December 13, 1994            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol. XLII  No. 79


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly thirty students from Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts, together with their teachers, Ed Wilding and Marlene Clarke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning I listened with interest to an interview that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations did with the CBC Radio Morning Show, and he was saying that he was still trying to negotiate an emergency jobs program with both the Federal Government and his own Provincial Government. In fact, I will quote from the interview: "You have to consider that you also have to talk to your own people. You have to talk to your own government, and you have to persuade them that this is the right way to go. You know, if Tom Murphy was making the decision, this program might be in place right now..." - quotes of that nature.

So I ask the Premier: Can he confirm that the minister indeed is having difficulty getting the support of his own government for an emergency job program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, he is not having any difficulty. I heard the interview, and I have to confess, I was somewhat surprised by the comments myself. Now, I put it down to the fact that the minister probably wasn't fully awake at that hour of the morning; I don't know. It may have been a variety of other things. I can only assume that the minister was conveying the impression, which happens to be an accurate one, that he was negotiating with the Federal Government; he was putting forward a proposal that would see the Province involved in it as well, and that he had a responsibility to take the lead within the Province as well as to negotiate with the Federal Government.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the minister is awake at any time of the day, let alone that hour of the morning.

Let me say to the Premier that the word out of Ottawa, from usually reliable sources in Ottawa, I say to the minister, is that the Federal Government have already offered to put up $12 million in this program, and that the problem is with the hesitancy of the Provincial Government here in putting up its one-third share. Can the Premier tell me if that is factual or not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: What the Opposition Leader just told me comes as an utter shock to me. I don't know that there is an iota of truth in it, and the minister confirms for me that there isn't, so I just remind the Leader of the Opposition that his usually reliable sources are as unreliable as they have always been.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, my usually reliable sources are sometimes his as well.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I don't want this to be considered some kind of a humorous line of questioning because it is not. The question that people are asking out there is why the procrastination? This has been going on now for quite some time. The Premier is aware of the employment situation - the unemployment situation I guess; surely, he is aware that this really is an emergency situation. The minister, himself, says he is receiving dozens and dozens of calls, as are we. We all know there is going to be 5,000 or 6,000 dropped off TAGS program in a couple of weeks.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I heard today a story in Baie Verte alone, the Social Services office out there has had fifty-eight new welfare cases added to it in this month alone and that is a 15 per cent increase. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a major crisis and it demands the personal attention, I think, of the Premier. So I ask him, has he called or will he call his good friend the Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, and ask and insist for federal support, if that is what this government is looking for, for an emergency job creation program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have complete confidence in the minister who has been carrying on discussions - negotiations, I think he said this morning in the radio interview. He has been carrying on discussions with Mr. Axworthy, and there is no need whatsoever for me to interfere. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well the position taken by the Federal Government on these issues. I can't quarrel strenuously with their approach. Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to leave it in the hands of the minister, I think he is doing a good job.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think therein lies the problem, the Premier being prepared to leave it in the hands of the minister, because the reality out there - he may not be aware of it, I don't know, perhaps he is not fully informed on this - the reality out there is that a lot of people are facing poverty and for the first time in their lives, over the last couple of months, have had to face the welfare lines. It is a really serious emergency situation. I have often heard the Premier talk about make-work programs because they don't really do much in terms of the long-term value for the economy, and we agree, that is not the answer, but this is a different situation, it is an emergency situation. So I ask the Premier, if all of the delay procrastination is because of some negotiation with the Federal Government, why doesn't the Provincial Government, as it has done in the past, at least put in place its own program so that people could perhaps have a chance to put some bread and butter on the table in the next little while because there are going to be enough delays as it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition with great respect is trying to find a parade to go out and lead. He has some inkling that there may be something being discussed and he is rushing out to try and find a parade to lead. The simple fact is the minister has been stating very clearly what the position is. It is not certain at this stage. Leave it in the hands of the minister and when there is something to announce he will announce it.

Now, the minister just reminds me that contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition has said there have been five separate programs this year all of which have been cost-shared with the Province.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I resent the comments of the Premier concerning my asking questions on this issue. We have been raising this in the House for the last number of weeks and as usual the Premier has not been listening. While he was in China, and while he was in Europe and all these other places, I was travelling around the Province listening to people explain these serious cases. I want to ask the Premier if he would stop this dillydallying, this foolish attack on me because I asked the questions, and will he take action today himself to try to get something put in place to help those people out there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is in the hands of the minister. I have complete confidence in the minister otherwise I would ask for his resignation.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. In the last weeks the minister has tabled the Public Tender Act exceptions from May to October. I would like to say to the minister that between May and October there are a number of companies in the Province, especially the companies that have to do with leased space, totalling some $1 million, approximately eleven companies. I can take it from the amounts involved in the exceptions it is coming early and playing Santa Claus for those particular companies. Some of the names, Mr. Speaker, Ashley Holdings $53,000, Fortis Incorporated $265,000, R & M Holdings $206,000.

I ask the minister if he could explain to the House why those exceptions totalling almost $1 million are in his tender exceptions?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question to the best of my ability now and if there are any further questions I will take notice and give the answers to the hon. member tomorrow.

One of the reasons for a lot of extensions of leases within the exceptions of public tendering is the reorganization going on within the Department of Social Services, and times the department will request an extension for a year, several months or a year or whatever time until the full re-organization is going ahead, and at the time of the complete re-organization they will then ask the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to call tenders for the property they require and also, any time where there is an option to extend a particular lease, we will extend the option, but mainly, most of the extensions we have given to date this year, is in the Department of Social Services.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Nowhere in those exceptions, Mr. Speaker, does it mention what the minister is saying. It mentions sufficient time in every one of them but one.

Could the minister explain then, in all the exceptions here including Fortis' $265,000, it was sufficient time - no time to complete space requirements and no time to call tenders, Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain why then there was an extension of two years for R & M Holdings for a total tender call of $206,299 per year, until March 31, 1996, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I don't know who R and M Holdings would be -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Well, I have a lot of buddies but I will have to tell you tomorrow if that is an individual buddy; but what I will do, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of exceptions reported here and I cannot give him an explanation for every individual exception in -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are the minister.

MR. EFFORD: I am the minister responsible and I take the responsibility, but I will get the information for the hon. member on the individual company, the company R & M you said or was it R & N, and I will bring that in to the House of Assembly tomorrow.

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

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

Could the minister tell the House if the exceptions to the Public Tender Act since May, has anything to do, tied in to this new bill that we are supposed to be dealing with this week, Bill 32, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act", whereby government heads such as government ministers, would have more flexibility in accepting tenders without going to tender?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely not correct, it is untrue.

The purpose of revisiting the Public Tender Act is to give it more teeth and to be more accountable. I am asking for, in the new legislation, the improvements in the Public Tender Act, is to make each minister responsible for his or her own department when it comes to public tendering. Right now the Minister of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation of the day is the only minister responsible for the whole of the public tendering in the whole of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is impossible for one minister to control.

Mr. Speaker, what the new legislation will do is that each minister will be responsible. In the case of the Department of Health, all of the hospitals across this Province, no one minister can keep those hospitals accountable and the purchasing of all the departments. Then in the new legislation the Ministers of Health, Education, or whoever will be responsible for his or her own department.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. The government has announced its intentions to deny motor vehicle licences to those who have not paid their school tax. Driver licences are issued and retained pursuant to driver competency. Paying school tax is totally unrelated to driver proficiency, and the collection of school tax is a civil matter. Does the minister plan to unilaterally take away a valid driver licence without due process and without an impartial and independent hearing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a bill that was before the House and has been withdrawn and has not been put back on the Order Paper again. That is not an indication that we intend to do this unilaterally. If that is done it will be done with the full concurrence of the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, is it the government's intention to withdraw the bill or is it simply, as the minister has said, that he delayed it so he could add in another issue and another collection? The minister has said that he withdrew it with the intent of adding in collections for I think spousal support, for child support, and that he would introduce it later in this session.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I already answered but I will repeat the answer again for the hon. gentleman in case he didn't hear. The bill has been withdrawn from the Order Paper and it will not be put back before the end of this particular session. If it is brought back in the spring at that point in time a full debate will ensue.

I can't guess what a Cabinet will do next March or April, so I can only say that right now it has been withdrawn and it is in the process of being looked at.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. I wonder would the minister be able to confirm to the House and explain why employees at the Health Sciences Complex are currently being trained to handle, from a data point of view, admissions of children? This appears to be contrary to the minister's statements publicly that there are no decisions made about the closure of the Janeway Hospital, and I wonder if he can tell us why this type of training is taking place if, in fact, no decision has been made?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any training that is being undertaken at the moment at the Health Sciences Complex with respect to staffing is being taken in the context of what they are doing ongoing on a day-to-day basis. It has nothing to do in fact or in substance with any plan that might or might not come forward in the future with respect to the redevelopment or the rationalization of health care in the city.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, could the minister, then, explain why it is employees are being told that all employees will be so trained by March 31 in order to be able to accommodate the admission of children to that hospital? It seems to fly totally in the face of minister's assertions, and if there is such development taking place, why are not more people involved in it? An awful lot of people would be affected by this, not only employees, but also people who fund-raise for the Janeway, people who are concerned about children's health and children's medicine. All of these will be affected by this, and yet there appears to be no consultation going on other than the back room meetings that the minister's officials may be having.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The proposition that the hon. member is trying to allege or create is almost preposterous. If there were a decision made already, or today, to do anything of the sort that he is trying to put forward, that is, relocate paediatric services to the Health Sciences, it would take years before that could actually be done. Space would have to be provided, and all that sort of thing.

In fact, as I have told this House on two or three previous occasions during the last couple of weeks, no such decision has been taken with respect to any facilities, any institutions in St. John's, as to whether or not any will be changed in their usage or amalgamated with others or not. So what he puts forward is really a scaremongering tactic of sorts to try to incite some undue concern amongst health-care-givers in this Province who are out there doing yeomen service, putting forth an exemplary effort, providing health care in all of our facilities, and the member tries to put them in a position where they are worrying about their jobs, worrying about their futures. I would say he has more to worry about with respect to his job than the health care workers in our system do at the moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

In view of the new policy the Environment minister made last week on the importation of waste, can the Premier tell the House the status of the Cliff Resources proposal to bury asbestos waste in Baie Verte? Is this proposal now dead?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't declare anything dead. I presume it has to be subjected to the process, and if it meets the requirements, it isn't dead. If it does not meet the requirements, then it is dead.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the question was for the minister, himself, today, just to get him to confirm what he had said last week.

I am sure that the Premier, the minister, anybody who has visited the site in Baie Verte, realizes there is nothing short of an environmental disaster in the pollution problem there. Now, I have to ask the Premier this: If that proposal is dead, what plan does this government have to clean up that mess in Baie Verte?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The government has no immediate plans to clean up any mess in Baie Verte, Mr. Speaker. We will see how the company that is still operating on that site continues, and what happens. We will watch it carefully and see what needs to be done, but the government has no resources to rush in to clean up any mess in Baie Verte.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, that is no comfort to the people in Baie Verte and surrounding area who look at this site every day and the time is long past now, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Premier, not just this government, will they continue to have discussions with their federal counterparts to address this problem immediately, not put it on the back burner for another three, four or five years, as this problem gets worse by the day, I say to the Premier. It has to be acted upon immediately, not three, four or five years down the road. Will he speak with his federal counterparts to see if they will address this problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know, at this moment, without having it go through the complete process, whether or not what was proposed could be brought in to fill in those spaces in Baie Verte. That would have to follow the policy guidelines and go through an environmental impact assessment. That would be one sure way of filling the holes, then it could be covered over, seeded and be in a much more presentable and a much safer position; but whether or not the policy would exclude what has been proposed to date or what might be proposed next year or the next, I don't know, you would have to let it take its course and go through the normal processes.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The minister stated some time ago that assessments in Municipal Affairs are becoming computerized and that it would speed up the process. Could he give us the status of the assessment process?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have recently written a number of communities in the Province explaining to them that even though we have added a substantial amount of computer equipment to our Assessment Division and also hired some extra staff, which we only did a month or so ago, we are still behind. What is happening now, Mr. Speaker, is that a number of the assessments that were long past due, we are catching up with, and hopefully, in the new year, with the new staff and new equipment, we will be able to do a larger number in 1995. The hon. member is absolutely right in his assessment of that particular division of my department. We have been really slow in the last number of years for a number of reasons. Give me a chance and give the department a chance, and I think the hon. member will be satisfied with next year's production from that particular division of my department.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my district, in the Town of Bauline, it has been seven or eight years since they had an assessment done. The Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, are in their tenth year without an assessment done. Now, this is unfair to the Towns and to the citizens - unfair with respect to lost revenue for the Towns, unfair to the citizens when they are hit with a big increase. Could the minister inform the Towns when they can expect an up-to-date assessment?

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

MR. REID: To repeat very quickly, in part of the last answer that I gave, I did admit we were a little behind but, Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to stand in this House and leave the impression that municipalities don't have the authority to generate lost revenue. Municipalities in this Province do not need an assessment to generate revenue. Municipalities, at any time, can predict, if they want to, or whatever, and raise taxes in their communities that would be at a level probably comparable to an assessment level. So any time a municipality finds itself strapped for dollars, please, don't stand in this House and leave the impression that the reason they are strapped for dollars is because an assessment was not done, because that is not correct.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

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

That is the minister's solution - raise the mil rate all the time, but if you raise the mil rate and then you get a new assessment, well, then, the town is hit twice, or the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that - I am getting to the question that I want to ask - Municipal Affairs averages the cost of assessments over a six-year period, the Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove pays approximately $8,000 per year for an assessment and, Mr. Speaker, they are in their fourth year now over and above the six years, paying $8,000 a year basically for a computer printout. Would the minister consider paying back to the Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove the extra money they have paid, basically, for a computer printout?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the system that Municipal and Provincial Affairs is using now is a system that was introduced to this Province by the previous Conservative regime. That system basically charges every municipality in the Province, on a per capita basis, a certain amount of money. The Cities of Corner Brook, St. John's and Mount Pearl, and all the larger centres, are charged a substantial amount for their assessment. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it would probably cost them more doing it under this system than if they had to get it done themselves, but there is a reason for that. The reason is that there are a lot of smaller communities in the Province which can't afford to pay large dollars for assessment services. So I suppose the rich help pay for the poor, if that is the analogy you want to use.

That is the system we have had in the Province that I basically spoke on back when the Member for Waterford - Kenmount and I were on the Federation of Municipalities. We spoke out against that. We have accepted it. I don't know when it was, 1986 or 1987, that it was brought in, and we still have that particular system in place. There has been a number of representations to me from the larger communities in the Province to do away with that scheme. The problem, the dilemma that I have with it, is that if we do away with the assessment scheme that we have in the Province now, where will the poorer and smaller communities in the Province get the money to pay for assessments?

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. The minister has introduced Bill 61 in this House, which provides for a new levy system on insurers to recover hospital service costs and medical care costs associated with third party liability claims from motor vehicle accidents. I ask the minister: will he inform the House how much money the government expects to recover on those claims?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The levy system that he refers to is indeed embodied in the bill that is before the House. We anticipate that this year we will collect without cost for litigation approximately $2.6 million. Normally, that money in the past has been collected by virtue of having to go to the courts and make the case and get it, and that is costly. An arrangement has been made with the insurers of automobile vehicles in the Province whereby they have accepted the proposition of an assessment per vehicle that they ensure in the Province. That will not only ensure us the $2.6 million approximately that we anticipate getting but it will put us in a position of not having to incur any costs for litigation to recover that amount of money.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The department has certainly analyzed what it is going to recover. I'm sure the department, too, has analyzed the impact, as he just mentioned, that it is going to have on insurance premiums in this Province. I ask the minister: would he now tell this House what impact, in levies he referred to, it is going to have on insurance premiums in this Province?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The levy that the member refers to will probably not have any impact on insurance rates. It is saving the insurers as well as the government considerable time and expense in dealing with claims that arise. The amount of the levy that we will be assessing per vehicle is, I think, $11.61. In fact, I know it is $11.61 per vehicle, and that would be the maximum net result that it could have in terms of impact on rates. But I want to assure the member, that is not contemplated, as I understand it, by the insurers or by the government, so this really is a win-win situation all around. It makes things very neat and tidy for the insurance companies, it provides for the recovery of money for government, and it is probably one of the smartest things that the industry and the government have agreed to do together in a long time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the minister has said is we are going to have a user-pay concept. The Premier said a year ago in September: The user fees may in the end prove to be right, and if they are, I believe we will all have to resort to user fees in order to protect the health care system. I ask the minister if government has identified other areas where they plan to apply the user-pay system.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the question, itself, is not a factual one and is not a properly focused one, because this is not a user fee that we are imposing. It is an assessment that has been agreed to by insurers and the government. It is an arrangement where it will save the insurance industry money and it will provide the government with additional money. It has nothing to do with user fees per se in the health care system.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Health, whom I do thank for returning my call on Sunday night, Sir. Since that call, in which I made a complaint and let you know about the goings-on at a private nursing home in Dunville, a residence where senior citizens, the frail, had been left without heat from Thursday night until after midnight on Sunday, Sir, did you have a chance to check into it?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, yes. The hon. member did call me late Sunday night with respect to a situation that did not seem to be satisfactory in terms of senior citizens in a long-term care home in his district.

When I got in to the office on Monday morning, I spoke with my deputy, my officials, I had some briefing notes prepared for me on it; we did some checking on it and I can tell the member that as we speak, I have an official of my department in that home, in that area, to check out the situation. We are on top of things and we will look after the seniors and the elderly.

MR. CAREEN: I thank the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to present the report of the Government Services Committee. The committee has reviewed and approved for passage without amendment throughout the remaining stages in the House of Assembly the following bills, An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act, An Act To Amend The Mining And Mineral Rights Tax Act, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pension Act, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, An Act To Amend The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Amendment Act, and An Act To Amend The Public Service Pension Act.

On motion report received and adopted.

Petitions

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents from the communities of Westport and Purbeck's Cove. I will just read the prayer of the petition. We, the undersigned residents of the district of Baie Verte - White Bay do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of Employment and Labour to immediately implement an emergency employment program. With the economic conditions which exist we find ourselves in a desperate situation. We ask the minister and his government to show compassion and understanding in this urgent matter.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the responses made by the Premier today on this very serious, urgent situation, and by the last two words in this petition I can see why people would sign it. They asked for some compassion and some understanding. Day after day we came into this House, during the last fifteen or sixteen days - we are starting to lose track now, because day after day I come down and have to go back to my office with the same calls coming in, and tomorrow morning again, day after day, hoping it is going to be tomorrow.

Also, day after day maybe the minister has misled or misinformed us, but I really believed that as of last week we were going to have some reaction as to this emergency response. He said at one point, hopefully by Friday. When he said hopefully by Friday we thought it was a good chance for Friday past, but of course there was a storm but there is no excuse for yesterday, or for today. What about tomorrow I ask the minister?

Mr. Speaker, from the sound of the interview this morning I really do not know where this is being held up, and who is really listening and understanding. I was really, really disappointed to hear the Premier's response to those questions today, because I know that the members across the floor are getting the same calls. I know the minister got them because my own district people, after they call me they call him, too. They ask me if they should call him and I say, that is up to yourself. He is the minister so why not ask him.

We are talking about people who cannot afford to put food on their table. Some ministers think it is an exaggeration. Well, I had it again this morning, Mr. Speaker. Two more people said to me that by Friday of this week they are going to social services and they have never been there before. They range in age from thirty-five to thirty-seven years old with two or three kids in the family. They are going there for the first time in their lives. They are seasonal workers, loggers, who went to Prince Edward Island for ten months and still never got the insurable weeks they need.

These are the people who try and get work, Mr. Speaker. They are not people scrounging around to get back on UI every year. They actually go out and try. They were living with a bit of dignity up to this point. We are a week and a half till Christmas. This House is going to close on Friday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: By the sound of it this House will close on Friday. It is a possibility it will close on Friday. If you want to make a point of that it should never close until we get a response to this emergency response program. Keep it open. I will stay here until Christmas Eve if I have to, to get a response to this emergency program because it is urgent. The jokes that are made across the House I have no time for because each one of them know how serious it is.

Thank God we have three people on the other side so far who had the gumption to stand up and say, yes, I will speak for my constituents. The Member for Twillingate stood up and supported it because he knows darn well he is getting the same calls I am getting. I made sure I checked, and I told the Leader of the Opposition before, that in the Baie Verte office of social services there were fifty-eight new cases in one month. With that growing rate what are we heading into?

Then we hear the response by the minister to different media saying they are going to go along with social reform of the country, and committees are travelling all over the Province. All of that has to be blocked out for one minute. All that has to be blocked out and you have to say: I know there is social reform, I know there is federal government, but this government and this Premier who is sitting here today should take the leadership and not say it is in the hands of the minister, and say to his minister: Listen minister, we are going to support you, there will be an emergency job program tomorrow or today, not Friday, not next Monday and it is really sickening day after day.

I don't want to come and present a petition tomorrow, I would rather get up tomorrow and say: minister, thank God you delivered a program, that is what I would like to say and we would commend him for it; but you are late there is no doubt about it, you are late. There are people every day - and the calls keep coming, I am sick of hearing the same call come back to me I tell the people who are calling me, and now, I have to go back again, tomorrow morning between nine and twelve, before we come down here, and say to them again: well, I hope tomorrow; I hope tomorrow and, day after day, Mr. Speaker, we have to say that and that is not good enough. It is not good enough from this government.

Yes, negotiations and discussions continue; the Premier says discussions are continuing, but disgusting is what it is, not discussions. Disgusting that we cannot take the leadership here in our own Province and say: yes, we have a very serious situation and statistics would prove this to be probably the worst employment situation in this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is expired.

MR. SHELLEY: - and the welfare cases are growing and growing. Mr. Speaker, we need an immediate reaction and I pray to God that this minister can stand up tomorrow and make his Ministerial Statement.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like a few words in support of the petition from my colleague from Baie Verte - White Bay.

Mr. Speaker, when you listen to the hon. the Premier, either in this Assembly or in public speaking engagements he has made, you wonder if he lives in the same Province as the rest of us and certainly in the same Province as the constituents I represent. If one were to listen seriously to the Premier you would have to take a line from the song: You know that the future is so bright, I got to wear shades. Well I don't know what colour glasses the Premier is wearing these days, Mr. Speaker, but the people I represent are not altogether in very prosperous times.

MS. VERGE: He wears blinkers.

MR. HEWLETT: Yes, maybe the Premier wears blinkers, not shades.

Mr. Speaker, it is late in the season; Christmas is coming and there has been no sign of any kind of a program from the federal and/or provincial government. This government was elected first and foremost to look after the citizens of this Province and so far they seem content to throw their plight into the arms of the federal government and hope that the federal government are somehow going to reciprocate and come up with some sort of program.

One hears the federal MP who represents my area, Mr. George Baker, putting all sorts of stuff on the radio about there is federal money available, you know, where is the Province? We want to get on with creating some jobs. One hears the provincial minister say he has to talk to the federal people and hopefully we are going to work something out. I kind of wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the people are not just being led on in this period leading up to Christmas, if both levels of government are just sort of playing off against each other, shifting blame from one to the other, hoping that the situation or the people in the plight will go away.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in my district, the people who can go away have already gone away, they are in Alberta and in British Columbia. Those who are left cannot go away either because they cannot afford the air fare or the first and last month's rent to live in boom towns like we have in B. C., they are stuck with remaining in Green Bay and the sad reality is, they have only one option if they are not sixty-five years old, Mr. Speaker, their option is a trip to the local welfare office.

It is rather unfortunate that in large sections of the Northeast Coast today, Mr. Speaker, in districts represented by Progressive Conservatives and Liberals, that the main growth industries in that neck of the woods, Mr. Speaker, is welfare and retirement, and without those two industries there is practically nothing for the people. Now, retirement at least is a relatively steady income, Mr. Speaker, but you have to reach a certain age to get there. The problem we have is that a lot of people who are middle-aged and a lot of people even with young families have a long time to go before they can expect to get a federal pension, Mr. Speaker, and it would look like they are going to have a long time to go before they get a real job from this real change government, so, Mr. Speaker, we need something now, we needed it yesterday and we certainly need it tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, before we call the first order of business, I wonder if we could attend to a matter. I have consulted outside the House with the members on both sides and I believe there is a willingness to take tomorrow, which would normally be a Private Members' Day, and have it devoted to government business. I raise the matter now in the hope that Your Honour will enquire as to whether there is an understanding, and if so, if we have unanimous consent, then we can make our plans accordingly.

As is I think well known and as I believe is universally agreed, it is in the interest of everybody if we can conclude our business by the end of this week. I want to thank my friend for Twillingate who says that he would not raise any objection if in fact the House wished to take tomorrow and go with government business. I wonder if Your Honour could raise that with the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I would prefer to put it in the form of a motion to the House, and that would be that it is moved and seconded.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: So moved then.

Motion, that tomorrow as Private Members' Day be dispensed with and that it become a day for government business or for the regular Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: All in favour of the motion?

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: I want to acknowledge that I was consulted by the Government House Leader prior to this. I've been having some doubts since I heard the Premier's comments today, but I assume that the postponement of private members' business today would mean that the first debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. HARRIS: Tomorrow, rather. It would mean that the first Private Members' Day would be the continuation of the Member for Twillingate's matter when we resume sitting. Would that be the understanding?

MR. SPEAKER: It is still on the Order Paper, I believe, is the -

MR. ROBERTS: That (inaudible) my understanding, Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: - continuation, yes, the second day.

MR. ROBERTS: It would either come to a vote if nobody wished to speak, or members would speak if they so wished.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you. Just to that point, Mr. Speaker. Since we are forgoing Private Members' Day tomorrow - ordinarily Private Members' Day we would conclude at 5:00 p.m. Can we agree that we finish at 5:00 p.m. tomorrow, or - I'm just wondering what the Government House Leader's thoughts are on that.

MR. ROBERTS: I would have no problem agreeing we will rise tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. The House may have to sit a little extended time on other days this week, regular government days, but tomorrow let's - I think people have made arrangements. In fact, I'm not sure if there is not a reception tomorrow afternoon at 5:00 which members would all want to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Is it ours? Oh well, then there is no question, Your Honour, if it is ours. I would say, Your Honour, we are working through tonight to get to that happy point with a brief intermission for the Opposition reception which I understand is scheduled for the close of business tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question on the motion?

All in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary minded, `nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: So is that a nay or -

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you please call -

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. Did I hear a `nay'. It does have to be unanimous, I believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Aye?

MR. ROBERTS: I thought I heard no nays but - how is that for a sentence?

MR. SPEAKER: A nay or a bray, but I heard something, so I thought I would check it out. Thank you.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: The motion has been adopted? Is that...?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sure about the syntax of "I thought I heard no nays." I'm not sure how that is going to look in Hansard.

Your Honour, would you be good enough to call Motion 4. That is a leave to introduce. Then we will carry on with the substantive debate, beginning with An Act To Amend The Mining And Mineral Rights Tax Act. Motion 4 first.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader have leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act, The Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Orders Act And The Support Orders Enforcement Act," carried. (Bill No. 64)

On motion, Bill No. 64 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I would say to my friends that I think when they see that bill they would concur it is a very wise one. It simply is a bill, now that we've given leave to introduce it, to authorize social workers to appear in the Provincial Court in certain very narrow and defined circumstances. My guess is the hon. Member for Humber East will be the first to endorse it when she sees it, and I suspect whoever deals with social services matters on behalf of the Opposition would as well. But let's wait and see. I understand it is printed. It will be distributed as soon as it is here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I would say to my friend for Grand Bank, as I've said before, what the government is going to ask the House is very simple. With the exception of Order No. 2 we intend to address all the matters on the Order Paper. That is why we put them there.

Your Honour, could we -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I would say to my friend for Burin - Placentia West, he will have at least a half-day Christmas, I assure him.

Your Honour, could you call Order No. 25, second reading of the mining and mineral rights tax act amendment bill. My friend the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board will introduce the bill.

Oh, I am sorry; my friend, the Minister of Natural Resources will.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mining And Mineral Rights Tax Act." (Bill No. 36).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to me this is a good news bill. It is a bill initiated by some review of our mining taxation to encourage the mineral exploration sector and mine development in this Province.

Back in 1993, in the winter, when we brought down the Budget, we announced that we would be revising this particular act, the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act, to ensure a positive climate for investment in mineral development in Newfoundland and Labrador. The legislative changes to implement these budget decisions have now been finalized by an interdepartmental committee made up of representatives of my department and the finance department.

In addition to the significant changes that we are making here to help encourage the industry, there are a number of housekeeping changes being made as well, and that is why this piece of legislation seems so thick; there are just some word changes.

In passing this bill to have effect as of January 1 coming, we will have completed another commitment of the Province's tax reform process and fulfil action point thirty-seven of the Strategic Economic Plan.

There are a number of significant points I would like to make. I don't want to go through clause-by-clause in the bill, but I may refer to some. There are a number of significant changes we are making, the first one relative to a mining tax credit. This new tax credit will allow a company to deduct from mining tax the amount of corporate income tax payable to Newfoundland in the same year for the first ten years after achieving commercial production. This is covered by clause 3 of the bill, and it is an amendment to section 4.1 of the act.

While the cost of this initiative could be quite low, it is expected to attract significant attention from potential investors and new mine development, so that the positive benefits to the Province will far outweigh any negative from this particular deduction.

A second point is related to depreciation. Presently we have a ten-year depreciation schedule in the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act for investment in mining ventures, a ten year schedule. It is a very long time at only 10 per cent per year. Federal corporate income tax legislation allows a much more rapid rate of depreciation, at 25 per cent. What we are doing here with the change in depreciation is bringing our Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act in line with the federal Income Tax Act, and these measures will delay the timing of the receipt of some tax revenues because the write-off can be done sooner, but we would encourage small mine development, and we would pick up on the taxes in the later years.

A third point relates to a processing allowance in the processing of minerals. The processing allowance will be enhanced to provide a higher rate of 15 per cent for smelting activities, as opposed to the general rate of 8 per cent, and a new minimum benefit level of 15 per cent of taxable income. This change will encourage investor interest in developing local smelting presence. We do not presently have a smelter in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we believe that by improving this particular deduction we may have some opportunity in the future for getting some further processing, maybe as much as a smelter.

A fourth significant point relates to exploration expenses. Revisions to this legislation allow for a five-year carry forward of exploration expenses incurred anywhere in the Province as opposed to the current treatment which only allows exploration expenses incurred off site on an annual basis. This measure could, in particular, extend the life of mining operations by encouraging further on site exploration, particularly - I emphasize, particularly - with regard to smaller mines, mines that would normally be seen to have a short life.

These last three significant points that I mentioned on depreciation, processing allowance and exploration expenses are covered in section 4 of the bill and section 5 of the act. We are making some other changes which, as I said earlier, are primarily housekeeping. These changes include the addition and amendment of certain definitions. A variety of new definitions are added for clarity; the elimination of some unreasonable deductions that were difficult to interpret and approve in certain cases, clarification of the powers and responsibilities of inspectors, improvements to fines - I emphasise the word `improvements': what we are really saying here is an increase in the fines for any infringement on this law - replacement of an inefficient mining tax review board with other appeal mechanisms and clarification of the liabilities of directors. In particular, we are disbanding the mining tax review board. For the last twenty years, we have had a mining tax review board that we have only used once in twenty years, and we see no need to maintain such an expensive structure for appeals. Overall, the legislation will be much clearer for the industry to understand, making it easier for potential investors to evaluate and more effective for compliance purposes for those who have to implement this act.

I would like to say a few words about the financial impact. Almost all the changes of a financial nature in this bill affect a profits-based tax component of the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act, from which this Province is currently receiving almost no revenue, to the extent that investors are encouraged to consider exploration in the Province which may lead to the establishment of new mines paying taxes. The tax enhancements may serve to improve resource development and improve taxation revenue. The magnitude of the revenue improvement would be dependent, of course, on the many economic and financial factors relevant to each project. These include the quantity and quality of the resources, market demand and price, etcetera. But, in general, ladies and gentlemen, these changes to this act are very positive steps towards encouraging new investment in exploration in this Province and new investment in mining development in this Province and I believe that we are already seeing the benefits.

This year, 1994, we have seen more significant discoveries than in any of the recent years in my memory. In the past few days I was given a briefing in which I was told that we had eleven drills operating on the Island of Newfoundland, itself, right now this month, drilling on some significant prospects. In addition to that, of course, we are all aware of the major discovery in Labrador which, to my mind, also came about because of people being encouraged to explore because they saw these changes being put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say that I had the opportunity - the minister has given me some information as it relates to the bill. I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You're having a party?

AN HON. MEMBER: We're going to a party.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, I thought you and Roberts were hosting a party. I was going to say, that will be an expensive one.

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't last long.

MR. SULLIVAN: It would be expensive and nobody would show up.

MR. TOBIN: I am sure you contributed two dollars each.

MR. SIMMS: You could have asked Alec Snow to chip in with you.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very, very brief on this. I am very happy to have the opportunity to go through this bill. Actually, I sat down with the minister and he offered me a briefing with his officials, but unfortunately, I was unable to make that briefing. The minister did provide me with the briefing notes and, Mr. Speaker, anything that is going to enhance, help develop or further the mining industry in this Province, we, on this side of the House, support it thoroughly.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated what the bill has contained and we certainly hope that the minister will - it has reached the point in time, basically, for mining industry in this Province to receive support and to be encouraged to go out and do what is needed to be done. The minister mentioned in his comments that there are eleven drilling operations taking place on the Island. It is encouraging news, Mr. Speaker, to know that is taking place.

We, on this side, Mr. Speaker, support anything that is positive. As I said, the minister made reference to the fact that drilling operations are taking place on the Island. There are eleven rigs, I believe he said, operating on the Island. I sincerely hope that he will continue to support and become directly involved in the mining industry.

As we are aware, in 1993 the Newfoundland Budget basically dealt with this, offering a mining tax credit and other aspects to the mining industry in this Province dealing with the exploration and other financial impacts. Rather than get up here and prolong or delay the discussion on this, I say that basically we support what the minister has said as it relates to this bill.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to assist in encouraging the development of mineral activities in the Province, but I do have some concerns that with this legislation and other legislation before the House, such as the EDGE corporations, we are creating an environment in which the only people who pay taxes are the individuals in this Province. We see the Federal Government now getting into a situation where they want to back out of any obligation to the provinces, particularly for some aspects of social services, health care, education and that sort of thing, and are talking about transferring tax points to the Province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, if we start transferring tax points to the Province of Newfoundland and we have all the legislation that is being proposed saying that corporations don't have to pay taxes well, then, what it means is that individuals all the way down the line are going to have to bear the tax burden as individuals, as opposed to corporations. In addition, without being able to raise sufficient revenues to look after the level of services we have become used to, particularly in the areas such as health care, education and social security, as a result of these taxes there won't be anything left to tax except the individuals in this Province. And we will have a regime where taxation is being taken away from the corporations and being transferred to the individual.

This is a trend that has taken place in Canada over the last twenty years, where the share of income taxes paid by corporations has reduced dramatically and the share of income taxes and other taxes paid by individuals has gone up.

I will give you some examples. In 1992, a company called Royal Oak Mines, which we are familiar with, made a pre-tax profit of $11.4 million, and paid income tax at a rate of 0.9 per cent. Less than 1 per cent of its pre-tax profits was paid in income tax. That is a company called Royal Oak Mines, which we are familiar with as being the operators of the Hope Brook gold mine and also involved with the Giant gold mine in Yellowknife. There are companies such as Noranda, for example, which in 1992 made $104 million in pre-tax profits and paid income tax at a rate of 1.9 per cent. I only have to ask the Speaker what income tax rate he paid last year on his income, or other members of the House who are paying income tax on incomes at a rate considerably higher than 1.9 per cent or 0.9 per cent. I say that because throughout this country the trend seems to be to let the big corporations off the hook. For example, the Molson group of companies in 1993 had a pre-tax profit of $175 million. On that $175 million, they have paid income tax at a rate of 5.5 per cent, or less than $10 million of this $175 million in profits that they make.

Mr. Speaker, I think we would do well to do something to encourage activities for exploration. I don't know if a ten-year tax holiday for income taxes for all mining companies in the Province as a result of this regime, is maybe going too far, Mr. Speaker. I think that obviously, something to encourage that type of activity is important, but to go so far as to say there will be a total tax holiday for ten years - in some cases, the life of a mine is measured in only ten years. So, what we are saying here is that there may be a commercial deposit that is going to be totally extracted in a period of ten years and this Province, in terms of income tax, will get, in fact, no benefit in terms of corporate income tax from these companies. So creating a new regime for the corporate world, the EDGE corporations, the mining companies, they will pay no taxes but yet we keep telling ourselves how rich and valuable we are in natural resources. If that is true, if we have such valuable, rich natural resources in this Province, then we ought not to give away our right to tax these corporations in order to encourage investment.

Mr. Speaker, the rise in value of the shares of Diamond Mines Corporation as a result of the find in Labrador certainly wasn't dependent upon mineral tax regime which would guarantee them tax-free status for ten years. Whether or not that mines goes into production or not I don't know. Maybe the whole thing is designed as a share promotion on the Vancouver stock exchange. Who knows what goes on in the mining ventures and the stock markets, from time to time, with relation to this kind of activity?

I see, Mr. Speaker, there have been in the past some very good incentive programs for mineral exploration. The Federal Government had a tax incentive for exploration where you could deduct from income taxes, monies paid into an exploration fund that could be deducted from taxes because you would be encouraging mineral exploration. I think mineral exploration is the key, and anything that can be done to encourage mineral exploration should be emphasized rather than the other end of it, and once the minerals have been found, the people of this Province should obtain the maximum possible return for the minerals that are in our ground and one of those ways, of course, is by corporate income taxes.

I don't see why corporations who mine minerals ought to be exempt from taxes and corporations who manufacture or sell fish, or manufacture fish-related products are not exempt from income tax, if they make a profit, or any other corporations who have a taxable income ought to be paying income tax the same as everyone else. This is an unlimited type of thing, Mr. Speaker. What exactly are the amounts of tax relief being granted here nobody really knows. We can forecast, we can guess, but just as with the EDGE corporations, which we discussed yesterday, there is no indication whatsoever as to what this is going to cost in terms of foregone revenues.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the minister is very pleased with this legislation because he believes that it is going to encourage further mineral production and mineral activity, and I have no doubt that it will, but at what cost to the taxpayers of this Province who are going to have to raise the revenue that would otherwise be obtained through mineral production some other way? It is all very well to say it is going to generate jobs and economic activity, sure, it will, as does every corporate activity in this Province. Every time anyone hires another employee, every time anyone engages in business activity in this Province, it generates employment and generates revenue by way of retail sales tax, and generates other spin-off development, but there has to be a very, very strong reason why all commercial mineral production, according to this act, is now going to be on the basis that they are going to be remitted for a period of ten years, their income tax in any year in which there is commercial production which is defined at 60 per cent of capacity for thirty days. That is what is defined as commercial production in this act. I have no hesitation, and I don't think anybody in this House could disagree that we, as a Province, would like to encourage mineral exploration, mineral activity, just as we would any other activity, but why are we looking to our revenue sources and saying, `Well, we will forego all corporate income tax revenue on this level of activity'? Why would that not apply to Abitibi-Price, or Corner Brook Pulp and Paper? Why would that not apply to every other corporation engaged in industrial or economic activity in the Province? Why would it not apply to Newfoundland Light and Power? Why would it not apply to them, that they would forego the revenue there? Is it going to apply to IOC in Labrador? I don't know. The minister shakes his head, so I assume he is talking about new mineral activity or new commercial enterprises engaged in after this date.

It is a very, very significant tax concession being given on a general basis, not with any promise of any particular development. I can see a negotiated deal, as a result of a very substantial investment being made by a particular company in an area where the Province may know it is very difficult to attract investment, and saying, well, for this one case we will make a particular exception because of the size of the investment engaged in, because of the marginal nature of a particular find, perhaps, that we would engage in a regime which would provide the tax concessions for a particular case; but to say, holus-bolus, to all future mineral entrepreneurs that we will not collect any income tax is a very potentially expensive giving-up of our corporate income tax power and a potentially large revenue from this Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks on this bill. I have no quarrel with the intent. I have no quarrel with the principle of encouraging mineral development, but I would want to see substantial caps put on the foregone revenue that is contained in this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am pleased to rise and speak for a few minutes on Bill 36.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long?

MR. A. SNOW: Two or three minutes, that's all - just a few minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have somewhere to go at 5:00 p.m.

MR. A. SNOW: We have to deal with the business of the people rather than the business of going out and enjoying the parties of Christmas. We have to look after the people's business. We have a responsibility to look after it.

MR. ROBERTS: Do you want to stay here tomorrow night after 5:00 p.m.?

MR. A. SNOW: If necessary, if that is what it takes to look after...There is only one member who wasn't invited to tomorrow's festivities, I am told. The only member who wasn't invited to tomorrow's festivities is the Government House Leader, I am told by a member from the other side. He said he ruined one last year. He has almost ruined the Liberal party, so now he wants to come to our Christmas party; he will ruin that, so they wouldn't invite him.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible). If we only had an extra week I would have had a fourth seat in Labrador.

MR. A. SNOW: The Government House Leader knows that greed gets a lot of people into a lot of trouble and he, above anybody else in this House, should recognize that. He should recognize that greed, whether it is greed after seats or greed after money, whatever it is, it is going to get him into trouble again.

MR. SULLIVAN: Escobar proposal.

MR. A. SNOW: Escobar proposal, is it, the four seats?

Now, Mr. Speaker, to get back to the people's business, this Bill 36, I am pleased to see that the minister brought the bill forward. It is a bill that should encourage more mineral exploration in this Province. This Province is in dire need of more economic activity and mineral exploration should enable more economic activity in the long run.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: It's happening now. Yes, there is some exploration that could stimulate more economic activity in the mining industry apart from just the spin-off from the exploration, I am not discounting that a couple of million dollars or four or five, ten million dollars is not a lot of money but it is not a lot of money when you see that mineral exploration of the type that was done and discovered. The ore deposit in Boise Bay, that could generate a tremendous amount of economic activity for this Province. It is legislation that is necessary, it is legislation that is late in coming, it is legislation that people of this Province should have, especially the mining industry, Mr. Speaker.

The mining industry is an area that has been neglected by this government, neglected since this government was elected in '89; it is not just this particular piece of legislation that is necessary to correct but some of the things that occurred in the mining industry. Mr. Speaker, some of the things that occurred we have to address, the government should address the problems with regard to the Workers' Compensation Act as an example, Mr. Speaker.

The Workers' Compensation we know, affects every employer and every employee in this Province, one of the employers who employs the most people in this Province, pays the highest salaries in this Province of any private sector employer, Mr. Speaker; they hire more people than anybody else in this Province; they are one of the world's leaders in the mining industry and this Province does not even see fit to appoint a representative from the mining industry or specifically from the Western Labrador mining industry, a representative on the Workers' Compensation Board of Directors, but that is the type of recognition that is necessary to allow the company and its employees and the employer, access to what is happening within the Workers' Compensation field, Mr. Speaker, so it is not -

If you want to really encourage the mining industry to properly develop and to have proper representation in the actions of this government, you just cannot sit here and pass a law in a vacuum; you have to do other things and one of those things is to allow the mining industry to have representation, whether it is the employer or the employee, on the Board of Directors of the Workers' Compensation.

My good friend and colleague from St. John's East talked about what we are changing in the country, how this country is changing how we are collecting revenue for government, Mr. Speaker, how there is a larger percentage coming from employees, from individual contributions rather than from corporate contributions. Well, I only say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe firmly that everybody should pay their fair share of taxes and it is necessary to have a framework that allows the capitalistic system to work - that is the world we are living in - you have to allow it to work, you have to allow it to properly develop thus creating more opportunities for employment which will allow more opportunities for these people to pay taxes.

The people in my district pay the highest per capita income tax in this Province, and they make good money, Mr. Speaker, they are the highest paid miners in the world and they are the best miners in the world. The Iron Ore Company of Canada is the best iron ore producer in this world today; their product is the yardstick when people are buying iron ore products whether it is pellets or concentrate, their products are what measures the quality of ore anywhere in this world.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) you are on a roll right now anyway, (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I know one Ed who should quit, Mr. Speaker, and everybody on the other side is agreeing with me, they are nodding an agreement that there is definitely one Ed who should quit.

Mr. Speaker, this bill should encourage more mining explorations. It will allow for new mines operating, a greater freedom in processing and secondary processing which is something towards which this government should be moving more. We have to create a tax regime that is going to allow and encourage mining companies not to just ship out raw product, which is happening just south of Nain now. That should never be allowed to occur in today's economy here in this Province. We have to put together a tax regime that will encourage more investment, not just take the raw product out and ship it out.

A prime example is what has occurred in Western Labrador with the pellet plant, which is secondary processing. It is a value-added. That is where the jobs are, that is where we can get more employment, more wealth for this Province, by having secondary processing. That value-added in the pellet is where the most jobs are in Western Labrador. I'm hoping that bills like this can be improved upon, that we will encourage more of this secondary processing. Not just a smelting process, Mr. Speaker. That is important, but we should use the tax regime to encourage more investment for the secondary process and do it also in a manner that can be punitive, if you will. If they do not have a value-added process in this Province then we should be taxing them to get more revenue from the mining companies that are operating, or anybody that is operating.

This applies I believe very similarly to the fishing industry, any resource. We should be encouraging, giving them more tax concessions or tax breaks, whatever you want to call it. We should be encouraging more investment to create especially more secondary professing, because that is where the real jobs are, that is where the real wealth is.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity for speaking to this bill. I support most of the changes that are presently in (inaudible).

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just rise to make a few brief comments on this particular piece of legislation. I commend the minister for bringing in this piece of legislation. I think it is much needed at this time, especially in a time when the potential for exploration in the Province in mining is - I think it is coming to a peak, that we are going to see some major developments in mining very soon in this Province. In the Labrador area as recently.

Also in my own district of Baie Verte - White Bay the minister well knows that the potential for mining development there looks very promising. Nugget Pond, the company Noveder out of Quebec, are now in Baie Verte at the Nugget Pond site. It looks like almost a certainly that we will have a full-fledged mine there by the spring or next summer, with maybe eighty to 100 men. I think those are the numbers right now that I hear. That is great news for everyone I say in the mining industry.

It also serves as a catalyst to other potential mining investors around the country and even outside the country to look and see that the government has legislation in place, like the minister has already said, that is clearer legislation, something that is not too confusing to prospective investors in the Province, and that is a good sign. I'm glad to see that in this piece of legislation. Also we have another potential. Pine Cove is another gold mine on the Baie Verte Peninsula, and now also, as the minister knows, there is a potential at the Rambler mine site. There has been some new construction that went on there.

All in all, as a province, but also in my district in particular, this industry is very important. I just wanted to make a few brief comments and to commend the minister on this piece of legislation. I hope that it continues and that improvements are made to encourage - anything to encourage exploration and also the start up of actual mines in this Province, I encourage the minister to keep that up. We have to remember that there are small companies that look to invest also, and not just the larger companies, and we have to make ways for them so that they are not turned off by legislation, or by tax breaks in this Province that would encourage them to come in and set up business.

I again commend the minister for this type of legislation. I hope that we are going to see a lot more (inaudible), especially this spring and throughout this summer, throughout the whole Province, and I hope so in the Baie Verte - White Bay District. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members opposite for their comments. I agree with them. This is a very positive - I will tell the hon. Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, it is very positive for small companies as well as large. It encourages something like a Nugget Pond to be developed, and that is now registered with Environment for mining assessment, so it I believe will become a mine. There are a lot of positive things happening in this Province on mining.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I recommend the bill for second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mining And Mineral Rights Tax Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 36)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, could we call Bill No. 52, which is Order No. 26, The Leaseholds in St. John's Act?

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act". (Bill No. 52)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses and hopefully resolves a very long-standing problem that has occupied quite a lot of the time of this House in the last twenty years.

Well legislation was first introduced in the 1920s - during my first term in the House, before somebody else says it - and then we got on with it somehow for a period of fifty or sixty years but in 1977 matters had come to the point where it was necessary to adopt further changes to the act. Mr. William Marshall, who is now Mr. Justice Marshall of the Court of Appeal, was the proud father of the legislation and I guess all we are doing now is tidying up one or two of the loose ends if I may. The legislation falls into two parts; the first simply extends the present legislation by one year and that is found in Clause 1 of the bill. All we have done is delete the words, `1994' and add the words, `1995.' So if the House will adopt that it will simply continue the status quo for the calendar year 1995. If the House does not act, the status quo comes to an end on December 31, 1994.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that brings me to the second part of the bill which is subject to proclamation. The bill very briefly or the act which (inaudible) very briefly addresses a situation that grew up here in St. John's because of a practice that was adopted in the last century. It carried through, for at least the first part of this century, of leasing land upon which homes were to be built and upon which commercial buildings were to be built for long periods of time as opposed to the more modern practice of simply selling the land, selling the freehold interest and allowing the purchaser of the land to build his/her home or his/her business but up until the modern practice developed the long-standing practice -is really an outgrowth of an english tradition, growing out of the english property law - was to have long-term leases, ninety-nine years was a norm and I have even seen them for longer periods. Many of these leases, particularly in the older part of St. John's, the area south of LeMarchant Road, east of Springdale Street and west of Prescott Street, just in a general description, many of those leases were for very nominal rents in modern dollars, although they may have been substantial rents in 1890 or 1900.

In the 1920s the House moved to adopt legislation that gave the lessees the right to purchase the freehold interest in the land in return for a set payment - twenty times or forty times, it is set out in the act. It is twenty times in the case of the newer leases, the post 1921 leases, and forty times in the case of the older leases. Now that has given rise to a host of practical problems over the years. There have been all sorts of difficulties as to which lease was what, problems in getting hold of the lessors, many of whom were originally residents of England who have since died. The matters are being administered by estates, sometimes there is difficulty in getting people to sign the necessary conveyances and even if they agree to sign there is often a fuss, a delay and a trouble. So it has really been nothing but a make-work scheme for lawyers and lawyers in this Province have lots to do without taking advantage or getting involved in this kind of make-work scheme.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Gander, the Minister of Finance, wants to know how lawyers will make any money. I assure him that wherever there is a lawyer there will be money made by that lawyer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Money lost? Perhaps. But certainly there will be money made by the lawyers. I have infinite faith in my brethren and my sisters at the Bar to flourish even in a desert.

Mr. Speaker, the solution -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I suspect this is an anti-lawyer joke, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to hear it, though.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I see. I say to my friend from Humber Valley, the one he might wish to use is the difference between a dead lawyer on the highway and a dead skunk - the skid marks by the skunk.

Your Honour, now that I have offended every lawyer within hearing...

MR. SULLIVAN: What clause is that?

MR. ROBERTS: That is under the ancient lease, I say to my friend from Ferryland.

Your Honour, the solution we suggest is very straightforward and is described in detail in the explanatory notes to the bill. Now I know members have read the notes assiduously, and have compared them with the act itself. My friend from Gander has done it several times, but for those who have only been through it once or twice, let me attempt to summarize what this bill will do if it becomes law.

First of all, we ask the House to extend the area so as to embrace all of the boundaries of the City of St. John's. Now that is intended particularly to address a problem in an area called Penetanguishene out near Windsor Lake where, for some reason, a developer a number of years ago, in the fifties if I recall correctly, decided to develop residential property out there, a subdivision, using relatively short-term leases of thirty or forty years, so it addresses that situation. All of these people will now come within the terms of the act and have the right to purchase. The right to purchase is absolute. The price is a matter that has to be set according to the formula in the act.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the act will vest title in the city, will vest the lessor's title, the landlord's title, the freehold interest, will vest it in a corporation, the body corporate, known as the City of St. John's. The city will have the obligation to pay compensation to the lessor, to the landlord, to the owner of the freehold interest, in accordance with the established formula. We are not tampering with the formulas.

What that will do is end forever the necessity to try to track down the heirs-at-law, or the administrators, or whatever form or shape the person authorized to give good title takes, so that won't be necessary any more. The title will be vested by act of the Legislature in the City of St. John's, which will then have the power to convey it out. The landlord will come forward. We are not expropriating the landlord's property, period. We are simply saying the landlord will come forward and be compensated in accordance with the established formula, the formula that has been in effect for more than seventy years, but instead of looking to the lessee for it, the landlord will go to the City of St. John's, which would be obliged to give the landlord a cheque - fine, no problem. The City of St. John's, in turn, will look to the lessee. The lessee has the right to purchase the freehold interest whenever she or he may wish, and has an obligation to purchase it at certain times as set out in the act.

We have also put in a separate arbitration scheme for commercial land. There have been a number of problems arising from commercial leases that have led to some litigation, some of it to the Court of Appeal level. The scheme for ancient commercial leases - these are the pre-1921 leases - is, I think, quite ingenious. It is in clause 11 of the act. It amounts to a form of final offer arbitration. Each of the parties will retain an appraiser if they can't agree on it. Each appraiser will give his or her opinion, and where the two opinions are within fifteen points of one another, they are simply averaged and the average becomes the purchase price. Where they are not within fifteen points of one another, the registrar of the Supreme Court shall appoint a third appraiser and the two who are closest together shall be averaged, and that shall become the price. That should solve a very difficult and troublesome problem that consumes a great deal of lawyers' time and accountants' time, and a great deal of clients' money and doesn't produce a great deal of benefit for anybody beyond the people who are involved in it professionally.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Ever since I stopped being a lawyer in practice, I say to my friend.

Other leases, the modern commercial leases and all residential leases, the arbitration will fall under the Arbitration Act, which is the standard code and I believe, in fact, was adopted before this administration came into office, if memory serves me correctly, but it is a standard, workable, practical, commercial code.

The only other point I make, Mr. Speaker, in asking the House to read this bill a second time, is to say that the reason we have drafted the bill so that Part II comes into effect upon proclamation, is to allow anybody who wishes to come forward and make comment on this to do so. We had a knotty problem as to how to go about getting input into it, given the fact that we have to act by the end of this year or face a form of legislative chaos. I say now, on behalf of government, that if the relevant legislation committee wishes to hold hearings on it, assuming the bill is adopted, as we hope will be the case, and as we shall ask the House to do, then the government will be quite prepared not only to do whatever we need to do to facilitate it, if we need do anything, but will be quite prepared to provide any assistance that may be needed by way of explanation, information, or so forth.

Our thought is to allow the City of St. John's, in particular, to come forward if they wish to be heard. We have had consultations with them at the officials level but we thought it appropriate not to hold consultations at the public level until the House had first addressed the issue, so our solution, as I have said, is to put out a solution, put out a suggested course of action, which we believe is the appropriate one, and then to provide a mechanism whereby any who wish to be heard may come forward. There maybe some landlords who wish to come forward. There are some people who have a strange idea about these things as to what their `rights' may be. My friend, the Member for St. John's East, is chuckling. He may have run into some of them in his private life, or in his professional life. And, of course, we would be prepared to hear from the City because they are involved.

We put the bill forward as a practical and workable solution to a very long-standing problem that requires a resolution, in our view, and so I commend the bill to the House and ask it to be read a second time.

Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Government House Leader for his explanation of the bill. This seems to be a good attempt to address, in a permanent way, a long-standing, thorny, legal problem here in St. John's. Those of us who have practised law elsewhere in the Province have not had to contend with the hassle of residential, long-term leaseholds, as have practitioners in St. John's. Part I, as the minister has indicated, is yet another stop-gap approach which extends for another year the term of leases, and that comes into force immediately, just in time to avoid the chaos the minister just mentioned.

Part II, with the delayed coming into force provision, sets out what seems, on the face of it, to be a good practical, permanent solution. I haven't had any practical experience with real estate law in St. John's and I wouldn't be prepared to endorse Part 11 wholeheartedly without more time to consult people who are more experienced than I am in the area. For that reason, I am glad the minister is allowing time for consultation with real estate law practitioners, with the City of St. John's, and time for the Social Services Legislation Review Committee to examine the bill.

These are all points I jotted down in advance of the Government House Leader speaking. With respect to the committee, I am disturbed that the committee has been virtually defunct for more than a year. The Wells Administration initiated legislation review committees and, in their early years, from time to time, with respect to particular bills, the committees worked well, and I think, provided a valuable service. But, as the years go on, the committees seem to be called upon less and less frequently. Ministers seem to bypass the committees, and the committees exist, really, now, in name only.

I am speaking of the Social Services Legislation Review Committee. Now, the reality of the Social Services Committee over the last couple of years is a reflection of a very light, social legislative agenda on the part of the government. The much-talked-about and long-promised legislative reforms in education and social services have not materialized. The committee is still waiting for education legislation, child welfare legislation, child care or day care legislation.

Within the past six months, I can remember the Social Services Committee dealing with only one bill, and that is the Justice bill that is now on the Order Paper, the Advance Health Care Directives bill. I'm glad the Government House Leader is allowing time for this amendment to the St. John's Leaseholds act to go to the Social Services Committee.

I'm willing to say now that I support the principle of the bill. It is unacceptable for people in St. John's who appear to own property and whom neighbours regard as owning property, but who technically, legally, only have leases, to be frustrated in their effort to get clear title so that they can sell or mortgage, because of the archaic leasehold arrangement, and because of the practical difficulties of dealing with absentee landlords. The Government House Leader mentioned that in some cases the landlords are unknown, the original lessor, in many cases, was in England, died years ago; estates are messy. Even when the correct parties can be tracked down, sometimes there are undue delays.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) don't have to sell (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Sure, yes. So, Part II seems to be a practical solution to these problems. Part II seems to provide, in a balanced way, redress for both tenants or lessees, the people here in St. John's who are living in houses or occupying commercial premises, to all intents and purposes owning the property, to get clear title and, on the other hand, to provide fair compensation for the landlords.

I support the principle of the bill. I'm glad Part I is coming into force in time to avoid the confusion that would result from the expiry of the last amendment, which brings the leases only up to the end of this year. I'm glad even more that Part II addresses the problem in a more comprehensive and permanent way. Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to speak briefly on this bill, because it is one of great importance to my constituents. It is matter that I happen to know something about, having practised law for over fourteen years in St. John's.

I do want to say that I welcome the legislation because it will solve a large number of problems that individuals have when they are trying to sell their houses. The problems that come up, are problems that come up because the purchaser of these houses - and these are individuals who live on one street and sell a house to move on another street, or have to sell their houses for one reason or another, or even people who are mortgaging these houses who can't get the title certified because they own leasehold property and the lease is about to expire. Mortgage companies often make it a condition that in order to grant the mortgage on a particular property, it must be transformed from leasehold to freehold.

So, enormous problems come up, and they are problems that often have to be resolved very quickly in a matter of a two- or three-week period when a real estate closing is to take place and somebody is moving house. And, quite often, they can't be resolved in that period of time, Mr. Speaker, and people have their properties held up, their sales held up, sales fall through, causing great hardship to individuals and their families - and this has been going on for many, many years. I know there have been attempts through various amendments and the creation, itself, of the Leaseholds In St. John's Act in 1977, putting it into a separate act instead of a city act, to try to resolve these problems.

I think this is a sincere attempt, Mr. Speaker, to perhaps get these transactions out of the hands of individual landlords or landowners and put them in the hands of the City Administration, which has an interest in trying to resolve these problems. They, themselves, have engaged in providing a service to the citizens of St. John's in trying to help them resolve these questions; they have been doing that for a couple of years now, encouraging people to buy out the freehold, providing their own employee to do work on helping people to acquire this, and having some form of financial assistance, at least from a cash flow basis, to individuals trying to buy out the freehold of their properties.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that although the Government House Leader introduced it as a bit of lawyers' law, and certainly it is a complex and tangly kind of legislation and area of the law, it is a matter that is of very grave concern to a large number of people, particularly in the older part of St. John's, in St. John's East, in St. John's Centre, and in St. John's South, in particular, but there are other parts of St. John's where leasehold lands are affected.

Now, I don't think this has solved all the problems, and I don't think the Government House Leader would claim that it had solved all the problems. Last year, around this time, we passed a very quick amendment to the Leaseholds In St. John's Act to postpone for a year, the requirement of having some substantial amendments; we are doing it here again, but I think that the end is in sight. I think I would have been a lot happier if the legislation committee had had this piece of legislation to debate over the Fall session, Mr. Speaker, so that any things that needed to be fixed up could be fixed up. I hope it will meet with general approval. I think it is wise to let people have their say about this at the Committee stage, even though it has passed second reading and perhaps third reading before we get out of here.

I know the rules don't really provide for committees to deal with legislation after it has been passed by the House, but I think, certainly, I would be prepared to consent to having the committee deal with this legislation and hear from a lot of lawyers who have been involved in the tangly kind of issues that come up. I know of one problem, Mr. Speaker, that a constituent of mine has been bugging me about, writing me and consulting me about for some two years now, and I have been in discussions with the Government House Leader, in correspondence with him about this particular problem.

I don't think it is resolved even by this act, because it is a piece of land which is composed of two leasehold parcels, one of which is an ancient lease and another of which is a modern lease, and while the act resolves the problem for ancient leases, the modern leases, those entered into after 1921, in order to come under this legislation and get the relief promised by this legislation, they must be building leases, and this is a part of the land of this individual, that there is no house built on or part of this individual's house is built on, but there was no covenant in the lease requiring this individual to build on this particular property.

I don't know if there is time during the further debate or the Committee stage this session, to fix that problem, but if there is no intention of proclaiming the legislation until the committee has had a chance to look at it and consider it over the next few months, then when we get back in the Spring and deal with the Committee's report, then perhaps there can be amendments in the Spring before the legislation is proclaimed, or indeed, it may be necessary to proclaim the legislation to solve the problems that it solves, and in the Spring session of the House, to bring in further amendments to solve other problems.

I would have been a lot happier, Mr. Speaker, if this current legislation solved at least that problem. There are a number of others which I don't think are necessarily resolved by this particular piece of legislation but I do welcome it. I think that it has been a long wait for many people who have had serious problems with their houses, their property and their titles because of the tangly nature of the legal issues involved and in some cases the obstinency of certain lawyers, certain land owners or certain percentage - one land owner may only own one-tenth, one-twentieth or one-sixteenth interest in a particular freehold property but that person has to also be participating in the sale of a freehold and it is not easy, Mr. Speaker, to resolve all of these problems.

The Government House Leader said that it was a make-work project for lawyers. It certainly may be a make-work project for lawyers, Mr. Speaker, but it is not one that lawyers often get paid for. Quite often lawyers end up doing a lot more work on matters such as this that they cannot reasonably charge for because it is unreasonable to expect someone to pay $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 to buy out the freehold of a piece of property when the purchase price may only have been $600 or $700. Individuals have a great deal of difficulty understanding why they should have to pay for that. In the end, what happens often is that lawyers end up acting for individuals trying to buy out the freehold, end up taking a very substantial reduction in fees or do the work for next to nothing. So it is a make-work project certainly for lawyers but it is a very large headache for most lawyers who are engaged in this who are trying to do their best to help an individual purchase a property or mortgage a property without having to pay very exorbitant costs for doing so.

So I welcome the legislation. I hope that the committee will get together very shortly and publicize this bill and make sure that it is well circulated within the community, particularly of St. John's, that some land owners will have an interest in it. I understand that there are certain land owners resident in the United States who have a very great interest in it and their ideas of property rights are quite different from our own. They think somehow the American Constitution protects them and have been very difficult in negotiating with individual householders who are trying to sort out their own title.

So there may be some further debate on it when individuals get a chance to look at it and there may need to be some technical amendments to make sure that it covers the kind of problems that lawyers are encountering every day in trying to resolve difficulties that their clients, the citizens of St. John's, face in trying to do - as what the Member for Humber East said, I mean basically we are talking about people who brought a property, think they own it but find out that in fact the freehold of the property is owned in part, one-sixteenth, by some estate in England that nobody seems to be able to find the relatives of and it makes it very difficult to comply with all the technical requirements of the existing act.

So I welcome this bill. I would like to see speedy passage if we can sort out one problem for one of my constituents while we are doing this. Perhaps it might need an amendment at another stage and I am prepared to discuss that with the Government House Leader before we get to committee stage on the bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would close my remarks.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I shall be very brief. I want to thank my friend from Humber East and my friend from St. John's East. All I need say, in addition I think, number one, I am familiar with the problem that my friend from St. John's East speaks about. I had understood from the solicitors in Justice, who crafted the bill, that it would address that issue but if it does not, we will come back at one of two places, either in the committee stage or if we are not able to solve it by then - my friend from St. John's will agree, it is a very unusual problem and like many unusual problems it seems simple until you start to try to solve it - but if not, the bill or the act will go to a committee and we will deal with it there. If a further amendment is needed then the House is always here and the House can always deal with it.

The other point I would make is to underline what both learned members have said, Mr. Speaker, and that is I hope those with interest in these matters; the landlords, the City of St. John's, lessees to some extent if they wish to come forward, the lawyers and others will - once they've had a look at the bill - will make representations to the Social Services Committee. I am quite sure the committee will respond in the appropriate way and hold hearings if that is the way to go and we will see what comes of that but the major thing is that we were trying to move this matter forward to a final resolution to get it solved for once and for all and I thank hon. members for their support.

With that said, Sir, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 52)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, we have done two bills in an hour. We are beginning to pick up speed here. My friend from Gander will now show us exactly how quickly a bill can be moved and gone through the House. Would you call Order 27, Bill No. 53?

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act". (Bill No. 53)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This looks like a rather small piece of business; however, it is a very, very significant piece of business. What this amendment does is permit the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to issue debentures into the pension fund - these debentures, of course, to cover the liability that government has in terms of the unfunded liability of the pension plans. This is something that has needed to be done for quite some time, and finally we are putting the mechanism in place whereby that will be one action that we will be allowed to take to try to solve this horrendous problem that is bearing down on us in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill to allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to issue debentures into the pension fund.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the minister is very much aware as anyone that we have, I think, a $1.775 billion unfunded liability in the pensions - $1.775 billion total - more now. That is the latest filed statement in the House as of, I guess, March of 1993 I would assume, the most recent I have received. I don't think the latest is tabled yet, to my knowledge, but it is growing at an alarming rate. I know that government did indicate a few years ago they were going to start to contribute to, for instance, the teachers' pension fund, I think $20 million a year, and they made one payment. A commitment was made. They indicated it was time to start putting into the fund and address these unfunded liabilities, and we will do that over a period of time. They made a payment back in 1990 or whatever, 1991, and then the next four years they talked about their commitments to meeting the unfunded liability of between $700 and $800 million, I think, in the teachers' pension fund, unfunded liability.

AN HON. MEMBER: More than that.

MR. SULLIVAN: More again. Yes, $893.8 million I think, as of the end of March, 1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I am just reading from your Province of Newfoundland pooled pension fund, teacher's pension plan, unfunded liability, $893,800,000 as of December 31, 1992, so I would assume it is up around $1 billion now, is it? It must be, at the rate it is increasing.

The gist of this is proper. There has to be responsibility there to meet those, because they are a liability on this Province, whether it is an unfunded liability in the fund, or direct lease. So this is going to be a debenture to that fund, in other words, to cover the government's guarantees, commitment, on those unfunded liabilities that are there, so that is, I guess, a positive. It is not going to enhance, of course, our overall fiscal position at all, but it is going to meet a commitment in the fund, so I can certainly support that amendment there.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board; if he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member's numbers are essentially correct, except that it grows month by month. The total unfunded liability probably is approaching $2 billion at the current time, overall, and that would include all four pension plans.

It is growing, obviously, because the previous government and the previous, previous government, and the previous, previous, previous government - in other words, all governments -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No, not the current government.

All governments up to 1989-'90 allowed this thing to get out of hand. Since that time the funding has been provided to cover the current service cost for the first time in history, and there were changes made to two of the plans, so some steps have already been taken. This allows us to go the extra mile and put some mechanism in place whereby we can start to correct the problem, but this is not a guarantee. The hon. member talked about a guarantee, or a commitment we made of $20 million a year. That is not correct. We put one $22 million payment and indicated that if there were surpluses that developed we would try to put in what we could. Obviously the recession hit and we couldn't put extra money in, we didn't have it. This is not a commitment to put specific amounts in. It just simply allows us at some point in time when we are able, when the financial situation is right, we will be then able to put the money in. I hope, Mr. Speaker, this will be much sooner rather than later. I'm very pleased to move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 53)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, now that my friend the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has shown us all how it is done, could we call Order No. 28, Bill No. 56, the City of St. John's amendment act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act". (Bill No. 56)

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The explanatory note in the bill basically says it all. The rationale behind the amendment is to provide the legislative authority for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to approve the retroactive date of January 1 1992, a formula once one is adopted by the regional services board, because they have to adopt the formula, for the calculation of rates or user fees to be paid to the City of St. John's by the other municipalities served by the regional fire department.

I will say that I recently received a letter from six mayors in the area representing six of the municipalities under the St. John's Fire Department: St. John's, Mount Pearl, Paradise, Portugal Cove - St. Phillips, Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, and Petty Harbour - Maddox Cove. They've basically sent to me as far as I'm concerned the basis of a formula that could be reached and settled among the six communities themselves. I'm sure the House is aware that there were five different articles, proposals, in that particular letter. Number three, which has nothing at all to do with setting the formula, was the question of the 60-40 consideration by government in regards to picking up some of the cost of the back money or the retroactive money owed.

Tomorrow morning I'm meeting with the four mayors of Paradise, Portugal Cove, Logy Bay and Petty Harbour to discuss this particular aspect of the proposal that has been agreed to by the six towns. Even though we will be discussing this particular aspect, number three, that all municipalities, including St. John's and Mount Pearl request favourable consideration of your department in cost-sharing the outstanding fire cost for the municipalities on a 60-40 provincial basis after the application of the 30 per cent reduction, that has absolutely nothing to do with the formula.

In respect to this piece of legislation which addresses basically after we put the formula in place, the fact that we can go back then to January 1 1992 and charge these communities, those four communities that I just mentioned are fully aware of that and support the idea of paying back to 1992. In fact, number one of their proposal is that the original formula based on the allocation of fire costs by assessed values be reduced by 30 per cent for the years 1992, 1993, and 1994. They are basically agreeing that their bill has been accumulating since January 1 1992.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping now, as I told my hon. colleague across the way the other day, that this may - I know I'm still going to have some glitches in this, getting a deal - but I think in the end, in the next little while, I'm hoping that in the next couple of weeks all the municipalities will come to some arrangement with the City of St. John's. There will be a formula put in place and recommended to the department, and hopefully this thing will be solved once and for all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

It is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill 56, "An Act To Amend The City of St. John's Act". I had asked the minister last week in the House, and last spring on a number of occasions, with respect to solving the issue of fire-fighting on the Northeast Avalon, and last week the minister made a statement that Bill 56 would go a long way to solving that problem. I don't see Bill 56 going a long way to solve that problem because all it is doing is making the formula that would be accepted by the municipalities involved in due course retroactive back to 1992.

The government has basically stated they made a mistake by allowing the municipalities, or the St. John's Regional Fire-fighting Committee, to disband. They were told in the meantime, on a number of occasions, that it wouldn't work, it couldn't work, for various reasons, and obviously it hasn't and can't work.

Mr. Speaker, the outstanding bill that the minister referred to when the towns wrote to the minister on that issue, they were basically agreeing that a 30 per cent reduction in the bill for 1992-'93, they may be willing to pay that if the government comes across with 60 per cent contribution towards that bill after the City of St. John's approves the 30 per cent reduction. What they are basically looking at in that situation is the amount of money now that they can actually come up with and afford to pay, and that is a big difference in the formula itself. Basically, they want to get that bill off the books. They want to be able to do their budgets. They have been the past two years wondering how much it is going to cost them in the future.

The Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, for example, their bill had increased by 850 per cent, and the reasons why I believe St. John's has agreed to a 30 per cent reduction in the outstanding bill is basically the common sense point of view, and it boils down to dollars and cents. If Paradise, Portugal Cove and Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove pull out of that service and provide one for themselves, what will happen, the City of St. John's will end up having to pay out the same bucks that they are paying out now and not get the money that they would normally get from those three or four municipalities.

I believe that this bill and this government again shows the broken promises of the Premier. I remember being in a meeting with the Premier when I was Mayor of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, with three other mayors, and the Premier quite emphatically and quite bluntly said to the minister of the day - I think it was Mr. Hogan - that if a formula was to be based on assessed value only it would not happen, and you could tell the Mayor of St. John's that, but obviously that is what this is boiling down to. What it is boiling down to now is that it is going to be based on assessed value only.

The minister referred to the committee itself approving a formula in the near future and I, for one, would like to see it settled. I am basically getting tired of this situation, speaking for the smaller towns, but what we have to look at here is the representation. Again, the City of St. John's, I think, has eight or ten representatives -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eleven.

MR. J. BYRNE: Eleven, and Mount Pearl has five or six or seven, whatever the case may be, and the smaller towns themselves only have four, so obviously they don't have a say. They have no clout on that committee, so the formula that is going to be put forward is going to be a formula that is going to be approved by the City of St. John's and no one else.

The cost recovery formula has to be and was supposed to be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. This has been ongoing for two years and has not been approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. After the formula is approved by the City of St. John's, the eleven members of the City of St. John's, the Lieutenant-Governor has to approve that. I still think that the formula based on assessed value is unfair to the smaller municipalities, and I believe that they honestly believe that too. They are getting to the point now they know it is going to be forced upon them.

Some of the factors that they have considered in the past and I have looked at of course are the increased costs to the people living in these rural communities for fire fighting. One would be the insurance costs. As much as 25 per cent people living in rural towns people pay for fire insurance because they are so far away from a fire station, and they pay more again if they are so far away from a fire hydrant. That is a factor that should be considered when the formula is being approved or considered by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, even after it may be approved by the committee. Because the committee is weighted certainly in favour of the City of St. John's.

There is a business tax. The formula now if it is approved on an assessed value only of property within the City of St. John's or within the whole region, basically, percentage-wise you have business tax - a number of businesses in this city that take advantage of the fire fighting protection from within the city I think has to be considered. In that how much of the money that is collected in taxes by the City of St. John's actually goes towards the payment of the fire fighting bill.

The federal government buildings and the provincial government buildings. From my memory the provincial government I think pays 15 per cent of the bill for fire fighting services within the St. John's region for fire fighting. From my perspective I don't think that would cover the assessed value of those buildings. The 15 per cent, I think if you had a proper assessment done, would be much higher than that.

In the City of St. John's itself, compared to say Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, or Portugal Cove, we have the potential for major fires. There is special equipment needed to fight those fires. Big aerial ladders. Special equipment for fighting basically fires of a - well, toxic fires and that type of thing. There is a very low chance something like that would happen in the rural towns. You have row housing within the City of St. John's, which always is a potential for a serious fire. If we have a fire down in Logy Bay or in Portugal Cove or what have you the chance of it being a multi-building fire is very remote. I think that is a factor that has to be considered also.

I remember I made a proposal to the St. John's regional fire committee a couple of years ago. It made a comparison of the costs of neighbouring towns compared to Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove. I brought the comparable costs up before in the House before. The town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove has 1,800 people and there are somewhere around 600 homes. In 1992 the bill that they received would have been $130,000 for fire fighting services. If they decreased that by 30 per cent - so it is just over $100,000. The town of Witless Bay has 1,100 people and they pay $10,000. They have a volunteer fire department. Bay Bulls is too small to even talk about. The town of Flatrock in the same district, 1,000 people, 300 homes, they pay $9,000, compared to over $100,000 for Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove. The town of Pouch Cove has 2,000 people, 200 more than Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, 600 homes, roughly the same, and they pay $30,000 a year. Yet the small town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove are expected to pay over $100,000. Unreasonable and it is unfair. The town of Torbay has 4,000 people there, twice the size of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, 1,400 homes, over twice the amount of homes, and they pay $60,000 to $70,000 for fire fighting, yet Logy Bay - Middle Cove- Outer Cove are expected to pay double that.

As I said, the government has admitted the mistake. I took, I won't say pleasure, but certainly it was good to hear the minister just say a few minutes ago that he is meeting with the towns I believe tomorrow morning and they are going to be looking at that 60-40. That has been the major contention with me because I believe the towns themselves are in the situation they are in today, because of the schemozzle that this government created with respect to the St. John's Regional Fire Board, they know it, we all know it and I think they do have a duty and a response -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: They do have a duty and a responsibility to take -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I am dealing with this bill, this issue and we all have differences of opinions on certain things I suppose, Mr. Speaker, but again, as I said, back in August of ' 94, this minister allowed the St. John's Regional Fire Board to dismantle, basically admitting a major mistake, put the towns in turmoil for two years, trying to collect over $100,000 a year off the small municipality and the minister's response to it was, I remember reading in the paper a while ago: well, they can increase the mil rate. Increase the mil rate and collect more taxes to pay for a service and they are not getting nearly the same service that the City of St. John's is getting.

Now, if the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove has to pay $100,000 for fire-fighting service, that is, I believe, something like 25 per cent of their budget and for fire-fighting service in the City of St. John's I think they pay somewhere around maybe 10 per cent or 6 per cent of their budget; even that alone is unfair, Mr. Speaker. As I said before, on this issue, and I firmly believe this, and we are seeing it again in last year's budget on another issue, that this is basically a downloading from the provincial government to the municipalities to try and force amalgamation within that town, the town itself and all the towns in that general area, Portugal Cove included, Portugal Cove, St. Phillips, Petty Harbour –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is true. Sure, he is trying to (inaudible). We have one set in this year's budget. I think it was - how did it go - The provincial government will accelerate the take-over of the roads by the town councils in the relevant areas, another downloading tactic to force amalgamation. Well, hopefully, it has not worked yet and it may not. I have no problems with amalgamation if the towns themselves wish it, want it and can afford to have it, Mr. Speaker.

Now the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island just got out of his seat and I was going to mention him, that I would like to hear the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island get up and say a few words on this issue because Paradise is certainly in his area and I think he has some strong views on this too, with respect to the fire-fighting and the extra costs incurred by the towns. I know, I have had discussions with that member himself and his views are very close in line with my views I do believe, and hopefully he will get up and say a few words to the minister and probably try and support the Town of Paradise and convince the minister to come up with that 60 per cent that the towns are looking for, for the outstanding bill to the City of St. John's for fire-fighting.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot more to say on this, but I don't believe that Bill 56 will solve the problem; it may actually create more problems for the towns involved. I have spoken so much on this issue in the past two years, I am getting to the point now where I am starting to repeat myself so often and I am sure the minister is tired of hearing it. We have had private discussions on it but they are genuine concerns. I believe that the small towns cannot afford this exorbitant bill heaped upon them by this government, and I am really wondering here now, how much the minister is actually considering that 60 per cent - the outstanding bill? I mean, can he give me some kind of a nod, yes or no or whatever the case may be because I want to stress that very -

If, for example, the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove has to come up with $300,000 to pay for a service that they do not receive or a comparable service because, as I said before, in the past six or seven years, there have been three or four houses on fire in Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove and they burnt to the ground. That's it, that is an accepted fact down our way; and we do have some small chimney fires and that type of thing but not near the percentage that you would have in the City of St. John's, so I think the minister should look at that and consider that we are not getting the same service by any stretch of the imagination.

I believe the Member for Waterford - Kenmount wanted to say a few words on this topic so I am going to sit down and again encourage the minister to come up with that 60 per cent, and maybe have some input into the committee itself and try and get a fair and reasonable formula that those towns can live with.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not be very long. As members know I could give a long history on how we got to this particular place, a municipal government in the Northeast Avalon, but that certainly would not be appropriate and I do not think it would be serving any useful purpose at this particular stage. The minister is well aware of the contentious history of fire services in this greater St. John's region.

In the years since I became involved in municipal government the fire-fighting in St. John's was at first, I think, the responsibility of the Department of Justice, then moved to the Department of Municipal Affairs, and, of course, on January 1, 1992 was moved to the municipalities themselves. I should point out that St. John's and Mount Pearl began to pay for its fire protection services in the early 1980s. There was an agreement made that Mount Pearl would pay one third of its cost, and so would St. John's, and they went up by one third every year in a graduated manner until, I think, by 1984 St. John's and Mount Pearl were paying their full cost.

It was unfortunate that the other municipalities in the region did not adopt a similar approach, so therefore when January 1, 1992 came along St. John's and Mount Pearl found themselves having increased their fire protection costs by a phenomenal percentage over the previous ten years. In the case of the neighbouring municipalities they did not have the same graduated increases.

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for somebody, and in this particular case it has to be the government, to set a formula that will resolve the issue in this region, so I am pleased to see that the minister is bringing in a piece of legislation that will enable part of the difficulties to be resolved. In other words I am saying that we cannot continue to go on the way we are. We have to resolve this issue, and one of the ways to resolve it is to amend the City of St. John's Act to give the City of St. John's the authority to be able to set the rate.

Mr. Speaker, the question then becomes the formula itself. In other words we have to have a decision making process and in this particular case the formula that has been talked about over the last little while is not new. Immediately, as we began our meetings two or three years ago St. John's and Mount Pearl agreed that there could be a reduction for what we would call the rural municipalities, however that was not successful in achieving an agreeable formula between all the municipalities.

There have been many, many meetings, I say to the minister, since then, and I only want to say to the minister that the assessed value approach has been questioned. I can say in response to that, that at the time when St. John's and Mount Pearl were discussing this we looked all across the nation for other formulas but we could not find one that would be able to address the issues that we were facing excepting the formula of assessed value.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my colleague for St. John's East Extern has said that there was some question about the 15 per cent that the Province pays to the Regional Fire-fighting Authority for its buildings. I would prefer, Mr. Speaker, if the Province were to assess all of its properties, if it were to assess all government buildings, all government agencies and to establish whether or not that 15 per cent is indeed fair. I happen to believe that all buildings, institutional, every building that is in the capital city and in the region should be assessed regardless of ownership. Now, Mr. Speaker, that does not mean that we are going to suddenly be charging fire protection to schools, churches, the university or to other places like that but it would give the regional authority the option or the power to say that we are going to grant certain exemptions and we would know the value of those exemptions. We would be able to tell the Province whether or not their 15 per cent is indeed fair and reasonable.

I say to the minister, in doing his assessment next year, that he might consider looking at a total approach. In the City of Mount Pearl - when I was there - we assessed all properties as far as we could including some seniors complexes and we were able to tell these people what benefits they were getting when other taxpayers were going to pick up the bill for fire protection. Mr. Speaker, my colleague for St. John's East mentioned the difficulties that are being faced by the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island and certainly he represents a rural district and there are some difficulties I am sure that his councils are telling him.

I would like only - in concluding here - to say to the minister that we recognize there is some need for a transitional grant, keep in mind this problem was not a problem that was created by the municipalities. This problem was created by the departments of the government in downloading, down loaded this problem to municipal levels. So therefore the minister and his government must take some responsibility and we say to him, a transitional grant is one of the ways in which he might be able to get an agreement. Finally I say to the minister, I trust that this particular arrangement we are talking about today is not going to vary the proposal made by the minister to St. John's and Mount Pearl on the structure of his administrative committee. In other words the proposal to have two representatives from St. John's, two from the City of Mount Pearl and one person of mutual agreement. I ask the minister if he could update us on that particular aspect of the administration or the future administration of the St. John's Regional Fire Department.

Mr. Speaker, we encourage the minister to continue his dialogue. We recognize that for the City of St. John's and for the City of Mount Pearl, there would be no substantial decrease in costs if the neighbouring rural municipalities were not in the system. So we encourage the minister to try to find ways in which the rural municipalities can be serviced from the St. John's Regional Fire Department. We encourage St. John's and Mount Pearl to be understanding of the issues that are being faced in rural municipalities and we say to the minister, what he is doing today is one step towards finding a solution. There is going to have to be a lot more dialogue but a definitive decision on the formula appears to be one step that is needed and this legislation will assist in reaching a final resolution to the problem.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Let me say thank you to my two hon. colleagues across the way. They have asked some questions, we will have plenty of time in the future to debate those particular questions. I really cannot give either one of the members an answer. We are into negotiations and in the next couple of weeks hopefully we will be able to bring all parties together on a number of occasions and as the meetings I suppose evolve or happen, a lot of the questions that you asked will be answered. The make-up of the fire-fighting committee for example is a question of whether any of the other communities will actually be in there and should we give them representation if they want the service?

Paradise, right now, is saying that it is a possibility they may have to go back to St. John's to get the service, so should Paradise have a role to play in the committee? All of those questions will be answered.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 56)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough, Sir, to call Order 29, Bill 54? We will see if my friend, the Member for Port de Grave is as quick as my friend, the Member for Gander at persuading the House to see the wisdom of his legislative requests.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act (No. 2)". (Bill No. 54)

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was caught off guard there because I had two bills under Pippy Park and I wasn't -

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Government House Leader, suggested, this bill is not going to take a long time. I am going to be as brief on the introduction of this Bill 54 as I was on the previous bills that I introduced in the House, because I see this as just a housekeeping piece of legislation that doesn't require a lot of discussion or introductory notes.

This Bill 54, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act", is a result of concern by the Auditor General re the title and acquisition of properties within the Pippy Park Commission. Since becoming minister, I have had the experience of the people and the residents of Pippy Park about the properties and the title of the properties within Pippy Park, and we have had some lengthy discussions on who should own and how they should be able to put properties for sale in Pippy Park.

This particular bill simply provides the explanatory note that says: "Clauses 1 to 6 of this Bill provide for the vesting of title of lands presently in the name of the commission and future purchases of lands within the C.A. Pippy Park in the name of the minister, for the Crown."

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you reading that from paper?

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Who wrote my speech? I write all my speeches.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Clause 7 of the bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That's not nice at all!

"Clause 7 of the Bill would require the consent of the commission for instruments relating to any land in C.A. Pippy Park. Presently, consent is required respecting public lands." Now, here is where the problem lies, Mr. Speaker. A piece of property was just put up for sale in Pippy Park. When the property went up for sale, the Commission didn't purchase the property. An individual in the city went into the park to purchase that piece of property. At the time they went to purchase the property, they lost the sale and then they took it to court to stop the sale of the park, and the court awarded in favour of the individual who purchased the property in the park.

The Commission is trying to have control on the lands, and the acquisition of lands, and the residents' property within the park, the problem being that they do not have the money at their disposal to purchase land whenever it comes for sale. The thing is to try to control the ownership of the land within the park.

There is a lot of concern around the department - not around the department, but from the residents in the park, that they do not want to be held and bound by the Pippy Park Commission. This bill has stated very clearly there that the Pippy Park Commission is - `owned by the commission' is substituted by the words `owned by the Crown and administered by the commission', so it is just merely housekeeping and giving that piece of property that is purchased by the Pippy Park Commission, the property within the boundaries of the park, that it would be owned by the Crown and administered by the commission, so it will not be owned by the Pippy Park Commission.

Paragraph 2 of the act "...is amended by deleting the comma after the word "city" and replacing it with the word "or" and by deleting the words "or the commission" - again, just housekeeping.

Mr. Speaker, it is just a housekeeping piece of legislation. After Bill 54 passes, we will be introducing another bill, Bill 53, which will take care of the purchasing of land and give the park commission more authority and more ability to be able to purchase and be able to hold up land in the park before it goes public.

Mr. Speaker, I will entertain any questions. You couldn't hear a word I was saying, there was such a rumble there behind me.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can identify with what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation just had to say about not being able to be heard. It sounds like we are on a tour out by Cape - St. Mary's and all you can hear is the chatter of gannets! I say, a lot of it is `for the birds' anyway.

MR. EFFORD: I still can't hear you.

MR. CAREEN: I know, I could hardly hear you, either.

AN HON. MEMBER: Louder.

MR. CAREEN: That's better. The minister said it's about housekeeping, which is a good idea. There are a number of things, we all know there are extra problems in Pippy Park. The minister was made aware by a Pippy Park Committee last Spring, about the concerns of people who cannot -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, there are concerns other than that in there, I say to the minister, people who couldn't build on to their houses, people who wanted to be able to sleep downstairs, make a bedroom for themselves, getting old and couldn't climb the stairs, other odds and ends going on within Pippy Park.

Now, there are three men on the government side who border Pippy Park and a lot of concerns were expressed last Spring. A citizens' committee met with the minister last Spring, and there is a fair number of problems in that particular area. And while this establishes that the Crown will come into the land, the people had their trouble with the commission, itself. Anyway, this bit of housekeeping, Minister, is good for starters.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, it appears to be a routine bill, but if I read correctly what the minister just said, for anybody to sell his land, he has to have the permission of the commission. And the minister said that if the commission doesn't have any money at the particular time, they are not going to purchase it, and then they will simply not give permission, so that home-owner can't sell the property.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is quite a serious piece of business. This is not quite as simple as it sounds. Now, you have a home-owner who wants to sell his property for whatever reason, and the Crown is saying you can't sell it. Every other home-owner in this Province who wants to sell his property and the Crown chooses to either hold it or whatever, can be issued with a purchase notice, and can be ordered by the courts to purchase a piece of property but this piece of legislation, the minister wants to give to, in this case himself, since he is transferring everything to himself now, really to have control, but he is saying here that the commission would have to give permission for his property to be sold.

So now you have a home-owner here, for whatever - it can be a million different reasons why somebody wants to sell his property, financial hardship, death of the home-owner, whatever, they can't sell that property except to the government, whenever the government gets money to buy it and, Mr. Speaker, this is totally unacceptable. This is an infringement on the rights of home-owners in that area and is absolutely unacceptable, I say to the minister; absolutely unacceptable. They will be the only people in this Province who cannot either sell their land or have it purchased by the Province whenever they choose to sell it.

I say to the minister, this is a very serious legal matter, it is not so simple at all. I am surprised some of the members who represent other parts of St. John's have not been up to speak about it. Where is the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island? He represents that area. It is absolutely incredible, Mr. Speaker! This is not just a simple housekeeping bill at all, I say to the minister. So unless the minister or some other legal person over there would like to give us an explanation that this is something different, then I say to the - The former Minister of Justice is going to have a word. Well, I will give leave. I may want to say more, so I will yield for a moment.

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

MR. ROBERTS: With leave, let me just say a word, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. members, I hear them referring to the proposed amendment to section 8 of the bill. In section 8 of the bill which amends Section 54 of the act. The present wording has been there for a number of years, probably since the act was first done. Mr. Justice Mercer in the Trial Division gave a judgement recently which, I believe, is under appeal, in which he read the word, may, as being permissive. Now, in my judgement it was not permissive, but I am not a judge of anything, the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.

The act is not made retroactive. It will not affect the decision before Judge Mercer, which is now, I believe, before the Court of Appeal. It will simply say that the commission shall have the right to give permission or not. That may or may not address the point my hon. friend is making, but I am saying that it is not a new principle. It is a principle that has been in the act for many, many years. I have not gone through the legislative history. It is not a new principle. It is simply a response to a decision of Judge Mercer that does not even affect that judgement but would affect future matters. That is all it is.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I say to the former minister that there is a big difference here. As judged by Judge Mercer who quite properly said that if that person wants to sell the property that person should have the right to sell it. The Crown, the commission, or the minister, who cares, shall have the right of first refusal but if government chooses not to purchase the property, for whatever reason, then those individuals must, and under the present legislation, do, have the right to sell the property. Judge Mercer has ruled on that.

I say to the former minister that what he is saying now is that they will not now have the right and that is a big difference, a big, big difference. It is taking away the right of that person to sell their property, and I say we do not have the right to take away that right concerning this property. We have a right to say it can only be sold to the commission, and that is what the act read before. Certainly that was the intent of the act, I say to the former Minister of Justice, that if the wording in there said that they cannot sell it and they can hold onto it, that was certainly not what we intended when we passed the Pippy Commission Act many years ago, and it needs to be corrected.

A person must have the right to sell their property. The Crown has the right of first refusal and if they do not chose to buy it then that person must be allowed to sell their property, otherwise you are telling those people, you cannot sell your property. You own the property but you cannot do anything with it. That is totally and absolutely unacceptable.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another point to the minister there, maybe for the sake of clarification, what the Government House Leader stated in Clause 8 does not have anything to do with the sale of land. That only has to do with the acquiring of land. The sale of land is in another clause, from what I read here, and maybe we could get clarification on the same issue, the sale, but it is a different clause.

The minister responded that we are changing Clause 8 which is going to take out, 'may', that is kind of soft and indicates permission, and replace it with, 'shall'. That is certainly more affirmative action but it is not the point the Member for Mount Pearl is making. So maybe the minister, in responding, can clarify that point. Okay, I will repeat it again for the minister; the Government House Leader indicated, in Clause 8, we are going to replace `may' with `shall' which gives a little more affirmative rather than a possibility but Clause 8 is not dealing with the sale of land, it only deals with the acquiring of land. The sale of land is covered in other clauses so I am just wondering, the concern raised by the Member for Mount Pearl, I have not heard it addressed. Now maybe there is an explanation for that but Clause 8 cannot answer that because it does not deal with the sale of land. So maybe the minister can tell us what clause would deal and satisfy or allay the concerns expressed there by the Member for Mount Pearl as to the sale of land. Is he clear, minister?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member for Mount Pearl is speaking pretty well the same as he did last week, a lot of excitement and not much thought to it.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I am ready to debate any time that you want to debate because I think -

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) a public meeting wherever you like.

MR. EFFORD: I think the wind has come out of your sails enough for one week, no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear what we are trying to accomplish here. When the commission wants to acquire land they want to have the right to be able to acquire all the lands within Pippy Park when the opportunity allows it to do so. The wording in the legislation, in the bill previous was soft and did not give them the authority to be able to buy land. The hon. Member for Mount Pearl mentioned the fact, if the commission did not have the money in the budget, that they would be able to hold up land indefinitely, that is not the intent. The intent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: There is a budget process done each and every year for any department. It is no different for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and the commission. In the case of where parcels of land, houses or residential property come for sale the Pippy Park Commission wants the right to try to acquire that land wherever it is necessary. Now, if within their budget they do not have the money and a piece of property goes on the market for sale they need time, they need to be able to hold onto that. Now what would be the normal process - as some people opposite, we are ministers in the government - you will be able to go through the normal process and come back to government, to Treasury Board and say that we need to be able to control - hold our property at least to see if the money can be raised to purchase that property. Otherwise, if you do not have the strength within the legislation the Pippy Park Commission will never be able to get that piece of property and you will never own the land. What they are trying to do over time is to be able to acquire all of the land. If we had that pot at the end of the rainbow, and the monies were there within the treasury to purchase land, they would do it, but they can only do it according as the money comes through.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just want to make sure. I just want to ask the minister, based on what the minister is saying, if I want to sell a house that I own in Pippy Park now, if Pippy Park doesn't have the money, they get a time period in which they can respond, and if I need to move out of this Province, or move elsewhere, to sell my house, and I need to put it on the market, I would be prevented from doing so now if Pippy Park didn't have the funds to buy that house? That is basically, I think, what the minister is stating. Would that be correct?

MR. EFFORD: They wouldn't do it indefinitely. You are not going to treat people like that. You are talking about a house. You are talking about a piece of property. If you, as an owner or a resident of Pippy Park, wanted to sell your land and it wasn't in the department budget, they would be able to make accommodations within the normal process of time, but the hon. Member for Mount Pearl talked about indefinitely holding up a piece of property, and that is not the intent. There is no time limit, but the normal process, as any government agency would work, it takes time to get monies that are not normally in the allowable budget to purchase a piece of property, and that is where it is done.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I assume the minister is giving leave because he is recognized to close the debate. It is only by leave that I can speak. I accept that.

If what the minister is saying is accurate, and I don't question his word, if that is the intent, then put a reasonable time period, maybe ninety days, in there, for the commission to get the funds. If government is committed to the principle of Pippy Park, then within ninety days - or less than that, in fact, thirty days - the Minister of Finance could come up with a special warrant for a transfer of funds, or whatever might be necessary, for the Pippy Park Commission to make good.

As my friend says, you cannot hold up people who are moving out of the Province, who have financial hardship, whatever the case may be, from selling their property, until the Pippy Park Commission next year in their budget, or the following year in their budget, might get funds approved. I say to the minister, that is unacceptable, and if what he is saying is accurate, and I believe it is, that the intent is simply to allow the commission normal time, then put some time in there. Don't give them an open book. Don't give them a blank cheque until whenever they are ready, or whenever government gets around to deciding this is a priority during the budget process, that the funds will be available. I say to the minister, that is unacceptable and is not fair to those people.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, so the hon. member can read very clearly, this is exactly what it says, and it is said very clearly so we can take it to its extreme and exaggerate: Land, or an interest in land, within C.A. Pippy Park, except land acquired under the Department of Works, Services and Transportation Act, may not be acquired without the written approval of the commission.

If somebody has a piece of property for sale and they want to sell it to an outside force and the commission didn't have the money or could not get the money, all they would be required to do is to get approval from the commission: We want to sell that land. Naturally a government or anybody would not hold up indefinitely that piece of property. The commission would then give approval. We don't have the finances, we can't get the money, and they would give them the approval to sell it to an outside force. It has to be the written approval of the commission.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Mount Pearl have leave?

MR. EFFORD: No, that is it, that is the end. The written approval of permission.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this then. In that case is there a clause there, or will the minister put a clause there, that says: In the event that within thirty days the commission either decides they don't wish to purchase a property or are unable to purchase a property, that the commission will issue an approval to sell that property? That is all we are saying. Put that protection in there. If the commission doesn't chose to - I have no problem with the commission having right of first refusal, and having thirty days or sixty days. No more than that. Thirty days should be sufficient, and in which case - will the minister put a clause in there if there is not one there?

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

MR. EFFORD: Let me answer your question. No, and I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act (No. 2)," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 54)

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

MR. ROBERTS: I'm grateful to my friend for Gander, Mr. Speaker. I had raised a matter with my friend for Grand Bank. I don't know if he has had a chance to deal with it. My understanding is we are going to address before we adjourn Order Nos. 30, 31 and 32, all of which are relatively straightforward. When that happens we will all go and have a glass of good cheer with my friends opposite. We may need to have an agreement - I think in fact we do need an agreement - that we not stop the clock at 5:00 p.m., if that is agreeable, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board will show us how things are done. Order No. 30 if you would please, Sir.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act". (Bill No. 45)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very routine piece of legislation that makes some changes to the teachers' pension act, a very minor change, to bring it in line with the public servants' pensions act, which would allow the pensionable service for sick leave without pay. There are fairly rigid guidelines attached to it, and if they miss these guidelines then it has to be a full actuarial cost. If they are within the guidelines, then it is equal contributions by the government and the teacher involved. Mr. Speaker, this is simply to bring the teachers' pension plan in line with the public service pension plan.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to comment briefly, as the minister just said, this is a housekeeping matter. It follows from negotiations that have taken place between the government and the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. It is a positive piece of legislation. It brings the teachers' pension in line with the public service pension, and it is supported by members on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close the debate; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank members opposite. This is something that was reached during a collective agreement and we appreciate their attitude toward it.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 45).

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill No. 44)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a little longer, of necessity. This particular bill deals with the Public Service Pension Act, and what it does is remove from the existing act the maximum thirty-five year pensionable service rule which did not permit workers to contribute pension beyond thirty-five years, and also did not permit them to approve credit beyond the 70 per cent limit. So this bill does two things. It removes that thirty-five year rule, and it also removes the 70 per cent cap in terms of the pension.

This particular action will allow for two things. First of all, in terms of the current situation where there have been reductions in the government share towards the pension plan, and employees are allowed, if they want, to buy that extra service. The current legislation would not permit some of them to buy that extra service because they have already had thirty-five years pensionable service, so it corrects that situation.

Also, it adds to the funding ratio, in essence, of the public service pension plan. Employees, if they continue to work, are paying more into the plan and they are fully covering the current service cost to that time, as a matter of fact, perhaps contributing a little extra over and above the current service cost at the current time to the plan. As they add that extra money it makes the plan more viable and increases slightly the funding level, so it is a healthy situation for everybody concerned. It is healthy for the plan, it is healthy certainly for the workers, the public servants of the Province. It will now allow them to accumulate a higher pension than before.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not hear all of that because my ear piece is gone. Maybe they could send me down a new one because I cannot follow the debates without it and that one is not working. So I missed quite a bit of what the minister said but I did hear -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say an ear piece?

MR. WINDSOR: Ear piece, a hearing piece. But I say to the minister, from what I heard I don't have any concerns about it. It appears to be - this is similar to some of the provisions in the teachers pension plan I think that we just put through. Some of this is parallel if I am not mistaken. I am not aware of any concerns that have been expressed to any of our colleagues on it, Mr. Speaker, so we support these amendments.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess to my knowledge there is only the two basic points; number one is that the thirty-five year limit is that you can still accumulate to my knowledge - if you want to stay for forty years you will accumulate 2 per cent a year to 80 per cent. So it is not going to limit that. So I guess that is positive because the longer someone does keep working, even though the higher the pension, the payout could be lower because they are going to be drawn for less years of pensionable service and that is a positive effect, it removes the limitation on the amount. So that could have positive repercussions on the financial assets of the Province or in the final analysis on the balance sheet because a person assumes if they teach or work for five years longer they are probably not going to live any longer because they stayed working longer. We don't think so, maybe they might die a little earlier, I would assume. Maybe if they stayed working longer they would probably be starved to death by this Province, Mr. Speaker, and therefore that would be a real positive indication in this Province to help them along financially. So there are positive things there. It just removes limitations and if someone so desires that - and I think the minister made reference to those in the introduction of the bill. So, Mr. Speaker, that is all the points I wish to make.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will close the debate on the bill.

MR. BAKER: I would like to thank members opposite for recognizing the positive nature of this and we really believe that this is a positive. So do the unions involved. I would like to thank them for their support and move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 44)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act". (Bill No. 55)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act was something that was done recently and we are suggesting two minor changes. First of all, simply a change in the date of commencement to December 31 just simply to fit in with the privatization effort. The second clause is put there for the sake of clarity.

In the changeover from Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services to the new Computer Services Limited it was understood that the pension refund and the pension contributions situation would be as described here. However, it was never fully spelled out, and this was part of the negotiations. It is an attempt to protect two things: To protect the viability of the pension plan, and hon. members would realize that those who choose to go with the new plan, it did in essence cost the government a fair amount of money because we had to add the full....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I can't hear the hon. member. I doubt that the hon. Member for Mount Pearl can either.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We had to add the full actuarial value for the years. For those who elected to stay this is to protect their pension benefits and to prevent any hasty actions in terms of people en masse withdrawing pension funds which we believe would be to their detriment and to the detriment of the plans. This was understood in the process. It is simply spelling out this particular situation. You will notice that it is "except voluntary contributions" or the contributions to the government money purchased pension plan which are treated differently as separate investments by the workers.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no problems with these particular amendments. I would take this opportunity though to ask the minister as it relates to the sale of Computer Services Limited - you are ready there now? You are wired?

As it relates to the sale of Computer Services Limited, I understand that as a result of that, part of the bill that we agreed to here last Spring, I guess, for that purchase of Computer Services, dealt with an extension for seven years of Memorial University contract, and now I am being told that the new owner, the private owner, has tremendously increased the fees being charged to the university, and that, perhaps, was not foreseen by government, and that government has made a special grant, now, to the university for more than a million dollars, I believe.

Maybe the minister can give us the numbers. I didn't realize I was getting into this - I do have the numbers upstairs. But I am told it is a sizeable contribution and I would like to ask the minister: What is that contribution? What was the total sale price of Computer Services, and how much of that total sale price are we now paying out in subsidies to Memorial University, in order to keep the price stable for seven years? And what will happen afterwards? Obviously, we fund the university, so one assumes we are going to have to increase their grant at the end of seven years or do it now; with whichever hand you pass it out, you are passing out cash to the university. How many other contracts are tied into this, how much more are we costing? I mean, can the minister now give us a final analysis of the cost and benefits of that sale and purchase agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his questions. He is right in terms of what has happened, wrong in terms of the suggestion that this was not anticipated.

First of all, the seven years is correct; however, I would like to point out to him that there is a clause in there, that if MUN does not reach that commitment, there are other things that can be done, okay? so it is not sort of an iron-clad commitment; there are certain, what we call penalties, in there; in case certain levels are not met by MUN, then there would have to be more input through government business and so on. We can discuss that in some detail in the Committee stage if the hon. member wants, but he is quite right about the extra money that we have had to give to MUN.

What happened was, in terms of the whole contract, in looking at government's and MUN's contract, the services are so very, very different. The amount charged by NLCS, the fee structure was totally different from the fee structure that was agreed upon through the negotiations. What happened was, certain services - and I will get the details for the Committee stage for the hon. gentleman - certain services were provided at a lower cost, certain services, the cost went up, so what happened was, they looked at the cost of doing business in the computer industries throughout North America and did up the fee structure on the basis of which - you know, in some areas, NLCS were charging too much and in other areas they weren't charging enough, and it didn't really make any difference as long as it was all in-house, so there has been a realignment of structure. It so happened that the kinds of services MUN was availing of, by-and-large, were ones that ended up in extra cost. The kinds of services government was involved in ended up in lower cost, so it is really sort of a transfer of money from the government computer services to MUN computer services.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I don't think MUN is saying that. I think there might be a few people at MUN supposing that; however, my best information is that they cannot, but that is an argument that can be had at some other time. I don't think that is the official position of MUN, but we can discuss that later. What I will do is get the exact fee changes for the gentleman for the Committee stage, but there was a decrease in our cost, an increase in theirs, and actually, the decrease more than made up for the increase in theirs, so there was a slight saving overall as a result. I will get the numbers for the member and we will discuss it in detail.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 55)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have to be away tomorrow, much to the chagrin, I am sure, of members on both sides.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: I am deeply touched by the solicitude of my colleagues and the enthusiasm, but I have to tell them, the bad news is, I will be back on Thursday.

There are two minor bills in my name on the Order Paper and I understand the House is prepared to address them if Your Honour will call them one at a time, perhaps. The first is Order 34, Bill No. 60, Sir.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Recording Of Evidence Act." (Bill No. 60)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this bill would enable the courts to contract out the preparation of transcripts. I can say it has been prepared in consultation with the powers that be and would in the view of those concerned facilitate the process by which appeals are heard.

Hon. members will be aware that transcripts are relevant for appeals. In fact, they are almost a necessity for appeals. It is very unusual to have one without them. They have some uses in other contexts, but very limited, but in appeal they are essential. The bill will set out certain rules and provide that the rules committee, which is a statutory committee made up of a judge of the Supreme Court and members of the Law Society, will make detailed rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: With that said, in behest, in due deference to my friend for Burin - Placentia West, I move second reading.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few brief comments. I would like the minister to indicate when he rises to close debate on second reading whether these provisions have been recommended by lawyers and judges, whether they've been called for by the rules committee. They make good sense to me. We have had a chronic problem with delays in preparation of trial transcripts at some of our judicial centres. It seems to me to be sensible to permit private transcript preparation and to allow for audio recordings to be given out to private interests, to lawyers or others, to arrange for transcription. I support the principle of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Government House Leader speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I speak from memory, and I shall this checked, but my recollection - I'm afraid I don't have my speaking notes here - is that the chief justices were consulted - Chief Justice Hickman and Chief Justice Goodridge, and I don't know what process they had within their courts - but we consult with the chief justices and then leave it to them, obviously, to speak to their own colleagues. It is my understanding that the rules committee has been consulted. I will undertake, if there is anything different, to let the member know on -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. My understanding is - oh yes, they have approved. This is not a case where we've consulted and there has been disagreement and we are going ahead anyway. That may happen on occasion. My understanding is all concerned have signed on to this, but I shall make certain of that. If there is anything contrary I will make sure the House knows at Committee stage. I move second reading, Sir.

On motion, "An Act To Amend The Recording Of Evidence Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 60)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, Bill No. 57, which is Order No. 38 on today's Order Paper.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law". (Bill No. 57)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this looks like a formidable piece of legislation, in that it has thirty separate clauses. The members who have gone through it in detail, as I'm sure my friend for Ferryland has, will agree that while these are important in themselves in that each amends a statute, I think there are no matters of principles in this. This is simply the annual tidying up bill and I predict with certainty there will be another bill next year because while our drafters are, in my judgement, first rate and they do a first rate job, they are human and they do make mistakes from time to time.

I was looking the other day at the 1876s instructions from the Crown to the Governor and found an error in that that has been there at least since the Statutes were reprinted in 1990. The word `prerogative' is misspelled in Clause 15, I say to my friend the law clerk.

With that, Sir, I move second reading.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would remind the Government House Leader that it is, we, the members who cast the legislation and I don't think it is quite fair to blame on the lawyers, who draft legislation, all the technical errors that are found. Assuming that this is simply the annual tidying up bill and it is simply to correct technical mistakes, I have no problem supporting it but I have not had a chance to go through it in detail. It was only circulated a couple of days ago. We will have more time to look at it before committee stage and I may have something more to say then. I am somewhat taken aback by one of the clauses which makes a retroactive change to the Labour Relations Act. So I will ask some questions about that at committee stage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Government House Leader now speaks he will close second reading.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I hear what the hon. member says and we will deal with that at commission. I offer her my judgement, she will of course come to her own, that these are straightforward technical amendments that do not change the principle of any enactment of the House, add anything to one or take away from one. The reference to the Labour Relations Act, if she is not satisfied perhaps she could let me know and I will undertake to provide her with whatever information she needs and then she can come to her own judgement.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies and Errors in the Statute Law," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 57)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, unless there is a clamour to do more I am prepared to move the adjournment. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding my friend from Carbonear who wants to make another speech.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will be with government orders and in accordance with the agreement we came to earlier today, and the motion that was adopted, the House I understand will be asked to resolve itself into Committee to deal first with Bill 39, which is The Local Authority Guarantee Act, and my friend from Carbonear will once again dazzle us with his verbal verbosity and his footwork, and we shall then, if we get through that, if my friend is successful in persuading the Committee to grant him the authority, the proposal will be that we start with Order 3, not Order 2, I emphasize, Order 3 and we shall work our way down through Committee stage with one exception, Order 11 will not be called tomorrow because we are still - that is the Advance Health Care Directive Act, the Committee are still waiting to see if there is any response.

With that said, Your Honour, I understand we are all invited for a libation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend, having spilled his water has now spilled everything else he has got in him and with that said, Your Honour, I move that the House at its rising adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday at two o'clock.

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