend congratulations to the workers of the other candidates in our district who tried to get their candidates elected.

Time is going on. It's not my intention to keep anybody long. Our area -

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't be here long.

MR. CAREEN: No? You'll be back here in October and you'll see me, mister. I'll be like General MacArthur and I shall return.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Our area over the years has had numerous setbacks, but for decades before that they had contributed very much to the Newfoundland economy. What with the base at Argentia for instance, where people from all over the Avalon had to work there, or people from other parts of the Province. Since the late 'sixties and early 'seventies, with the phase down of Argentia, we find ourselves in a bad light. The present provincial Minister of Fisheries was on our side then and the Member for St. john's West knew what we were going through. We have not recovered. Now we're facing a closure in Argentia in October of 1994 that will put 265 people out of work, which will take $7.5 million in salaries alone from the area economy. That does not include small contractors that constantly work there. With the federal and provincial governments there are teams of people working together to rectify some of those matters.

Long Harbour and Mount Arlington Heights. My friends have not recovered either. At the present time the company Albright and Wilson is looking at containment. Containment to me, sirs, at this times, is not good enough. The only thing I will say here is that Albright and Wilson should be contained to do the job properly, and the clean up that should be done down there in Long Harbour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: I had the privilege of sailing around this Island lots of times. I was fifteen years with CN in the marine services. I've seen a good many portions of this Island and I can respect members opposite or on this side when they talk about their different areas. Because I was there. I know. I respected the man - the recent member elected from Torngat when he talked about the things that he felt ashamed of when he was small, and when he grew up and stood on his hind legs to say that what he was he was proud off.

Ladies and gentlemen here and on other parts of this island we have to stand together. I had the occasion of being with the railway for years and when I went ashore I spent thirteen years with the Rural Development Association. The Premier in the opening of this House talked about building blocks, talked about putting blocks one on top of another. Well, we and other development associations have been trying it for years. While you try to get people to work you try to take numerous ideas, twirl them around and try to put shores to support what you are at. Largely the things you find yourself doing are lost when you have five jobs and you get 100 names and the dedicated volunteers and the people they got employed there are just constantly maligned, but that is the territory we are in and you have to keep on going.

I always salute those people of volunteer status. The Community Futures, the Placentia Area Development Association, was largely responsible for gaining access to get community futures into our area. That has taken on a new role and it looks like community futures might be usurping the role of the development associations. Some people out there cannot see the difference but there is a difference. There is a large difference between what a small area development association is doing and what larger community futures groups, largely made up of the same people, are doing. From the development association, community futures, and other groups, we formed the Argentia Development Corporation to take a pro-active stand on Argentia. We have gotten monies to do a study on the assets that are there. There are many ideas being generated at present.

ACOA put in 100 per cent of the funds, $200,000, and there is a mixed team of management from the Province, from the local area and from ACOA, and it is the intention of our area that Argentia, when the Americans leave, should be under local control and management. I say to this hon. House today that I was there when these decisions were made and my place today is no different than it was then, we will have to look after ourselves, and look after ourselves we will. Some ideas we are after are procurements. The Canadian military spend a lot of money still south of the border getting repairs and maintenance to equipment. Nova Scotia's per capita spending by the Department of National Defence far outruns what they spend in Newfoundland, and with the meetings, federal and provincial, we will close the gap on that because Argentia with its facilities can certainly make up for any lack of opportunities that we had before.

They have found out in the United States that when bases close and the people and the governments take a stake, it is always about 85 per cent better than it was with the American forces there. You have all heard it before, across the floor and in the media, that the best port in Newfoundland is in Argentia. It is ice free and being used by a couple of companies and by others on an alternate basis. The Americans came to Argentia because it was the best base and we will use that as the best base to spearhead the economy for Eastern Newfoundland, if done properly by all of us and all our departments. We have to put people to work and wherever they are from they have to benefit. We are not selfish out our way. We are not selfish by any means. It is Newfoundland for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

At this time I would like to extend an invitation to the Premier and his Cabinet to come down to our area for at least one meeting over the Summer and allow some of the groups and individuals to meet him and make briefs on behalf of the people in Argentia, and also the people in Long Harbour or anywhere within the district, and also because it is quite close to my little buddy from St. Mary's - The Capes. I extend an invitation, if you would kindly take us up because we are on hard times and potentially, we are getting on worse times, and it would be a great boost for the prime members of this government to be able to visit our area and share our ideas.

Our area, ladies and gentlemen, you are all familiar with tourism, you are all familiar with the beautiful district we are from, Placentia particularly. I mean when you look at Placentia from the height of Castle Hill, you wonder what God could have done if he had money. There are many things in our history on which to draw. The natural landscape to draw on, the things to improve on. Castle Hill has had some minor improvements since it was done in the mid-70s, and that needs to be further infused with money to develop it properly. Fort Louis at the bottom of the hill, was most important back in the days of the French and English wars, it was 600 feet long, it had twenty-eight guns and that is where the governors, the police and everybody else lived there who had to keep the economy going. We have to improve on all our services.

Ship Harbour, the site of the Atlantic Charter meeting with Roosevelt and Churchill has to be improved. Fitzgerald Park - I was talking to the minister a couple of weeks ago and while the agreement was signed two years ago to have improvements done on Fitzgerald Park, engineering work has been done but site work has yet to be started and it looks like it will not start until next year, which is too bad because the improvements and also the work are desperately needed.

Fisheries, we have plants closed; we had a plant close in Argentia three years ago, because this government would not put $75,000 into one of their own buildings to repair the roof. The Jerseyside plant is closed, the Development Association owned it and a lot of people say Development Association should not be involved in fish plants, but we scrounged money anywhere we could and we never ran the plant and we have tried to lease it to operators to put their best foot forward, but that was not always the case I am sad to say, but there is a freeze on that plant, a freeze sad to say, that is keeping people unemployed who want to go to work with fish leaving our area.

Ladies and gentlemen, this year we will finally see some improvements in health care, in a facility that tenders should be out on shortly in Placentia, for the start of a new hospital up by Lions Manor to replace the hospital built by the Commission of Government years ago. The health care (inaudible) got a big kick in its backside a couple of years ago with the Budget this government brought down, but hopefully, we will see improvement in health care when the two phases are eventually completed to the hospital in Placentia, and I thank the people opposite for that. My friends, I have kept you long and I do not want to share any more of your time, but our area, not unlike most of yours or wherever you sit in this House, are in desperate times, we will have to - the sad part I see about this House, I have friends opposite, I have friends in the back benches of the government offices and I would like to see them, or us, at some time or other, very much involved with committees to improve where we live, to take our place collectively and to work on it or whatever because we see our youths without hope.

We saw a number of weeks ago CBC covered a story in Bonavista when they were talking about the rise in suicides among the youth and we cannot stand for that, mister, none of us. We have no choice. I am a typical Newfoundlander and I have a typical Newfoundland family of four with two away and two home and there are no choices. It is about time that we got together, all of us, to give someone choices.

I thank you for your courtesy. I wish you all, your families and the people within your districts, a safe summer and please God, you will see me back in October. God Bless.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, very briefly. I would like to close off debate on the Budget Motion. It was some time ago that the Budget was introduced into the House and a lot has happened in the meantime.

Mr. Speaker, for two years we have been dealing with some very serious problems in the Province. Leading up to an election, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people thought that what would happen was that we would come in with an election Budget, that we would change our direction, we would change our direction of good, sound, solid management and bring in a different kind of a Budget leading up to an election. As everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, we brought in the Budget, we debated the Budget, we made it clear to everybody in the Province exactly what our intentions were and our intentions were to continue along the same direction that we had set for the Province and to not falsify things by bringing in a Budget that was designed to buy votes.

So, Mr. Speaker, we brought in this Budget, there were reductions in expenditures that had to be made. There were reductions in programs that had to be made and there was $70 million taken out of the overall compensation package for public sector employees. With this on the table, in a very open and straightforward manner, with this on the table, we went to the people of the Province to get their verdict, Mr. Speaker, we got that verdict. So, now we are here finishing up the process of acceptance of this Budget that provides a good solid foundation for the future of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to conclude debate on this Budget for this fiscal year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before putting the motion, I would like to welcome on behalf of all hon. members, fifteen students from the Pentecostal Elementary School in Bishop's Falls, with their teacher, Mr. Albert Hodder.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.

On motion, that the Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we should receive the report, I think.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Order 2.(a), the Committee on Supply please.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I shall simply note that there are three heads of estimates before the Committee of the Whole on Supply. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, will speak for the ministry with respect to them.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a session to deal with the estimates of the Executive Council, which include the Premier's Office, which include the rest of Executive Council, and which include the Lieutenant-Governor's establishment, and also include Treasury Board.

Mr. Chairman, we have eighteen hours, I believe, of debate left, so we should, at the outside, finish by six o'clock - well just two minutes before six in the morning, I would like to remind hon. members - the end of our eighteen hours.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary for me to introduce the heads and so on in all of these branches of Executive Council. I look forward to a debate, and I look forward to the questions that I am sure will come, either on Treasury Board or the Lieutenant-Governor's establishment, or Executive Council.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.

I guess we will probably just take this, Mr. Chairman, and ask a few questions back and forth and see if we can get through this within a reasonable period of time.

MR. ROBERTS: You have eighteen hours.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, I understand. I have eighteen hours. When will that take us?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Just in time, I say to my good friend, the Government House Leader, to go downtown on a St. John's Friday night - just the real time, the time we finish with this.

Just going to the Lieutenant-Governor's establishment there, apparently there has been about a $70,000 funding cut to Government House, as I sort of estimated here. I am just wondering, in order to get this obviously there has been some salaried positions, I would think, that have been eliminated - $50,000 or so, I think, of the $70,000 - so is government picking up any of the work that was done formerly by employees, through its other departments? How are you keeping Government House functioning, with eliminating $70,000 and about $50,000 of that in salaries? How is that going to keep Government House working, I guess, the way it was?

MR. ROBERTS: Ask the Governor when he comes (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I will ask him.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, this was done in consultation with the Lieutenant-Governor, who expressed the desire, himself, to this hon. House, understanding that we were in difficult times and that we were doing reductions in compensation and so on, that he suggested that Government House should be part of this, and suggested a reduction. I believe there are two positions that no longer exist in Government House. The Lieutenant-Governor advises that the business of Government House is continuing, that he still has a staff adequate for his purposes. He has a fair amount of help there, anyway, and he is very pleased with the efficiency of the staff and so on. I have had the pleasure to visit there a number of times. I must say that the service that is being provided is up to its usual good standards. There seems to be no diminution in the level of service. This was a decision taken by the Lieutenant-Governor, who indicated his desire to be part of the reduction in expenses that government, as a whole, is carrying on.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Just another question on this matter. I am looking at the economic times we are going through and the restraint measures that government has implemented over the last number of years. I wonder has government ever given any consideration to closing down Government House as the official residence of the Lieutenant-Governor, as part of its measures to try to deal with the fiscal problems of the Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have heard the suggestion made from a number of sources in newspapers and so on. There are some letters that have been written suggesting the closing of Government House. There is even one letter written me and copied to the press by a good friend of the Member for St. John's East, as a matter of fact, who happens to be president of the NDP, suggesting that we, as a Province, do away with the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No, I'm sorry. In his letter he said we should do away with the Governor-General. Mr. Chairman, there have been suggestions, coming particularly from my socialist friends, about the doing away of the whole office. I have not been part of any discussion that has suggested that. The suggestion has not been made within government. I would like to remind members opposite that Government House carries a lot of the history of this Province. It is really a Heritage building and I can't see any reason why we would cut that out.

The position of Lieutenant-Governor, of course, is a position that is under the control of the Federal Government and they fund, to a large extent, the travel and so on of the Lieutenant-Governor. We provide the accommodations. I suspect that were we to say to the Lieutenant-Governor that he has to go somewhere else, then it would end up costing us more than it is actually costing in Government House. But, Mr. Chairman, that is a fine building serving a great purpose in the Province, and I have not been part of any discussions about the elimination of that building or the office.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to go on now to the Office of the Premier. Just looking at -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I would say there are a few people who will want to ask some questions on this one.

Page 14, subhead 2.1.02, Executive Support. It shows there that last year that particular expenditure was up $13,000 over what was budgeted last year. This year they are proposing to spend yet an additional $18,000. I am just wondering if the Minister of Finance could explain that expenditure. Really, who are the people this money will be spent on, and what do they do? Because if you look from what was budgeted last year to what is budgeted this year there is a difference of some $31,000. Could the Minister of Finance explain that one for us?

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

MR. BAKER: As the hon. member knows, the total costs of compensation have been reduced by 4.5 per cent. So the total compensation cost will, in the final analysis, through the mechanism we have in place, be reduced by 4.5 per cent. But I would like to remind hon. members, as well, that we have been in a salary freeze for two years, that in the course of this salary freeze there have been certain occurrences that provide workers with some increases in salary, having to do with step increases throughout the whole public service, throughout the NTA and so on, that the step increases have still been funded throughout this wage freeze for all workers in the public services. And there is a small amount in every heading of salary that is attributable to these step increases.

Of course, after, I believe, for most people, about five or six years, the step increases stop, except for teachers who can go on for ten years, I believe, getting step increases. At a certain point in time these step increases stop and are not part of salary increases of any kind. Mr. Chairman, it is the step increases that account for that small amount of money.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just another question to the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Premier. Can the minister confirm that the Premier's $20,000 home entertainment provision has been at least maintained, or has there been any increase in that? I guess the real question to the minister is: How can the Premier justify this, given the compensation cuts that we have just experienced throughout the public service - cuts to health care, cuts in the Social Services budget? Shouldn't the Premier really be leading by example, even for a couple of years, by being willing to reduce or eliminate this allowance? I am just wondering if the Minister of Finance would undertake to table for us a breakdown of expenditures for this entertainment allowance.

Because since the issue of this particular allowance was brought in there's been a lot of questions about it. Sort of been sort of vague. Because there have been suggestions, Mr. Chairman, that even though the Premier has this home entertainment allowance, there is still a lot of entertaining and so on being done outside the Premier's home and charged off to various departments. I guess the real question is: First of all, is it still in effect, and does the minister think it is justifiable with the present fiscal situation we are experiencing in the Province, and would he table a breakdown of expenditures for this allowance?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, there is no breakdown. This is simply an allowance given in lieu of a number of other things that have been given Premiers of this Province for quite some time. I would like to point out, that is similar to allowances the members of the House get that are not subject to receipts and so on, but simply taxable allowances that are given. There is no breakdown of that $20,000. I think the hon. member is referring to the $20,000 under subhead 2.1.01.09, the $20,000 amount on page 14. There is no breakdown.

I would like to remind members, as well, that the cost of operating the Premier's Office since the 1988-1989 fiscal year, has been almost cut in half in the period that we have been in office. We have reduced the total cost of the Premier's Office considerably and we are continuing to reduce it. In 1988-1989 it was standing at $2,045,400. In the 1992-1993 year the revised number ended up at $1,060,000, which is getting down pretty close to half the cost of the 1988-1989 year, and is still less than it was in 1987-1988. It was $1,144,000 in 1987-1988. So it is even less. Last year it was over $80,000 less than it was back in 1987-1988, and since that time, wages have increased, costs have gone up, and still there have been tremendous cuts in the cost of operating the Premier's Office.

We have budgeted $1,089,000 this year, which is down from the budgeted amount for last year by some $50,000, and we hope, Mr. Chairman, that when the revised comes in at the end of the year, we will probably be below the million dollar amount or, if not below, then very close to the million dollar amount and, Mr. Chairman, I think this is an example of good expenditure control, of cutting back on expenses where they are not necessary and an example of good fiscal management.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have another question for the Minister of Finance.

I wonder what the total cost to government this year will be of the so-called step progressions. Specifically, what is the total cost from the Premier's Office alone? We saw this issue come to light during the election, where, there were certain members of the Premier's staff flashed all over the television screens across the Province, who were really getting pay increases when everyone else was expected to get decreases.

I am wondering if the minister can answer: What is the total cost of the step progressions, from the Premier's office alone, and does he not think it might be most appropriate to consider freezing those progressions for a time in light of the circumstances we are going through, when members of the House have taken their share of the cuts, and public servants are now taking their share? I am wondering if the minister or the Premier might consider that freezing those progressions for a period of time might only be fair, so that some employees are not getting an increase in spite of the compensation cuts that the rest of us are taking?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad the Opposition House Leader raised that point and I am certainly willing, I suppose, to consider his request, bearing in mind that all employees are really taking a 4.5 per cent reduction in total compensation regardless of where they are in the public service. As members of the House were taking a direct salary cut off the top, other segments of the public service are taking it in terms of their pension benefits and other segments are taking it in terms of uniform allowances and a variety of other means, but every single public servant, including the people in the Premier's office are already taking a 4.5 per cent reduction in total compensation.

Now, as to the member's suggestion, I suppose I could talk to the NTA and talk to NAPE and CUPE and the nurses and so on, with his suggestion that we cancel all step progressions in the public service. I am sure the teachers would be glad to see that he is recommending this to this House. I am sure that NAPE and CUPE would be very happy to see he is recommending that to this House, and as a matter of fact, maybe in his own district; sure, a lot of his friends who worked for him in the campaign who are teachers, would be very happy to understand he is now pushing for a cancellation of the step progressions, but I assure the hon. member that I will take that under advisement. It is something that probably is worth looking at but I will say to him that you can't pick out one segment of the public service and say we will do the 4.5 per cent cut, plus we will cut your step progressions, unless we make it a general rule throughout the public service. We believe in fairness and balance, we have treated everybody very fairly and I will consider his suggestion in that light, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It is nice to see my old friend, the Minister of Finance back in his good form trying to squirm and weasel again now, trying to turn it around now, that I am requesting that any one on the step progression be frozen. If the minister would reflect, I said specifically - specifically those on step progressions in the Premier's Office. We have people up there making $80,000 and $90,000 a year, who, this year, will be getting an increase.

So the question to the Minister of Finance was: Doesn't he think it would be very responsible, and talking of fairness and balance, very fair and very balanced, if those people making that type of salary this year, were not privileged or were not given their step progressions? Now, that is the real question to the minister, it has nothing to do with the teachers and those who worked on my campaign. Most of the people who worked on my campaign, I say to the Minister of Finance, were not working. They were working on my campaign but they were not making compensation, they were not earning because of the unemployment rate of this government, and the jobs and the shutdowns from the hospitals, the shipyard, and the mines, you name it. I want to ask the minister specifically if he thinks it is right and proper, does he think it is fair and balanced, that someone making in excess of $80,000 and someone close to $100,000 when everybody else in the public service has been asked to take a cut, that they should be getting a step progression increase this year? That is the question and I would like for the minister to respond specifically to that. What the minister is trying to do now is get me in trouble on the weekend when I go home with my teacher friend. He is trying his best now so they will ostracize me this weekend and say you are in there suggesting that they do away with our step progressions. Now, that is what he is trying. They have cut our salaries, they are taking away our pensions and now you are in there suggesting they do away with our step progressions, so I would like for the minister to answer that if he could.

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

MR. BAKER: I would not want to cause the Opposition House Leader any discomfort at all. I do not intend to send such a message out to all the unemployed people he had working on his campaign. I am sure they are willing to forgive the fact that their member has not been able to provide them with jobs and has not been able to generate economic activity in his district. I am sure they are already willing to forgive him for that so I am not going to make a point of that.

Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer is, no, I am not willing to consider cancelling step progressions for one small segment of the public service that involves eight or ten people just because the member opposite is trying to get at his opponent in the election campaign. I am not willing to do it.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried!

MR. SIMMS: He said the magic word. I heard the word `carried' and it brought back some fond memories of just a few moments back before I had to leave the House, unfortunately, to go do a television interview. You will all be able to watch it Sunday morning on NTV. Now, I know the hon. member will not be out of bed but if he tries to get himself out of bed he will be able to watch it.

AN HON. MEMBER: TV in the bedroom.

MR. SIMMS: I have two. I have one for my wife and one for myself. She has earphones.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you resign?

MR. SIMMS: Not on your life cocky, but I will tell you somebody who did resign this morning, Fraser March, a good friend of the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: And we all wish him well.

MR. SIMMS: We do wish him well. He has fought the hard fight, and a good fight. I have a question for the Minister of Finance that he should be able to answer in the absence of the Premier, I guess. Some time ago, a few weeks back when the Premier announced his new Cabinet shuffle, the one that the Member for St. John's South did not make -

AN HON. MEMBER: Newfoundland Telephone says it is the next best thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Or as Hertz Rent A Car would say, `we try harder', and that is what the hon. member is going to continue to do, try harder. He has a lot of trying to do yet though, although on the other hand if the Member for Carbonear can get in Cabinet I say there is hope for all of you over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I was one of yours from 1966.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Come Home Year.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Come Home Year, the one you used in 1966.

I ask the Minister of Finance this question, when that occurred the Premier also dropped the Member for Stephenville as his parliamentary assistant and appointed the Member for St. John's South. When he did that he said that the Member for Stephenville would be appointed to some kind of a special role with the Minister of ITT or with DITT. Can the Minister of Finance explain to the House and to the people of the Province, I guess, exactly what role this is, the Member for Stephenville is playing? Secondly, is there any remuneration associated with this position? Is there a title to it or a name to the position and so on, could he answer that question for us?

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

MR. BAKER: Maybe not to the satisfaction of the Leader of the Opposition. It is a question better put to the Minister responsible for the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology. It should have been dealt with in the estimates of that particular department because I have no knowledge - the problem is I have no knowledge of the details within that department. We give them a gross salary vote and we control a lot of other things that go on there but we do not control the individual allocation of salary money or whatever that is in that department. So, what I would suggest is -I have no knowledge of the answers so it is probably better if the minister were to answer that question.

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

MR. SIMMS: The minister is not here, dare I ask the acting minister whoever that is or dare I ask the Government House Leader? I understand he may not understand the role but the question of remuneration or salary, is there anything associated and what the position title is, is it anything?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I am not the acting Minister of DITT. The minister is in Labrador consulting with the people in the coastal communities about the proposal to sell the stores in the communities from Rigolet to Nain and I think my friend the Member for Torngat Mountains is probably with him, that is where they both are.

Mr. Chairman, let me assure the committee that there is a very important role to be discharged, a very important job to be done by my friend from Stephenville. It is the same as the job done by my friend from Mount Scio - Bell Island before he became the Minister of Tourism and Culture but there is no salary. The gentleman for Stephenville is doing it for the honour and glory and because he is a good member, a good supporter of the government and a good member of the House and has a great deal to contribute but there is no remuneration. If he travels OHMS, his expenses will be reimbursed but that applies to any member of the House, this side or that side, who travel OHMS. The Leader of the Opposition surly gets that when he travels on Her Majesty's service. Oh yes, when he travels on Her Majesty's service.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Sure, if he travels OHMS but it is just that Her Majesty has not recently received advice to ask for the hon. member but there may be a time when we will advise Her Majesty to make use of the hon. members services, in which case he will be reimbursed for his expenses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the hon. Opposition Leader, I would like to welcome to the Public Galleries on behalf of hon. members this afternoon students from Leading Tickles Elementary School in the Great Notre Dame Bay, in the District of Exploits, accompanied by a good man, principle Jim Preston and the bus driver Chris Rowsell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So, now that that matter has been clarified the Member for Stephenville was removed from his position as parliamentary secretary which paid him a reasonable remuneration and now has nothing. So if he was such a great member of the House, and capable, as the Government House Leader described him, it is rather strange to see that move take place, but I suppose that story is yet unwritten. The full story on that one is yet unwritten and leaves, unfortunately, the West Coast over there without any kind of Cabinet representation or even a contact in the Premier's office, in that sense, which is kind of disappointing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) West Coast.

MR. SIMMS: Well yes, but he is not from the Bay St. George area.

I ask the Minister of Finance, in terms of budgeting, for which he is responsible, we have heard a lot of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have recognized the hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I was asking -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, dealing with some comments that the Premier has made publicly on a number of occasions in the past, concerning a threat, or at least an intent, expressed publicly to travel across this country to talk about the Province's position on joint management in the fishery. The Premier has made those comments publicly on a number of occasions.

Can the Minister of Finance tell us, both in his capacity as Minister of Finance and Treasury Board responsible for the budget, as well as answering questions here in the House this morning on behalf of the Premier, I guess, how much money, or what funding has been provided for in this year's Budget to undertake this so-called fisheries tour that the Premier has alluded to on a number of occasions? Can he give us some indication of that?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the answer is very simple. There is no specific allocation of money for that process because we are not sure of the extent of the process and so on. There is a certain amount of travel money under protocol. There is a certain amount of travel money in the Premier's budget, and there is also an amount of money in the budget, I would like to remind hon. members, under Executive Council, dealing with the implementation of specific Strategic Economic Plan objectives which, if the committee determines, I suppose, that this is a legitimate exercise under the Strategic Economic Plan, could, in fact, come from that.

Once the extent of the activity has been determined, I am sure that the hon. House, if it has not, will at that point in time provide money for the activity, but I think there is enough money under the general travel and protocol sections and Executive Council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister of Finance tell us how many public relations specialists there are now in existence to serve government departments? You are thinking, are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, just (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. SIMMS: The reason I ask the question, I think in 1990 the estimates showed the Newfoundland Information Services revised expenditures for 1989-'90 was $168,000. This past year, 1992-'93, three years later, the estimate is $531,000 - nearly tripled.

Of course, we all heard the debate and arguments in the past about press secretaries versus public relations specialists and all the rest of it. Then the government brought in their own method, public relations, so we would like to know how many public relations specialists there are now in the government, serving the government departments?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: How many?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: One hundred and twenty-two?

AN HON. MEMBER: What do they do?

MR. SIMMS: Well that is the next one. I will find out how many there are first, and then we are going to ask: What do they do?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I can tell by the fast answer the Minister of Finance is giving me. Well I will sit down and let him give the answer.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I believe that during the past year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that since last year there've been changes in a couple of individuals. I'm hesitating on that because it's not the kind of thing that is directly involved with the department that I'm associated with. I think there were changes in two individuals but there have been no new ones added. So if the hon. member could look at the salary details for last year he would find that whatever the number was last year, that's the number it was this year. I'm not sure if it's six or seven. I have no direct knowledge. If the hon. member would look at the salary details he'd find the exact number, and I think that's perhaps the best place to look.

I notice that there's been no extra allocation for salaries in that area this year, so there's been no increase. As a matter of fact, a slight decrease, but that can be accounted for by the fact that a couple of people have left and a couple of new ones come in, presumably at a lower point in the scale. There's been no increase in the numbers, but the exact number I'm not sure of, and if the hon. member looks through the salary details, which are public, he can find that number.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, last year the government spent I think it was... oh, I forget what the exact amount of money was that the Premier tabled here in the House. It's close to $500,000 associated with the constitutional discussions and meetings and travelling and all that sort of thing. Two hundred and forty thousand dollars alone last year spent on transportation for constitutional affairs. More than had been budgeted for.

I want to ask the minister this. Are there any new trips planned dealing with constitutional talks for this year? Because most of us had assumed that that issue is pretty well on the back burner for a while yet. If there are no new trips planned, can he tell us the reason $167,900 is budgeted for constitutional affairs this year? Does he have any idea what that's all related to?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Last year we had budgeted $170,000 under the constitutional affairs head. As a result of all of the expanded activity and the meetings that were held, and Charlottetown and so on, the expenditure went up to $536,000, most of it being associated with the constitutional discussions. This year we have $167,000 which is a reduction from what we budgeted last year. It's for the ongoing activities of that particular branch. We have people working there. We from time to time need legal advice in terms of constitutional matters, therefore we need professional services. We need a certain amount voted for professional services so we can go to the experts in constitutional law to get any decision that we need.

I'd like to point out to the hon. member that even though the constitutional discussions, as he's referring to them are not ongoing, that there are still matters having to do with constitutional affairs that require attention. There's activity in terms of native land claims and so on that's still going on that require constitutional interpretation. Mr. Chairman, that amount is a reduction from the amount that was budgeted last year for the ongoing activities of that very small branch of government.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions I would like to ask the Minister of Finance regarding the chauffeur service - the Premier being chauffeured around. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to ask the minister if he can tell me what costs are associated with that service provided to the Premier in terms of his - how many limousines does he have?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I know, Mr. Chairman, there is a gray Oldsmobile limousine with a chauffeur always picking up the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: And his staff.

MR. TOBIN: And members of his staff, by the way, are being chauffeured to and from work at times in the limousine. So how much money does it cost the taxpayers of this Province for the chauffeurs? How many chauffeurs does the Premier have? How many limousine services does he have? I would like for him to answer that.

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

MR. BAKER: That is a very good question, Mr. Chairman, from the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I always enjoy the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I believe it was yesterday that he stood up in the House and put on a tremendous, terrific performance, applauded by both sides of the House. He is becoming more forceful, more animated, as time goes on. I can only shudder to think how excellent he is going to be a couple of years down the road leading up to the next election. I thoroughly enjoy the Member for Burin - Placentia West. As a matter of fact, he was so good yesterday that I was almost convinced - almost - not quite, but almost convinced he believed what he was saying.

The answer to the question is very simply this: First of all, the Premier drives his own car. I believe it is a Ford Taurus, a very modest car, the blue Ford Taurus that you see out front in his lot all the time. However, sometimes, when he is going to an occasion where he might be having a glass of wine or something like that, or where it might be difficult to get to, he makes use of a government car with a government employee to drive that car and take him to these occasions. There is no such thing as a limousine. As a matter of fact, I believe the car the hon. gentleman describes is about half the size of the limousine driven by the House Leader on the Opposition side.

There really is no limousine. We don't own any limousines, although I see one parked down by Holiday Inn sometimes when I'm driving around, a big white one. We don't own any limousines and we don't have a big host of chauffeurs willing to drive us all over the place. I think, in the Federal Government, the Cabinet ministers still have chauffeur-driven cars, they still have limousines, and are driven around by chauffeurs.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Quebec.

MR. BAKER: In Quebec, not only the Premier but the Cabinet ministers have their own big limousines and chauffeurs and so on. Mr. Chairman, in this Province we can't afford that, not even for the Premier of the Province. We don't have any such set up for the Premier of the Province.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't answer the question as to how many chauffeurs the Premier has. The fact of the matter is, the Premier drives to work in a car that he gets - how much does he get? - $8,000 a year car allowance.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Ford.

MR. TOBIN: That's what he drives, the Ford. And he has a chauffeur-driven car, Mr. Chairman. Those are the facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Leader of the Opposition (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I don't have a chauffeur-driven car like he does, that's the reason.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, it is not only the Premier who has the chauffeur-driven car, I say to the minister, his staff are chauffeur-driven. His staff have the chauffeur drive them around.

I have another question for the minister. The minister says they don't have chauffeurs. There are more executive assistants piling in cars out there, driving them wherever they want to go.

There is another mysterious car, I say to the minister, that has appeared on that parking lot in the past little while - a gray Chev.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is rusty.

MR. TOBIN: No, it is not rusty, it is new. It is being driven by a lot of members opposite, I say to him. Who owns that car?

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, the image that flitted through my mind as the Member for Burin - Placentia West was talking, the image of him out crawling around the parking lot looking for suspicious cars! What a delicious image - out crawling around, looking for suspicious cars! I don't know what he defines as a suspicious car. Is it a car with tinted windshields maybe? If somebody owned a car with tinted windshields, would the hon. member suspect that this was a suspicious car?

Mr. Chairman, I have no knowledge of the suspicious car that the hon. member is talking about. I have not been recently out on the parking lot, crawling around, looking for suspicious cars, so I really can't answer his question.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell me how much Edsel Bonnell has been paid, and what does he do for that money?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many what?

MR. TOBIN: How much salary is Edsel Bonnell being paid? Does he have any expense account, any travel allowance, and what does he do for his salary?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, the reason we publish the salary details and so on is so that all member of the House, all members of the press, all members of the public, can look through the document and see how much we are paying the top civil servants in the Province. That is public knowledge; however, unfortunately, I have a job to do. There are a lot of things I have to deal with, a lot of meetings I have to attend, and a lot of problems of a general nature, a lot of policy problems I have to deal with, and I haven't really found it necessary, or to be part of my job, to memorize that document about the salary details. I simply cannot tell you what the salary of every public servant in the Province is; however, I will refer the hon. member to the Salary Details where that can be determined.

Mr. Chairman, the individual whom he refers to is the Chief of Staff for the Premier. I would suggest that his salary would be in the range of a deputy minister. A deputy minister, I suggest, would go from about $80,000 to $104,000 - I believe $104,000 is the normal maximum on that range in the public service. So it would be somewhere in that range, and he would have, I guess, the normal terms that would be available to any deputy minister.

The Chief of Staff of the Premier's Office is a position that is comparable to a deputy minister except that it has no security. A deputy minister has a certain amount of security built in, whereas the Chief of Staff of the Premier's office doesn't really have the security. He can be let go at any time, and if the government changes, he is automatically let go, which doesn't happen with the deputies - or at least it didn't happen when the government changed, when we took over. Maybe members opposite look at it differently, but we felt that we should keep all the good civil servants at the top levels, in the positions.

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

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) when you fired some of the best deputy ministers in the civil service? He is getting the salary because he doesn't have the same type of security as some of the senior civil servants - they had some security alright, Mr. Chairman!

I would like to ask the minister if he can tell me how much the taxpayers of this Province contributed to the salary of Debra Coyne, and how much she spent on travel during the period she worked for the government.

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

MR. BAKER: I could certainly find out what salary Ms. Coyne was paid but that was some time ago now. As I recall, generally it was in the range of, I believe, a director in the public service. That was the comparable level of position. I do remember that the reason she came here had nothing to do with money. She wasn't overly concerned about that, she simply wanted to be part of the Premier's staff. She liked the way the Premier handled constitutional matters and she wanted to be part of that staff. It seems to me that her salary was probably in the director's range. The hon. members can look through the Salary Details and find out what that was.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the minister said that Ms. Coyne didn't come here to work for money.

AN HON. MEMBER: She didn't come for love.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: She's the working kind. I don't disbelieve that at all, not for a minute.

Mr. Chairman, I have another question for the minister. My colleague from Grand Bank this morning referred to the $20,000 home allowance the Premier receives. I would like to ask the minister again - and it might be difficult, but I would like for the minister to be truthful: Is any of the entertainment done at the Premier's home charged to any other government department? Has any entertainment been done at the Premier's home, where food was brought in and charged to any other government department? I would like for the minister to give me a straight, honest answer.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly check to find out. My immediate response would be to point out to the hon. member that the allowance he is talking about was to replace a tremendous amount of expenditure that previous Premiers -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I didn't intend to go through that. Would you like me to go through it? The press is not in the gallery. I don't know if there's much point going through it. I can go through all that, but I didn't intend to. It was to replace a number of other expenditures that were made, including the fact that the Premiers of the Province for a while had been provided with a home, a place to live and so on. The Premier didn't want to do that. It was to replace a lot of other expenditures that amounted to one heck of a lot more than $20,000, that probably amounted to three or four times that amount. It was to replace all of these other expenditures, because the Premier decided to live in his own home, and to defray some of the costs associated with that.

Mr. Chairman, there may, indeed, be some other of the Premier's expenses that are covered in some other heading, certainly, but I don't know for sure. I would have to look into that. The hon. member should realize what that $20,000 was to replace and what it was to do for the Premier of the Province.

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

MR. TOBIN: I have another question for the minister. Mr. Chairman, we are in difficult times and a lot of civil servants have been laid off. I am wondering if the ministers opposite, particularly the President of Treasury Board would agree to have his salary cut in half?

MR. BAKER: Come again.

MR. SIMMS: Would you agree to have your salary cut in half?

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I am a very reasonable person and I will take every suggestion under advisement. I believe though that in terms of fairness, that whatever is done for one small section of the legislature should be done for the whole legislature. So, that is my belief but I will certainly take it under advisement. I will take it under advisement and I am sure that the member's colleagues will give him any advice that they deem necessary.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not think that the Member for Burin - Placentia West was talking about the ministers MHA's salary, his fulltime MHA's salary. I think he was talking about his other job as President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance, his other job for which he gets paid, that he would take half his salary for that job. That is the one that I think he was talking about.

That was not the question that I wanted to ask. It was a question about the allocation under the Executive Council budget, on page 25 vote 2.4.09; the encouragement of military training in Labrador and I wanted to ask the minister about that. It is an activity of course, that is going on without the consent or without any consultation with the owners of the aboriginal land claims that exist on that land and over the objections, without the consultation of the Innu nation. I see in that a new budgetary item or a new amount of $175,000 to be voted, $50,000 was voted last year and only $7,000 was spent. The amount of money seems to be rather large. Most of it or at least a good portion of it was for salaries of $77,000. I took the ministers advice and went to the salary details but I did not find out whether that was one job, two, three or four. It appears to be a $77,000 salary allocation for - it does not say how many persons but temporary in nature.

So, perhaps the minister could tell us who these people are who have been hired or who are being hired for $77,000 and what are they going to do? What is the $42,000 professional services? What service are they going to purchase for $14,000, a total up to $175,000? That is simply the question, maybe the minister can help us out.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last year there was $50,000 voted under this head that was supposed to support a process whereby the Town of Happy Valley Goose Bay would spearhead preparations for the environmental impact statement and their presentations to that environmental impact statement to allow them to get across their view that without the activity of the allied forces in Goose Bay, that Happy Valley Goose Bay would suffer a tremendous loss and so would the Province.

So, there was $50,000 there and a very small amount of that was spent. This year we have increased the amount to $175,000 because, Mr. Chairman, we believe that whereas other groups have a tremendous amount of money at their disposal in terms of disseminating information throughout the world and making a case before the environmental review process and so on that there is no expenditure on the other side to get out the other side of the argument which happens to be an economic development argument so, Mr. Chairman, we simply provided $175,000 for that purpose in support of the council in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, it is as simple as that. The other side of the argument is being supported by much more money than that, so we, in an attempt to see that fairness reigns, that both sides of the argument are adequately discussed and to express our support for the activity in Happy Valley - Goose Bay at the airport, we allocated this $175,000. The salaries, we do not know yet, that is because this is in essence, a new type of activity that this has not been proceeded with so we do not know who is hired, what their functions are, this is simply an allocation to prepare for what is going to be I guess, a public relations battle as well as a battle in the presentations before the environmental impact study which should be completed very shortly.

I am happy to see that the Leader of the NDP does not have the same problem with this issue or does not seem to have the same problem with this issue as his predecessor, who, every time the issue came up and it looked as if there was going to be a vote in the House, he and his cohort would scurry for the door to make sure they were not in the House at the time a vote was taken, and it provided the rest of us with an awful lot of entertainment in this House for a while, so I am very happy to see the Member for St. John's East has no such problem and has a very strong position in this regard and is willing to express it, so I congratulate him on that, but the explanation is that the people have not been hired. There probably will be some professional services needed to help put together presentations and all this kind of thing, so it is just an estimate of an amount that is needed and we have a commitment to getting that side of the story out, Mr. Chairman, because we must, in support of the community of Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

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

MR. HARRIS: My next question is concerning the allocation under Constitutional Affairs. Now the Member for Burin - Placentia West was interested in the allocations and salary of Debra Coyne and what she did and this and that and the other thing. We have still here, the constitutional debate being very much back-burnered in this country and in fact, many people across the country are suggesting some five-year moratorium on constitutional discussions to allow for a cooling off period. It seems that the government is still going on in this estimates to spend almost as much money proposed to be spent, as was budgeted last year, not as was spent last year. Now we know a lot more was spent last year than before, but the proposal is that there still be budgeted for constitutional affairs the sum of $167,900 as a total amount of expenditure for the continuing of Constitutional Affairs. It seems to be an awful lot of money when most provinces and the federal government have agreed essentially to back-burner constitutional discussions, that there does not seem to be any mood in this country to get engaged, at least at this time in any other round of constitutional debate and discussion, and I just question the necessity of this level of expenditure.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, page twenty-five of the salary estimates -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Oh no, I am looking for salary estimates to get the breakdown and while I am looking for that, the point I want to make is this. Oh yes, here is the salary estimates which is page fifteen of the salary details and the amount requested in the subhead of $57,000 in fact is $56,550 and there is one approved position which is vacant, that is the Director of Constitutional Affairs which I think Ms Coyne held with considerable distinction during her period of service with the ministry. The position is not filled but we will fill it as soon as we can. The point I want to make, and the reason why we will fill this position as soon as we can is because the amount of constitutional work that goes on is immense. We had last year the multilateral meetings on the Constitution process and that has come to its natural end, and sobeit. I agree with the hon. gentleman for St. John's East that it is extraordinarily unlikely that there will ever be an equal or a like effort to try it again. Nonetheless constitutional issues come up all the time. We are short in my department the lead position in the constitutional affairs section of the civil division as well, and we are looking to recruit that. I tell hon. members, Mr. Chairman, that anybody who has a son or daughter at law school and is wondering what that son or daughter can do for his or her life to be sure of endless work, interesting work, and terrific fees, do two things, do constitutional law with a speciality in aboriginal affairs because there will be an endless amount of work. We need the position. It is vacant but as soon as we can find somebody to fill it we will appoint him or her and be glad to have them. That is the explanation.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) I was asking for the expenditure of $175,000. I do not see any difficulty in having a position in the Department of Justice of someone who has an interest in constitutional affairs but the amount of money being allocated, $167,000 includes an additional $80,000 for professional services, and I am just curious as to whether or not that level of expenditure is necessary at this time. It is the same as was budgeted in 1992-93 but obviously what was spent was different because of the constitutional round but the level of interest and involvement in the constitutional affairs at the time that the 1992-93 Budget was prepared was far higher than it is now and I question the necessity of an $80,000 expenditure for ongoing professional services in that area.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, we have no idea what we may need this year. This money will go to retain outside counsel where we need to retain outside counsel. That is what it covers. Last year we asked the House for $82,5000. That was our estimate, but we ended up spending $195,200 and that was because of the constitutional problems. Nobody saw the length or the complexity of it. This year we are asking for $80,000. I do not think we have spent anything sofar against this bill but we may have. We have, I know, gone outside on at least one instance. We have taken an opinion on a point in connection with the New Brunswick amendment, the bilingual members for New Brunswick. We have had a look at some aspects of that. I do not want to go further but we have had a look at it and there maybe charges against that. We just do not know what we are going to need. We expect we will need something and we want to provide against that contingency.

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

MR. HARRIS: Just one final question to the Minister of Finance. In looking at the executive council expenditures as a whole there is a budgeted amount of $18.9 million as disclosed by the totals on Page 28 and that involves a $4 million increase for the executive council over the expenditures of last year. Now, Mr. Chairman, I certainly recognize that we have to have executive council at that level of the bureaucracy and a certain amount of expenditure, but an expenditure of almost $19 million is a very considerable amount for a top end bureaucracy and I ask the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, how he justifies a $4 million increase in expenditure for the coming year over last year's expenditure in a time of the kind of financial constraints and restraints that we're dealing with. Where the social service recipients can't get an increase; where there are cutbacks in home care support services; where there are cutbacks in compensation to public sector workers. In all of those areas we're being asked, and people of this Province are being asked, to live on less and to get by with less services. To try and make ends meet despite the hardships and lack of employment. Yet, in the Executive Council of government, the top-heavy, top end of government is seeking to spend $4 million more this year than last. Can he explain that?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can explain that very easily. If the hon. member had looked back through all the headings under Executive Council he would have discovered that this year we've put in $4.7 million for initiatives under the Strategic Economic Plan. They're put in Executive Council to be later distributed to the departments according to the initiatives they bring forward.

Really, that $4.7 million is parked temporarily under Executive Council. The departments themselves - the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Department of Tourism and Culture, the Department of Fisheries - all these departments will be during the year accessing strategic economic initiative funds to carry out projects that follow the directions of the Strategic Economic Plan.

The explanation is very simple. That this year we've parked $4.7 million of program money for the other departments in under Executive Council and the departments come and make a case for accessing that $4.7 million. That wasn't there before. So this is not an increase in bureaucracy, this is not an increase in staff, it's not an increase in travel money, there's not an increase in materials money and so on. This is simply $4.7 million that's parked there temporarily and will be used for some tremendously important initiatives.

The Minister of Fisheries for instance has already accessed some of this money to help in this problem with the lumpfish, in distributing the lumpfish.

MR. CARTER: And the Pentecostal Assembly (inaudible) caplin.

MR. BAKER: The caplin program. There's money in there for aquaculture that will eventually be used in aquaculture projects and so on. The Minister of Fisheries is very pleased that that $4.7 million is in there that he can access for some tremendously good new developmental programs for the Province. Mr. Chairman, that's the explanation for that increase in Executive Council funding.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question.

On motion, Executive Council, total heads, carried.

On motion, Legislature, total heads carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Consolidated Fund Services.

On motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 2.01.02, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, unless three hon. members stand to request the Committee divide, we've now concluded all the matters referred to this

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that it has passed the Heads of Expenditure of the Executive Council, the Legislature and the Consolidated Fund Services and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: The message is dated June 14th, 1993.

To the hon. the Minister of Finance:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit estimates required for the public services of the Province for the year ending March 31-1994, by way of Supply in the amount of $2,929,968,800, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Signed by His Honour, Frederick W. Russell - Lieutenant-Governor.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message which you have just read be referred to a Committee of the Whole on Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

On motion, the total of $2,929,968,800, carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verte.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report they have approved the amount of $2,929,968,800 and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the Committee of the Whole on Supply with respect to the estimates for 1993-'94, together with a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, be referred to a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means and that you, Mr. Speaker, do now leave the Chair.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider a resolution and a bill related thereto, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1994, the sum of $1,913,766,800."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, please rise the committee and report that we have adopted the resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to it referred, has directed me to report that it has adopted a certain resolution, and recommends that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1994 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 22).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I suspect His Honour is not far away but the Minister of Social Services wished to ask leave of the House for one moment if he may.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

Does the hon. Minister of Social Services have leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. LUSH: I asked hon. members on both sides a little earlier whether or not they would permit me to table some documents that should have been tabled last fall, actually. The two documents are: one is the annual report of the Department of Social Services for the fiscal year 1991; the other is the financial and statistical report for the division of Developmental and Rehabilitative Services of the Department of Social Services for the fiscal year 1991-1992.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I understand His Honour -

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour is within the precincts?

MR. ROBERTS: - has arrived. If not, maybe we could just stand easy for a few minutes. His Honour is on the way to give assent.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll declare the House then in recess until His Honour arrives.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

It is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, her faithful commons in Canada, to present to Your Honour a bill for the appropriation of supply granted in the present session.

Bill No. 22, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1994 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service."

HIS HONOUR, THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR (Frederick W. Russell, C.M., LL.D): In Her Majesty's name I thank Her loyal subjects, I accept their benevolence and I assent to this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has, at its present session, passed certain bills to which in its name and on behalf of the General Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Authorise The Raising Of Money By Way of Loan By The Province." (Bill No. 15)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill No. 14)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill No. 13)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Department Of Tourism And Culture." (Bill No. 3)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act." (Bill No. 5)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act." (Bill No. 2)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Department Of Industry, Trade And Technology." (Bill No. 4)

A bill, "An Act To Amend the Municipalities Act." (Bill No. 6)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill No. 12)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act." (Bill No. 8)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act." (Bill No. 9)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act, The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, And The Memorial University Pensions Act." (Bill No. 10)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act." (Bill No. 18)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act." (Bill 17)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Municipal Elections Act." (Bill No. 19)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act." (Bill No. 20)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill No. 11)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act." (Bill No. 16)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act." (Bill No. 24)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill No. 23)

A bill, "An Act To Amend the Financial Corporations Capital Tax Act." (Bill No. 21)

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: In Her Majesty's name I assent to these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to wish the members of the hon. House of Assembly a very pleasant Summer in whatever duties they become engaged upon and hopefully, some vacation time, well-earned. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: May I, Your Honour, on behalf of members on both sides, thank you for your kind wishes and, in turn, extend best wishes from all of us to you and to Her Honour for the Summer, until next we meet again.

MR. WINDSOR: Shall we go back to Question Period?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would go back to Question Period if hon. gentlemen want to, provided only they agree to get better on their questions than they have been.

Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment, may I, on behalf of members, I am sure, on both sides - my friend from Grand Bank may well wish to speak and my friend from St. John's East may wish to tag along. May I extend our gratitude, Sir, to the members of your staff, the clerks at the Table and the other people who labour in silence, in the sense that they are not allowed to speak in the House because they are not members, but labour very efficiently to provide us with a first-class support service. We often take it for granted, but I know that when we stop to reflect for just a moment we acknowledge that we have a very efficient and a very effective staff, and it makes our job here a great deal easier and a great deal more enjoyable.

The adjournment motion, I shall move, Mr. Speaker - uses `tomorrow' in the parliamentary sense. May I say that it is the intention of the ministry to ask the House to meet again at some point in the early part of the Fall, probably during October, but I will be in touch with my counterpart, whenever the occasion arises and give him as much notice as I get.

MR. SIMMS: Better half.

MR. ROBERTS: Better half, he may be. I say to my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, it is always pleasant to get it from the horse's mouth rather than from the other end. So, I shall continue to deal with my friend the Member for Grand Bank, but - it will take a moment or two for that to sink in but my friends will get him up to it.

Mr. Speaker, should the House need to meet over the Summer then we shall, of course, advise Your Honour and we will carry on in the normal way and give as much notice as we can to members.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, may I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, at the call of the Chair and that this House do now adjourn.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Better half?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, better half.

The Leader of the Opposition said get up and have a parting speech but say nothing. Well, there has been a lot of that going on during the last month or so, a lot of speeches which haven't said very much.

I just want to thank my colleagues for their support and tolerance. I want, in fact, to thank all hon. members for their tolerance, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank Your Honour, and my colleague reminds me to thank the clerks. We would, as well, like to thank the members of the media in the press gallery for outstanding coverage -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - for very fair and balanced reporting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Especially on our side.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, especially for us. Having said that, I look forward to seeing you all back here sometime this Fall. I say to the Government House Leader, if you are intentioned to reconvene sometime this Summer, I would appreciate your calling someone else, not me, because I have other plans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would like to wish every member, all the staff and the Pages - I don't know if they will be back with us or not, but thank you for your services; I see one saying no - thank you for your service, I wish you all the best in your endeavour, and I wish every member a safe and enjoyable Summer. Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, leave.

MR. SPEAKER: We all want leave at the present time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when I can thank my caucus colleagues for their support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: But, in the absence of thanking my caucus colleagues, I do have to thank hon. members for their leave to speak when leave was necessary and even when - mistakenly and in error and jokingly, as the Member for Burin - Placentia West denying me leave yesterday. However, all joking aside, Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank hon. members for their co-operation and thank the staff of the House, especially, who don't get very many opportunities to be thanked for their service to the House. As indicated, at least one of the Pages is not coming back, and one who was here before during the session has already departed. We thank them for their service to the House, as well.

I want to take this opportunity to wish Your Honour, all members of the House, and the press, a good Summer and look forward to getting back together in the Fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think I should thank all hon. members, as well. I won't be asking leave, as I guess we are all seeking to leave, but thank you for an enjoyable session, and my first - memorable in certain ways and very co-operative on everyone's part, on both sides of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) rain.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible), at least for four years.

MR. SPEAKER: I always pray that it doesn't rain, but there you go.

In any event, I hope everyone has a good Summer and we will leave it at that, I guess. Thank you.

On motion, the House adjourned to the call of the Chair.