December 14, 1994            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol. XLII  No. 80


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the issue that we raised in the House yesterday in which my colleagues, in particular from Baie Verte and St. Mary's - The Capes, in other words, has been raising for the last several weeks, is an issue that has struck a cord with a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador. If the number of telephone calls that have been coming to our offices over the last eight or ten hours since the office is opened this morning, is any indication, the hardship stories continue and continue to flow.

People also know, Mr. Speaker, that for the last three years, for each of the last three years, this government funded its own emergency jobs program in order to respond to the high levels of unemployment and other problems. People also know that this government, in each of the last three years, did not wait for the federal government in order to do it, they did it on its own. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier, why are you procrastinating? Why, this year for example, are you dealing with the federal government in the first place, can the Premier answer that question?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government is dealing with the federal government on the issue, and if anything is done, we want to try and share the cost of doing it. We want to recognize that the major part of our unemployment problem is caused by what has happened in the fishery. If you look at the figures, and if you look at the unemployment insurance changes - if you look at the figures you will see very clearly that when you take fisheries out of the equation the growth in employment in this Province was the highest of any Province in Canada. The same is essentially true over the last three quarters. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is good general performance in the economy. The primary problem rests with the fisheries and the primary responsibility for that rests with the federal government. We want to work with the federal government to resolve the overall economic and employment problems, not work against them.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think three of the last four years this Province has had a negative growth in the economy. The moratorium came into effect two or three years ago; this is not a new phenomena. Last year the government funded its own emergency program; the year before you funded your own emergency program so that explanation does not hold any water, Mr. Speaker.

In the past also, I say to the Premier, you have not budgeted in fact for emergency job creation programs yet you came up with $2 million in '91, $5 million in '92 and $6 million in '93 and we all know that the deficits here were worse then than were projected for this year. The difference, Mr. Speaker, is that the people in this Province have a greater need than they have ever had in each of the other three years, that is the real problem that we have, so this whole thing, I think, boils down to the Premier. The buck stops with the Premier, and I want to implore him, I want ask him, I want to plead with him if necessary, will he make a commitment today to undertake your own emergency jobs program; would he do that today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the policies of the former government wrecked the economy of this Province. Now we spent the last six years trying to put it back in some kind of a rational, affordable basis that we can have a successful economy for the years to come. If we had not taken these steps, Mr. Speaker, we would be bankrupt in three years from now because of the policies followed by the former government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to straighten out this god-awful mess that they created. It is a difficult challenge to do it, it is made even worse by the political pandering that we now hear from the opposition to try and promote their own political interest in this way.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is dealing effectively with the federal government to try and deal with this problem. Leave it with the minister; we hope we can find some solution that will be helpful.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his government have been in office now for six years; they are heading into their seventh year in another few months, so to blame everything on the past is irrelevant to the people out there who are starving to death and cannot put bread and butter on their tables, that's the problem.

Now, does he understand? Do you -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is false.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: That is not false. It is not false. I can -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: I can tell him, Mr. Speaker, it is not false. Does he understand at all, does he have any feeling, does he have any compassion or understanding for these people, or does he dismiss it all and say it is a figment of our imagination? Is that what he is trying to say here today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in this Province starving to death, and it is the same kind of statement that was made by the Member for Mount Pearl the other day; the same kind of shocking, obscenely wrong statement for the member to say that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, nobody in this Province is starved to death. We have a system, I did not invent it, I don't take credit for inventing it. We have a system that looks after people with need. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite want to thwart the system and create scare tactics, as they are doing, for their own political self-interest. Well, Mr. Speaker, this government is not going to run simply because hon. members opposite are trying to feather their own political nest.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have heard hundreds of people telling me for the last several months that they thought the Premier was out of touch. If even there was an example of it, it was the statement he just made, that somehow this is something we are conjuring up. My god, what's wrong with the Premier? Doesn't he understanding what is happening to the people out in rural Newfoundland, in particular? Does he have any understanding? Does he have any compassion, and is he at all interested in these people? Can he answer that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not conjuring up the unemployment problem. The hon. member didn't conjure up the recession we have gone through. He didn't conjure up, although he contributed to, the financial mess that this Province is in. All those things are real. What he did conjure up is the statement that people in this Province are starving, and he ought to apologize to the people for it.

MR. SIMMS: Is that right now?

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we will see if there are people who are starving in this Province. We will see if the Premier has any understanding of it. We will see in due course. We will tell him of some examples, and he will have to eat those words, I say to him. That's what he is going to have to do.

Now, this government, under this Premier, spent $6 million last year for lawyers and people like the Rothschilds on a scheme to sell Hydro. Taxpayers are going to end up paying millions of dollars more than they should pay because of some cooked-up scheme to give your good Liberal buddies hospital contracts. You can afford $600 a night for a hotel in Japan, which is more than some people live on in this Province. What they want to know is, on the one hand, is it okay to help your friends and on the other hand do absolutely nothing to help those people who are starving in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that I have cut the hotel costs in half from the former Premier, in half or less. That's what I am doing to help the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that what we have done to put Hydro in shape will save millions of dollars for the taxpayers of this Province, to try to get this Province out of the god-awful financial mess that the former government put us in, and we will succeed, Mr. Speaker, all to the betterment of the people of this Province. For the Leader of the Opposition to now resort to these kinds of low political commentaries is really unworthy of anybody who occupies that position.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Over the past several weeks the minister had led us to believe that there was going to be an emergency employment program. In answering our petitions and in general conversation, the minister made it clear that he had hoped to announce a program either last week, or at the latest, this week. Now we are led to believe there will be no announcement. I ask the minister: What happened and who is responsible for putting a stop to his plans.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to the hon. member that we are still dealing with Mr. Axworthy. What the hon. member needs to know and understand is that all the other employment generation programs we have had throughout this year have been cost-shared with the Federal Government. And we feel, as the Premier has already said, the turmoil that this Province finds itself in now can be attributed to what has taken place over the last four or five years with the moratorium problem and the spin-off to it.

Now, we understand the need. We are trying to negotiate and we are continuing to negotiate, and my understanding is that I will have a response from Mr. Axworthy before the end of the week.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. member that I have absolutely nothing to do with what Mr. Baker would say or do. I can't control Mr. Baker's comments. I'm only telling hon. members, telling this House, telling the people of the Province, that we are still talking to Mr. Axworthy and we will continue.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Let me say to the Member for Ferryland, about Nova Scotia, the 1.2 initiative cost-sharing incentive -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Let me correct the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. This year, we put $5 million in a similar program. The member should get his facts straight.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Premier. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit several communities in my district. I witnessed, firsthand, many cases of extreme hardship. One of my home visits involved a mother of three small children, who showed me an empty refrigerator. That mother had nothing to feed her children. I ask the Premier: What would he say to that family?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we maintain a system in this Province, and have done so for many years, of providing social assistance to people who need it.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

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

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, they get exactly the same as everybody else receiving social assistance. To that person I say: I wish I could produce a job for her or for her husband. I would like very much to be able to do that. Unfortunately, due to the devastated mess in which the former government left this economy, due to the collapse of the fisheries, it is very difficult and slow-going to restore the jobs that our people need.

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of an excuse is that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier: I wasn't part of the former government, Mr. Premier. I don't think the Premier understands how desperate things are in this Province. I know many government members don't, judging from the laughter that we get every time we present petitions in this House pleading for help for people in desperate need of help.

Now, I ask the Premier: Will he come with me today to my district? I will drive, if that happens, so that he can see for himself, firsthand, people living in desperate situations, to see what I have seen. Will the Premier accept my invitation and come with me today to see this in my district?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, nobody is going to fall for that silly grandstanding. He can see exactly what he is talking about in every single district in this Province, including streets in the city of St. John's.

MR. SIMMS: You just said it's not true - make up your mind, man, you're a walking contradiction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, could we have the Caboto minister silenced over there?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! (Inaudible) question and answer (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Speaking of wasting money and putting some people back to work, use some of the money you have wasted already on studies you are not going to do anything about, I say to the minister.

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. In recent weeks, Mr. Speaker, we have heard more people than expected have applied and indeed have qualified for benefits under TAGS program. Now, I have heard the number of 6,000 to 8,000 people bandied about, of new entrants who have been accepted for the program. I am wondering if the minister has inquired about this, and can he tell us actually what the number is and what percentage of the extra claimants who have been accepted are from this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't share with you the exact numbers, but I will get those numbers for you and table them in the House.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, our information is that about two-thirds of the extra claimants who have qualified are from the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec region. As we know, the Federal Government has already announced that there will be no new funding. The $1.9 billion that was allocated is all there will be, and this Province was supposed to receive about 80 per cent - I think 77 point-something per cent, we were supposed to receive.

Since most of the new claimants are from outside this Province. Can the minister tell us how much TAGS money will be shifting from this Province to the other Atlantic Provinces and Quebec? The information I have is that the amount which will be shifted from this Province to other provinces is between $200 million and $300 million. Can the minister confirm that for us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: No, I cannot confirm those figures for you but I will look into it and bring the information back to the House.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the minister, has he talked to his federal counterpart about this situation, how this money will be redirected from this Province really to claimants in other provinces? Now there is only one of two ways to do it, either you reduce the weekly benefits that those who are now receiving will get, we have already seen a reduction in TAGS by some 6 per cent, or the federal government will speed up the rate and the process at which Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are dropped, the fishermen and plant workers are dropped from the TAGS program. So I am asking the minister, has he any idea and has he consulted with his federal counterpart? Can he give any direction or information to the House to tell us what the federal government indeed will do since most of this money will go from our Province, out of the pockets of our people, to people in other provinces, can he give us an answer to that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed I have had discussions with my federal counterpart and discussions are ongoing on this very issue. The whole issue of TAGS is of course of very much concern to both this government and the federal government. I cannot share with you any more information then that at this present time.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the last few weeks that we have been assembled here in this Chamber there have been considerable concerns express by the Opposition as to corruption at the highest levels of this particular Administration. We have received word that there might also be trouble at the bureaucratic level. I would ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is it a fact that there is a police investigation of one of your officials underway and if that is a fact, could you please enlighten us as to the matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true that there is a police investigation underway. I don't think it would be appropriate at this time to say anything more than that, in fairness to both the police and the individual involved.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, since 1989 and in fact, just before Christmas in 1989 this government made some dramatic changes to the way they administer the MOG, the municipal operating grants to municipalities. For example, the roads component was reduced from $2,000 a kilometre to thirty-nine and now back up to $500. Snow clearing; just recently the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation told municipalities that next year they will possibly have to pay $3,500 a kilometre for their snow clearing services. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has introduced another bill, Bill 62, and I quote, Section 38 (1) "The minister may by order transfer a highway or a part of a highway that is under the jurisdiction and control of the department to a municipal authority in which that highway is located." Mr. Speaker, could the minister now tell the House and explain, after just playing Santa Claus to ten or eleven real estate people around the Province, why he is now playing Scrooge to all the municipalities in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say it is a relief to be called Santa Claus and not what I was called by some of his colleagues over on the other side last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: And also Scrooge, it is a welcome relief to hear that name.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member opposite should realize, we are talking about two different departments. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation are responsible for roads outside of municipalities, that is the role of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. What has been happening in the past is that we are duplicating services within the municipalities. When a town council or a community becomes incorporated they really and technically, under the Municipalities Act, become responsible for all the services within their jurisdiction. We are bringing in and putting equipment in our department to deal with the network of highways within the Province. What we are doing here, the same as we are doing with the snow clearing, any town that has become incorporated, is to put the responsibility of those community councils and town councils to take responsibility for the services which they should provide under their own tax assessment in their own communities. It is just as simple as that.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the minister realizes - and if not his colleagues surely do - that if this piece of legislation goes through in this Province, if this piece of legislation is passed in this session of the House of Assembly, or the next one, you can be assured that 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the municipalities in this Province will be literally bankrupt. Could the minister today stand in his place in the House and tell the House that he will withdraw this piece of legislation and will not have it go through in this session?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what I will assure the hon. member is that this government, this department, this minister will not see any community, any town council, or anyone else go bankrupt in this Province. Sensationalism is again what the Opposition is playing over there, jumping to conclusions. What we are doing, very clearly, as we've done with the snow clearing, we told all the councils around this Province that we would not see any community council stuck with no capability of snow clearing. Where there is a reasonable ability for a community council to do its own services they will have to do it. Where there is not we, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, will work with the community councils to do whatever is necessary.

A greater responsibility must be put on where the ability of a community is able to pay the taxes. We know, and all hon. members opposite know full well, that there are hundreds of communities in this Province not charging a reasonable amount of taxes to the residents of their communities. That is a well known fact. Where there is ability to collect and pay, a greater role of responsibility under the act will have to be followed by the communities.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Would the minister rise in his place and tell the House today that he agrees with his colleague the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that along with what is after happening to the snow clearing policy, the $3,500 a kilometre, and if this piece of legislation is introduced into the House and has to be followed by municipalities, that this will inflict untold misery on municipal councils in this Province? Could he stand in his place and confirm today what the minister has said, that this will not have an affect on municipalities in the Province?

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

MR. REID: Let me say to my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, that he knows as well as I do that a large number of communities in the Province have been I suppose taking advantage of the government for some time in regards to snow clearing. In my town for example as a town council we do I would say 99 per cent of the roads, and then there is a small section that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation does.

I know what the member is saying and I can honestly say to him that I can reiterate what my hon. friend the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said. There will be no town in the Province suffer to the extent that they are going to go bankrupt or they can't provide funding to snow clear the roads. We've made an agreement in a number of cases with communities already where if they are stuck for funding to pay that bill to Works, Services and Transportation, then some arrangements will be made to accommodate them

Let me say to the member, I agree with this piece of legislation. I would like to see the piece of legislation go a step further, and that piece of legislation hopefully will go a step further. That not only are there people living in municipalities in this Province who are paying taxes on a yearly basis, but we have thousands of people out there serviced by Works, Services and Transportation who don't pay a cent for their services. I think that whole question has to be addressed. I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, that the hon. member and I on numerous occasions over the years, with a number of his colleagues on the other side, sat and discussed that particular point for years. I can honestly say as well that in most cases everyone who discussed that point with the Federation of Municipalities and other groups agreed with the principle of everybody paying an equal share.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

The minister is aware that a few years ago Hydro installed a $10-million gas turbine at Holyrood. Now the gas turbine is there for one purpose, which is to start up the main turbines in the event of a total power failure or a blackout.

During the past weekend, Mr. Speaker, why did Holyrood have to get a line in from Bay d'Espoir to start the main turbines, and could the minister tell us what really happened to the gas turbine?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Hydro, at no time had to get a line in from Bay d'Espoir to start the turbine; at no time. Unfortunately, when line 217 from the west was energized on Saturday I think it was at 1:35 p.m., a breaker at Holyrood faulted and as a result of that fault, the Holyrood turbine stations were tripped out of the system and just by the automatic processes that are in place, that had to go down; unfortunately that happened and very shortly, within a few hours everything was back and on stream again on Sunday, so there is no reason to go asking any particular questions about Holyrood.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the minister had to say but he never gave a clear indication - is that Hydro spent over $10 million to put that system in place and why did it fail, why was it down, why did it not cut in and fired up the main turbines that it was supposed to do? What caused the failure?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, from what I have been told by Hydro, the Holyrood system went down because the breaker faulted when line 217 from Bay d'Espoir was energized and tripped the system. That is what happened; I have no other information I can add to that, there was nothing unusual about it, it happened.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister then. Would he tell us whether or not maintenance was performed on that gas turbine over the years since it was put there and while it was not being used; and, Mr. Speaker, let the minister answer this question: Did they put off regular maintenance on the gas turbine generators in order to pay the privatization bill of Hydro?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Not at all, Mr. Speaker.

In the last few years, I think probably within all the years that I have been energy minister since 1989, the three major turbines at Holyrood have all gone through significant maintenance. I believe units 1 and 2 have been totally completed in the last few years and unit 3 is the one that has gone through some major refit in the last year or so, so we have certainly not put off maintenance at Bay d'Espoir; there is no question of a maintenance problem in this case.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Social Services.

Recently, a constituent of mine came to visit me who was a recipient of social service herself. She went to the department to request emergency funding to send her to Halifax because her twenty-three-year old daughter, who is being operated on was in danger of dying, she received the call from Halifax General. The social worker then told her that she could not provide that emergency funding to send her there even though her daughter was in danger of dying, because her twenty-three-year old daughter was not a dependent child.

Let me ask the minister this: Do you think that is fair and compassionate?

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

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Your question was: do I think it is fair? Sometimes, a lot of things in life are not fair and not equal but there are policies and I think that the policy in this case was adhered to; you and I have already had a discussion on that matter.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there are exceptions to every rule.

This lady's daughter was sent to Halifax because an operation could not be performed here; she was in danger of dying, she received a call from the surgeon who left the operating room, she had to borrow the money, $300 to get there and when she got there, the Department of Social Services in Nova Scotia paid for her food and lodging while the Department of Social Services here did nothing.

Madam Minister, could you review the situation again and look at this case as being an extraordinary case and see if you could provide some funding for this lady?

Thank you.

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

MS. YOUNG: Thank you.

I would like to advise the hon. member that I will certainly look into the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. FITZGERALD: Bonavista South, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: North, south...

MR. FITZGERALD: I do look after some constituents there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

Back in April, when the 1994-'95 Budget was presented, government changed the way of tax exemptions for self-employed fishermen. Under the new way of doing business, the fishermen pay taxes and then remit their invoice to the provincial sales tax office for a PST refund. I ask the minister if any problems are being experienced with this new way of doing business?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will check, find out, and get back to the gentleman.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly Mr. Tom Hutchings, the Economic Development Officer for the town of Ramea, and Mr. Jim Marsden a town councillor and Chairman of the Ramea Economic Development Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following reports, the financial statements March 31, 1994 for the Livestock Owners Compensation Fund and also the financial statements March 31, 1994 for the Newfoundland Crop Insurance Fund.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, my new critic across the way asked me three questions yesterday regarding Ashley Holdings, Fortis Incorporated, and R & M Holdings on some leases, so I will table those answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: I do not have time. If members opposite cannot read we will get somebody to read it for them.

Petitions

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of thirty-four people in my district from the community of O'Donnells. The petition, to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer. We the undersigned do hereby request for the Minister of Employment and Labrador Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to generate desperately needed employment in our communities. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions that I have had the opportunity to present on behalf of the people in my district in relation to some type of emergency employment program. I say with all honesty that I believe the present Minister of Employment and Labour Relations would like to stand in this House and announce something, but I believe there is something gone wrong with the whole plan because there was something in the works, Mr. Speaker. Questions were asked today in regard to exactly what happened

but we did not get the answers.

There was a feeling in this House last week that something was going to be announced. I say it is desperate. People are in a desperate situation. The Premier may not believe it. The Premier may not realize that people are in desperate situations in this Province but he does not have to go too far from the Confederation Building steps to see it. He does not have to go too far from the overpass in St. John's to see it, and he definitely does not have to go too far within his own district, I believe, to see it.

Mr. Speaker, people for the first time in their lives have to resort to social assistance. People who are proud to get up in the morning and go to work in this Province have been put on the back burners by this government and have been laid to the wayside over the past couple of years. We stand up here and we blame it, and we hear government members blame it, on what happened here for seventeen years, and what happened here with the previous government.

They have had six years in office and have come forward with an emergency employment program every year since. This is the year that the people in this Province are in the most desperate situation they have ever faced and we see no employment emergency program. There is something wrong, something wrong with the thinking on the other side of the House if they think that people in this Province do not want, or do not need, an emergency response program.

I was in seven different communities in my district yesterday and I am telling you that I had people who I had to drop in and see. Sure, there are some people who are finding it a bit harder than they use to, but there are people who are desperate. I am not joking when I bring these petitions to the House of Assembly. This is a very serious situation.

I was in a home yesterday and I was talking to the lady about Christmas and she said to me, Fabian, toys will not be under the tree here, our priority is food on the table and we really do not know if we will have that. For some reason or other people do not believe these things are happening here in this Province, but they are, Mr. Speaker, and all you have to do is go around this Province and you will see it.

We have presented several petitions and I am surprised that over the past couple of weeks petitions have not been coming from the other side of the House of Assembly. I am sure there are people in every district in this Province who are finding it difficult. There are people in every district in this Province who would like to hear the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations stand in this House and announce an employment generation program.

Mr. Speaker, in the next couple of months there will be thousands of people in this Province who will be dropped from the TAGS program. Thousands of people in this Province who have been depending on NCARP and TAGS for the past two years will be dropped from this program come December 31, but those people have had, over the past year or two, at least some type of income.

I was in a home yesterday where it has been two years since the father in the home has found work - two years. He travelled over to Nova Scotia last year and was just lucky enough to find four weeks work, and these people want this government to act. They want this government to come forward with something to tide them over for a short time until hopefully something improves.

Mr. Speaker, we say it here day after day after day, these programs are not the answer to the problems that this Province faces at this time. They are not the answer to the future of this Province, but they are something. This is an emergency situation. We are not asking for an employment program; we are asking for an emergency employment program, because this is an emergency situation.

Mr. Speaker, the people have been calling our offices and trying to explain their situations to us. I know sometimes when you are sitting on the other end of the phone listening to it, you ask yourselves, `Can this be true? Can this be the truth what these people are telling me?' I have come face to face with it. I have come face to face with this reality, and I believe that something has to be done. I believe the government has a role to play. We cannot depend on the federal government to come forward with something. I believe that the provincial government has to come forward with something themselves. This government was elected for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have to answer to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore, I think there is a need that they come forward with something and stop trying to be the Government of Canada, and be the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and do something for the people in this Province who are in desperate need.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand to support the petition presented by my colleague from St. Mary's - The Capes.

While maybe the Premier and his colleagues might not realize it, there are many, many hardship cases out there in the Province today. The economy might be recovering, the Premier might say. We were part of a recession for a number of years. The U.S. economy has moved out of the recession into Canada, here in this Province. The Premier hasn't stood in his place for the three years of real negative growth in this Province and applauded the comments of this government on what they are doing. He hasn't stated there are 12,000 less people in the workforce in this Province today. He hasn't stated there are 19,000 more people on unemployment insurance in this Province today, and there are mixed signals coming from this government, I say to the Premier.

The Member for St. John's South and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations did give the impression, and hopefully it will come, that there is going to be a program. The Premier put an end to that. His press release today - the Premier rushed up to the member yesterday: Now, Tommy, we can't have all of those negative things coming out over the airwaves there. You have to get out a release today and say there will be no more media contact. You are embarrassing us over here. You have to do that, and nothing else.

When George Baker is dictating policy for this Province, Brian Tobin and Lloyd Axworthy should not have a say in whether this Province wants to go ahead with an emergency employment program. It has been done by this government in power now, in 1989 and 1990 and 1991 and 1992 and 1993, when the unemployment rates were lower, when hardships were less than they are today, and they don't realize that the 6,000 people getting kicked off TAGS are getting kicked off from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The 8,000 getting added on are getting added on, most of them - and I hope the minister will have the figures; he didn't today - are getting added on from Nova Scotia and other provinces. We are going to have a very serious situation here in this Province over the next few months, and this government buries its head in the sand and either fails to realize the problem or they are ignoring the problem.

There is one of two things happening in this Province, and I think it is a downright shame to see that happening here. It is a downright shame when this Province has been crippled in the last year with the changing U.I. regulation which has gouged $263 million out of the economy of this Province, when regulations came into effect April 1 that haven't even been publicized, and I found out about four or five weeks ago while inquiring for a constituent. They brought in regulations now that if you only qualified this year and last year with the minimum number of weeks, they will go back for 104 weeks, and they will say that you have a weak employment history; we are going to disqualify you from meeting unemployment insurance for a specified period of time.

I know constituents have been disqualified for up to eight weeks before they can start drawing their claim, another eight weeks before they get a cheque. Sixteen weeks. We are looking at a long period of time when you file in October and you can't get a cheque until February. Because the employment opportunities are not here in this Province by the very Premier who was going to create jobs in this Province and bring home people, who said: Now the time is right to bring in EDGE legislation.

The time was right in 1989, and maybe before 1989, and it wasn't done. We can afford to do it now. You can't afford not to do it, I say to the Premier. It should have been done before. Looking at long-term jobs in the Province now, after six years in power, they are saying: We have to realize now we have to have long-term jobs for this Province. It is time to wake up. If you can't meet the commitments of long-term jobs at least you should go out and look around the districts and try to take care of the people who are in need.

I have constituents in my district who - they came in under emergency repairs and repaired a chimney and a stove at $4,000. They didn't have a door on the house. There is no money in the program to put a door on that house. No door to put on the house and their light bill could go through the ceiling and they run and get it paid for, but they won't put a storm door - they had one storm door and no inside door. The family put siding on half of the house (inaudible) of that and they couldn't get funding to put a door on a house. That person has moved out of their house now over the past several months into a subsidized house here in St. John's where they are paying full shot of the rent at double the cost.

That is the type of waste going on in government. It is about time they passed aside the regulation, get the loopholes out of there, and put the money where it should be spent properly in this Province, instead of wasting money on numerous types of studies and programs that they have no intention of carrying out. That is what we need to do here. We need to care for the needs of people in this Province in the most efficient manner and it is not getting done. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to the hon. members opposite they must realize that there are twice as many hon. members on this side of the House as there are on that side. I can assure hon. members opposite that all hon. members on this side of the House are just as concerned on behalf of their constituents -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I said all hon. members are just as concerned. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we have had extremely successful programs in conjunction with the federal government these past years. What we are seeing right now of course is the typical hype and the typical political garbage that we've been hearing since the House opened.

I say to the hon. members, we will continue to talk to the federal government. We think the federal government has a responsibility in this program. The hon. member refers to the Nova Scotia program. I have a copy of what is taking place over in Nova Scotia. That is certainly nothing to get excited about. One point two million dollars that belonged -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, it is not more than we brought, I say to the hon. member. We had a similar program this year that had $10 million in it, not $1.2 million. This is an employer program, I would say to the hon. member, it is a cost-shared program. It has absolutely nothing to do with the type of program that we've had for the last four years. I say to hon. members that we will continue to do our best as a government to negotiate with the federal government to try and resolve the current problem. Hon. members will have to bear with us. When the time comes that we can announce whatever we have to announce then hon. members will hear it the same time as hon. members on this side of the House.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Motion 1. But just to notify the Opposition House Leader that the bills that will be amended - I don't know if the Member for Naskaupi gave them to you - anyway, they are Bill Nos. 30, 31, 5, 51 and 32 in Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Okay. It will be Bill Nos. 30, 31, 5, 51 - which is a technical amendment on wording which the Member for Ferryland pointed out - and 32. I will send the amendments across in a second. We will call Motion 1, move the House into Committee.

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

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Crane): The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Motion 1, deals with the loans made under The Loan and Guarantee Act, and it is a normal bill that is done each session. This particular bill contains one clause which amends the schedule to The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 as follows; - no, Mr. Chairman, five clauses. First of all, there is a $500,000 loan guarantee for Hotel Buildings Limited. This was necessary because of what is happening in terms of the Holiday Inns. There has been a court case ongoing as to the ownership of Holiday Inns and until that court case is finally settled, there are certain things that we are committed to do in order to retain the link with the chain and we have authorized up to $500,000. Now, we will probably need $250,000 - $300,000 of that amount but we have authorized up to $500,000.

Clause 2 of the bill is an extension of the $1 million loan guarantee to A.L. Stuckless and Sons of Glenwood. This was originally done in 1987 and has once again been extended. This company has a couple of hundreds employees, is doing extremely well - is getting into the export market and has undergone some expansion in recent years. So that is Clause 2, A. L. Stuckless and Sons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) lumber.

MR. BAKER: they are into lumber. They also work in conjunction with both Kruger and Abitibi in terms of pulpwood, and they do an exchange of saw logs and they deal in lumber. They have gotten, in a fairly big way, as I said, into the export market as well.

Clause 3 of the bill, an extension of Carroll's Store and Fisheries Limited, $50,000 guarantee.

Clause 3(b), the Fogo Island Co-operative Society Limited which would reduce the guarantee to $1 million and we are doing an extension on this reduction.

Clause 3(c), the Labrador Inuit Development Corporation and loan guarantee of $300,000, Mr. Chairman, is now due to expire on May 31, 1995 and this is an extension beyond that date.

Clause 4 of the bill would deal with an extension to a $700,000 loan guarantee to James Doyle (Sr.) and Sons Limited and this would approve the extension to July 31, 1995.

Clause 5(a) would extend the expiry date of a $400,000 loan guarantee for Atlantic Group Limited.

Clause 5(b) would extend the $600,000 loan guarantee for Earle Brothers Fisheries Limited.

Clause 5(c) would extend the loan guarantee of P. Janes and Sons Limited, the $800,000 guarantee.

Clause 6, Mr. Chairman, would amend the schedule by extending the date of expiry of a $500,000 loan guarantee for the Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society Limited and that extension will last until May 31, 1995.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is the normal bill that is introduced each year to deal with any extensions or increases in terms of loan guarantees that were dealt with by the Province.

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

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

This is a pretty routine piece of legislation that we deal with each year, but there are a couple of questions basically that I have for the minister, not understanding what all of the companies do, I guess - of particular note, with the Labrador Inuit Development Corporation Loan of $300,000. I am just wondering what that money is for? What are they doing with that? I am sure the minister, when he responds, will answer that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: $300,000 - I am just wondering what it is for, that's all, it is no big matter. I note, as well, that there is a number of loan guarantee extensions here for a number of fish companies and I think it is fair to say that the number of loan guarantees for fish companies, I guess, has diminished, quite naturally, but obviously, these companies are still doing some processing and whatnot, and I am just wondering - I guess we will be back next year extending the loan guarantees again for another year. Is that basically what we are facing here?

MR. BAKER: Normally, if you don't extend the loan guarantee, you cause the business to go bankrupt, and as long as there is no increase we generally extend unless there are some circumstances to indicate that by causing the bankruptcy, that will be a positive circumstance.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, my colleague, the Member for Ferryland, ask the question: Has government had to bail out or pay up any of the guarantees in the last couple of years because of what is happening in the fishery. Maybe when the minister closes debate and he responds, he can just answer a few of those questions; those are all the concerns I had about it. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl and the finance critic, wants to have a word on this.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to take this opportunity to ask the minister, as it relates to the first item there, the loan guarantee for Holiday Inns, would the minister like to update us on where we are now with that corporation, Hotel Holdings Limited being a wholly-owned provincial corporation. Do we still have ownership and have the leases been renegotiated with Atlific Inn, that was current a few months ago, I think? And I don't think the minister ever told us what the resolution to that was, it was a question of whether or not they had the right now to buy it out for a dollar - or what the purchase price might be. Will the minister be able to give us an update on that?

MR. BAKER: Yes, and I will check to verify it. I think the situation is that we won the original court case, and there is a certain time limit for an appeal process. I think Atlific Inn is now going through the appeal process through the Supreme Court and at some point in time we will hear whether the Supreme Court will hear this appeal or not, so until that happens, it is kind of in limbo.

The government has certain obligations to keep up with certain things until this is finally settled; I suppose we could move in and take over now but if the decision were reversed, then that would cause other problems, so I would say to the hon. gentleman, this is to provide enough - just in case. To provide enough, we may need $200,000 or $300,000 of it but we need to do certain improvements; there are roof repairs that had to be done and the reason that we may not need as much as we guaranteed, is because this summer was a particularly good summer. Originally, it looked as if we would need $500,000, so the guarantee was given. But we may need not nearly that much, because this was a good summer and the revenues were good in terms of Holiday Inns, but there are some extensive roof repairs and things like that, that need to be done.

I would also like to point out a little bit of additional information, that, you know, we have had enquiries from a couple of other groups about our intentions with Holiday Inns and when we finally get it, what do we intend to do with it and the suggestion has been made that we just go out to the market to sell them and so on; that decision has not been dealt with by Cabinet, it has not been made and we can't really do much else until that Supreme Court situation is clear.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Maybe the minister could just clarify - he said you are not going to need as much because we had a good tourist season this summer. How would that impact on Hotel Holdings Limited? They are just a holding company that owns the buildings and leases for a fixed amount to Atlific Inn; Atlific Inn would get the benefit of a good tourist season. How does that impact on Hotel Holdings Limited having money to do capital repairs?

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

MR. BAKER: The hon. member is absolutely right, but I mean, because it was a good season, then Atlific, which runs the Holiday Inn, can afford to do some of those repairs out of cash flow and that, in essence, is what is happening. So, as I said, we may only need $200,000 or $300,000 of that guarantee. So they can now afford to do it, otherwise they couldn't. I mean, as the hon. member realizes, they are paid an operating fee, essentially. The profit comes back to Hotel Holdings Limited which then turns it over to government if there is a big profit, so, in essence, the money they are spending is really government's money anyway.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no difficulty with any of the individual loan guarantees mentioned here, and would support their continuation. I would like to ask the minister, though, whether or not a fee is charged for these guarantees similar to the fee charged to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for the Province providing loan guarantees to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Perhaps if that is the case, would he just refresh my memory, at least, as to what that fee might be for these particular loan guarantees?

In addition, is there any set policy determined by the government as to what situations or in what circumstances loan guarantees are available from the Province, or is it done on an individual case-by-case, ad hoc basis - that if some company or proposal seeks the support of government for a loan guarantee they come and make their case, and if they convince the government to support them, they get it; if they can't, they don't. Is it done on a case-by-case ad hoc basis, or is there some overall policy that is set down by Cabinet as to the types of circumstances under which government is prepared to give loan guarantees to individual operations? Is there some program that has specified policies and criteria that are open for all to see and determine whether or not they can apply and fit into the government's loan guarantee program for particular industries?

As I said, Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with any of these particular circumstances. I am familiar with most of these operations, or most of these enterprises, obviously, not in detail, but I am aware of the activities of these organizations and companies and I have no difficulty with the guarantees as set forth therein. But would the minister indicate whether there is a substantive policy that may be reduced to writing that sets forth the criteria under which the government may make available this type of financial facility? Obviously, it is of crucial importance to these particular enterprises, and perhaps to many others who have current loan guarantees, and it is obviously of great assistance in supporting enterprise within the Province and making it possible for enterprises with debt facilities which they require to operate, to be able to do so. Perhaps the minister could advise the Committee what these policies might be.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the hon. the Member for St. John's East if he could repeat the first part. My hearing device is not working. I must have left it on overnight and the battery is not working, and I find it difficult to hear the hon. gentleman. I didn't get his question about - I believe he mentioned Hydro and the connection between Hydro benefitting, so could he repeat that for me, please?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say, I sympathize with the Minister of Finance. I sometimes have difficulty hearing things that are going on, particularly from the great distances that we sit from each other in the House, but the question was concerning charges for these facilities. Does the government charge individual companies? What are the fees for the government providing these loan guarantees, and are they similar to the fees, or the same rate, as might be charged Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for the loan guarantee facilities provided by the Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That is a very sensible question. We charge a 1 per cent guarantee fee for all of these guarantees. This is a policy that was brought in, I believe, four or five years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is for a year, is it?

MR. BAKER: Yes, and that policy is applied to all of the guarantees.

In terms of our general policy, our policy is to first of all keep to an absolute minimum the number of loan guarantees we give and, number two, to try to reduce the ones we have out there. Now, that is what we are trying to do. It becomes rather difficult. Every now and then we table in the House indications of loan guarantees that have been paid out and we then attempt to collect on, so, by and large, that is our policy.

The hon. member will notice that there is one addition here - the others were extensions - there was one addition because of a special problem with the Holiday Inn chain that we presumably still own. That is the question mark. That was a very special circumstance. We were obligated contractually to provide these monies, and we did. This is the only new one. So, our attempt is to reduce the guarantees that are out there and not to add to our indebtedness.

However, having said that, I can envision circumstances where perhaps government would issue guarantees. Normally, the requests come through either from Enterprise Newfoundland, that perhaps has a particular enterprise that needs a guarantee and they want to go that route instead of an actual loan, and so on, there may be requests coming from Enterprise Newfoundland, or from the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology that would go to the Department of Finance and Treasury Board and be analyzed. Then, a paper is presented to Cabinet with that analysis. I say to the hon. gentleman, it is very difficult to get a loan guarantee at the present time because of the past experience with these guarantees, and this is not a preferred way to go. It is very difficult to get loan guarantees now, but not impossible. There are cases, perhaps, where this would be done.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations."

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion 2.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Motion 2, again, is a normal procedure each year. The bill has one clause which would amend the schedule of the act, the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, to add municipal loans and guarantees issued during the period February 26 1994 to October 12 1994. In other words, in the period immediately leading up to the opening of the House. These are the normal loan guarantees that are issued. As members can see, they are from all over the Province. The length of the guarantee is indicated after the amount. This is the normal municipal works loan guarantee program.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has already stated, this is an annual thing to bring in and update the - I never asked the question before but I will ask today: Why is it always the date from February 26 to October 12? What happens to anything in-between? I know it is just carried, I suppose, and comes back with the next session of the House, and then it is included in the amounts submitted under the guarantee of certain loans.

While I am speaking on this particular piece of legislation, because this really comes under the auspices of the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I say to the minister about this Bill No. 62 that I brought up today, that this is going to have a direct effect on the repayment by municipalities for their new formula for the repayment on capital debt - no question. The minister, if I can remember, a few short months ago was talking about approximately ninety to one hundred municipalities in the Province that could not meet their commitments for repayment on capital debt. From now on, if Bill 62 goes through and the threat of charging $3500 a kilometre for snow clearing, you are going to have a real mess when it comes to repayment on capital debt. There is nothing more certain than that, Mr. Speaker.

There are problems with municipalities this year because they just cannot raise the funds. The thing with Bill 62, Mr. Chairman, is that this is maintenance and snow clearing. It is not just snow clearing, it is maintenance and snow clearing, year round, twelve months of the year for municipalities. What I said today I stick by it, in saying that municipalities in this Province will not be able to cope with it, will not be able to cope with snow clearing and maintenance twelve months of the year looking after roads in their municipalities.

The other thing is this, municipalities in the Province under the Municipalities Act must submit a budget before December 31 of each year and they must submit a balanced budget. They cannot submit a budget with a deficit. They cannot do it and it is not suppose to be accepted by the minister responsible for municipal affairs. I say to the minister without belabouring the point on the Loan Guarantee Act that this should be taken under advisement, no rash decision should be made with regards to Bill 62. Coupled with the decision on snow clearing for municipalities in the Province it is going to be devastating to municipalities and I say to members opposite that when the news gets out to municipalities in the Province, that this is contemplated, and especially if it goes ahead in the next few days, they will be deluged with petitions and phone calls from their councils in their municipalities saying what kind of devastating effect it is going to have on them.

I say to the minister opposite that if this goes into effect your loan guarantees, the communities who now have loans out under the Loan Guarantee Act will not be able to meet the requirements for the repayment on capital debt under the formula they have today. You have ninety to 100 municipalities now who cannot meet their requirements and their commitments, but you will have a lot more after, I can assure you.

With those few short comments, like I said, without belabouring the point, I will have an opportunity to speak again later on. I will just wait and see what the minister has to say on it.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think I can on behalf of my colleague, too, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, honestly say that there are some problems out there. There are some serious problems in a number of municipalities around the Province, and we know there are. The hon. member knows that I am on top, I suppose I would like to think, that I am on top of as much as possibly can handle in the Province when it comes to municipalities, and especially when it comes to the financial ability of municipalities in the Province to meet their commitments to their constituents.

I can say on behalf of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, as well as myself, that he is as well. He has a number of towns in his own community that are in some financial difficulty as well as I have, and as well as the hon. member has. He understands that. We were discussing that particular piece of legislation that he referred to earlier today, and hopefully we will be able to give the member some answer on what exactly we are going to do with that particular piece of legislation.

I am not at liberty to say what is going to happen to it, but I think the member will be satisfied with it. I say to him that I do sympathize with the plight of the municipalities. I really do not know at this particular point in time what government per se is going to be able to do to cope with some of the problems we have around the Province. It is a direct result of the economic situation that we find ourselves in, especially with the downturn in the fishery.

When you consider that 90 per cent of our communities are fisheries related communities, communities who secured their livelihoods from the fishery, and in a lot of cases secured their taxation base from the fishing industry, fish plants, wharves, and so on, so, yes, Mr. Chairman, I will accept the comments that the hon. member put forward today and I can assure him that not only the Member for Port de Grave, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and myself, but all Cabinet ministers are cognizant of the problems that municipalities have in the Province, and hopefully in the new year we will be able to address some of those problems.

Thank you very much.

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the guarantee of the repayment of loans made to, and the advance of loans to certain local authorities."

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to call Order 20, Bill 42.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 20, Bill 42. The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing new to add to this particular bill. This is the bill to accommodate the purchase of lands from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, and Kruger. If any members opposite have anything to say, I ask them for their comments.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When this bill was introduced the other day, I spoke at some length about some of the problems that I had with it. Like I said from the outset, I have absolutely no problem with the principle of the bill - absolutely none. In fact, I said that I would agree if the government opposite went further in obtaining more lands from both Abitibi-Price and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.

A couple of the areas that I did have problems with, one is Schedule B whereby the lands other than the lands that have been taken out and exempted for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper for the transmission lines, the flow of water from Main Dam, the overflow of water through Junction Brook, and the transmission from Deer Lake to Corner Brook, I have absolutely no problem with. The thing that I have problems with, and I was just talking to the Premier about it again today just before the House opened, is the land within the Town of Deer Lake that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the transmission of power, with the flow of water from Main Dam, or with the overflow of water out of Junction Brook - absolutely nothing.

Those particular lands - and I am not saying for one minute that they necessarily just have to give the whole works over. What I am saying - I want the minister, and I am sure he will take this to heart - if there is any development required, or any potential for development, which there is there now in Deer Lake - the council has one section of land there of between eleven and fifteen acres that is owned by Corner Brook Pulp and Paper that is ready to be developed, that he, through his office, in conjunction with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, try to make it possible for this particular block of land to be either sold or given, or something - some kind of negotiation to take place - so this could be accommodated for the Town of Deer Lake.

The other, just as important, is that if there is anybody there who has a deed - now, I realize that if anybody has a deed or a piece of land of any type of conveyance whatsoever that was not registered, and anything listed in this schedule here, then they will be looked after. I understand that. The minister told me whatever names here... Not only that, but the pieces of property, the land sales that are partially completed will be looked after, but what I am talking about are the people - if there is anybody who falls between the cracks in this - for instance, I give an example, people years ago got the property around the Spillway area there in Deer Lake, they never got title to it, never registered it and all of a sudden someone else went in and bought it. A gentleman's agreement in those days, $5,000, $3,000 you would buy the block of land and probably the house in some cases and never, ever got it registered.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, Cormack is not the same way. Cormack is all granted or leased from the Crown land. There is some on the back of Cormack, yes no question, some on the back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Moving out your fence without permission.

MR. WOODFORD: Moving out your fence without permission. But, Mr. Chairman, the minister knows full well that there are - and, like I said to the Premier today, he said to me before the House closed, he said, `Rick some of the problems that you've got with this...' I said, `yes, those are the two main problems.' He said, `how come there is a problem with this particular land in Deer Lake?' I said, Mr. Chairman - when I look back and see that just seven or eight years ago - I got people now seven, eight, nine, ten, fifteen years trying to get title and when I see, the minister knows full well what I am talking about, I am not going to mention -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I am not going to mention, Mr. Chairman, but there are pieces of land in this sold to people in the Corner Brook area and other parts of the Province, that as late as 1986, some fairly substantial amounts of money involved and a transaction was completed by Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. Now if this can be done for some individuals in this Province, it can be done for all. I am sure, I know with the names that I see here, that there is no way they had a deed, no way they had a piece of paper, absolutely no way they had anything from the past. It was done primarily in consultation and negotiation with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. I say to the minister - for example a relative of the former Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, Member for Buchans in Howley, he's got eighteen to twenty inches of his house on a piece of Kruger property and in the last eight to ten years cannot get anything on it. Now that is not right, that has to be looked after. If they got something on it, okay but other than that I think Corner Brook Pulp and Paper through the minister's office and consultation (inaudible) should be looked after.

One other concern and I am sure the minister will probably agree with me on this one and probably some other ministers will as well, the six months in the agreement and in the indenture, it calls for six months before there is any disposition of lands. I think it is six months isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Okay, well that is what I wanted to bring up because if there are people - I got people now, I got four cases in Deer Lake now, two with a certain bank in Deer Lake that are ready to go through and another one is in a law office in Corner Brook now waiting. The only way he can go ahead now with his mortgage is if the lawyers and the banks agree to let his mortgage go through with the possibility or with the intent of this legislation, based on the intent of the legislation but it has to be weighed by both the lawyers and the banks. If that was dealt with - even in the next couple of months, if the Crown lands office could deal with that the same as they could a Crown land application and get a letter of intent or something from the Crown lands office saying that this would be dealt with, well then the banks would be able to complete their mortgage and let the individuals do whatever they want to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll deal with special cases like that.

MR. WOODFORD: So that is the kind of things that I would like to see addressed, Mr. Speaker. I am sure, through the minister's office, some of those problems if they are brought up over the next month, two months, two weeks whichever it is, if there is anything that comes from the minister's office through Corner Brook Pulp and Paper most of this stuff, probably 99 per cent of it, might be able to be addressed. It is not something that is out of the way, it should be looked after for the good of the community and the good of the individuals involved because it is very frustrating when they want to renovate, they want to get a mortgage, they want to get title to their property. It is something I think that all hon. members opposite can understand and agree with.

Like I said, the principle of the thing, Mr. Chairman, no problem. The majority of the things contained in the legislation, absolutely no problem. In fact I would probably go further, but forget that for today. We will leave that for another day. Like I said the other day, if I have to go out and get a permit to cut 20,000 cubic metres of wood, I don't see why anybody else shouldn't have to get a permit to cut 20,000, 40,000 or 50,000 cubic metres to look after their needs. It has absolutely nothing to do - any company can come in this Province today and wants to set up a sawmill, for instance, in Labrador, and they came to the government, the government gave them a three- or four-year guarantee of wood or 50,000 cubic metres a year for the next ten years, what is wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. They don't tie up the land for development, they don't tie up the land for the cabin development, they don't tie up the land from access to waterways (inaudible) today, and so on. It makes it easier not only for the individuals in the Province but also makes it easier for the government to operate, and any government department to operate.

With those few comments I would like for the minister and his Cabinet colleagues to take those few words to heart. If somewhere in the next couple of weeks, and I know he will, have to deal with some of those problems, then they do it with the concern of the people in the district at heart, and deal with them properly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the comments from the hon. member opposite. Certainly we will consider the concerns that he raised and address any particular issue as they come forward and not apply that six-month time frame.

A bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Entered Into Between The Government Of The Province And Corner Brook Pulp And Paper Limited." (Bill No. 42)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order No. 3, Bill No. 30.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, before speaking to Bill No. 30 I would like to move an amendment. Clause 18 of the bill is struck out and the following substituted: "This Act comes into force on December 30, 1994." This amendment would change the date on which this Bill comes into force. Seconded by my hon. colleague for Humber St. Barbe.

Bill No. 30 is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come to the House of Assembly in years. The congratulatory messages alone from across Canada tell how Newfoundland for a change is being a province leading into the change in doing what is necessary to protect the driving on our highways, highway safety. I just want to read briefly a media release sent out by Mothers Against Drunk Driving across Canada and it supports Bill No. 30 in the Newfoundland Legislature.

This is just briefly what it says, a couple of paragraphs: Responsible drivers should support this bill change to affect change in the driving patterns of impaired drivers who put everyone at risk, says John Bates, Founder and Director of Public Policy in highway safety. With impaired driving being the number one committed violent crime in Canada, counter-measures which seek to prevent deaths need to be implemented which can identify drivers who are taking dangerous risk and stream them into re-education programs and alcohol assessment programs before they kill or injure people.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is enough to be said about Bill No. 30, the importance of bringing in new measures, new regulations, that will make sure that we have the safest highways possible in our Province. What we are doing very clearly and simply is reducing the alcohol blood count down to .05, a regulation that an individual would lose their licence for a twenty-four hour period and a cost of $100.00 re-instatement fee. That is the clear message, Mr. Chairman. Statistics on our highways in any one year, in 1993 for argument sake, there were 2,182 injuries on the highways in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the last ten days?

MR. EFFORD: Unfortunately in the last ten days there were ten people who lost their lives. I am not going to get into each individual accident but we know very well the cause of one of the accidents in the park. We know it was not caused by the condition of the highway. Number two, the accident outside of Clarenville was not because of the condition of the highway. Number three, the accident in by Benton, outside of Gander, there were not even slippery conditions on the highway.

Mr. Speaker, those things will be released by the proper authorities in the very near future. Hon. members opposite can play games but we are talking about a very serious and a very important piece of legislation here. I spoke to it before in the introduction in the House of Assembly. I do not know of anybody in the Province not opposed to drinking and driving on our highways. I will sit down and listen to members opposite if they want to make points against drinking and driving on our highways. Drink if you wish. All we are saying is do not drink and drive.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 30, the minister said, has gotten support. Well, I imagine it would have gotten support. He was pressured last year to bring in such legislation. He said at the time last spring that he would have it in place by Labour Day. It was that important to the minister that he had forgotten about it and he could not convince his own Government House Leader to give him the time in the spring to get it in. It was that important, he is telling us now, that he had to try and get it in at the last minute. He has awakened after a spring nap.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the bears.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, and pretty testy, too, like a bear just waking from a long hibernation.

To make highways safe is a very justifiable thing, but this bill does not really attack those people who are repeaters of drunk driving, those way beyond .08 when they get caught, those people who have their licenses suspended. It makes no difference to some people if they lose their license because they are going to drive anyway. There have to be stiffer penalties. Last year in this Province there were some 8000 people who had been caught and blew a warning, but if they catch the same number this year, 8000 multiplied by $100 - they are not calling it a fine, they are calling it a re-instatement of your license, is $800,000. They seem to be more after money.

They found in statistics that those people who are repeaters, who are loaded drunk behind the wheel, cause most of the accidents. It is hardly the ones between .05 and .08. The minister has accused me, among others over here, of promoting drinking and driving, but if you allow .04 and .03, is that not drinking and driving? I say that the minister is looking for extra money for his government. Now, if he is looking for extra money for his government, if they were putting in emergency job creation you would accept that.

There are parts of this bill that are good. An extra fine is going to be put on people who go in and use handicapped space, $45 is not enough, you probably should charge them $145 but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: The bill itself is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: The bill will come into effect December 30, well that will make sure that there are New Year's resolutions way prior, in advance, but the thing is, their concern is, a lot of people, very responsible people who have a beer or two on their way home in the evenings, people who have a beer or two on their way home from work were never a hazard on any of our roads; these are the people who are now going to be penalized by the minister's bill.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, well you are saying it too. If you allow any percentage in there at all, you are allowing it up from .01 to .04 so obviously, you are agreeing with drinking and driving, I am saying you are getting after the people from .05 to .08 to get money off them.

What I have said, I have said before, but the minister is putting undue pressure on responsible citizens when, the ones who are irresponsible, the ones who are caught way, way over and above the legal limit, there is not a stiffer penalty being put on them like it should.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have heard the hon. member opposite make some statements in this House of Assembly but it is too bad that the people of this Province, and especially the people who had injuries due to drinking and driving and people whose family members have lost their lives because of drinking and driving, to listen to the hon. members opposite making the statements that they are making today.

Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest problems that the law enforcement agencies have in our Province and in our country, is to be able to control and to be able to deal with the people drinking and driving on our highways.

When an individual takes a breathalyser, there is a tolerance point of .01 and if an individual is on the borderline of.08, then the police officers cannot charge that individual, it will not stand up in the court. This new regulation now, will give the authority to the law enforcement agencies to be able to control those people who are drinking and driving at an impaired level on our highways; .05, .06,.07 have been researched and stated by all the professional people in Canada and in North America, that it is a state of impairment, those people who drink and drive with that level of alcohol blood count in their bodies.

To say that someone who can only drink one or two or three, I cannot and I don't care to answer that question, I don't want to answer those questions. That will be up to an individual when he or she is caught behind the wheel of a vehicle at that level of blood alcohol count, and if somebody chooses to go out there and to take a chance of causing a danger to his own life or to somebody else's life, then they will pay the penalty. There is no question about that, they will pay the cost, they will lose their license for a 24-hour suspension and they will have to pay $100 reinstatement fee.

The nonsense that the hon. member gets on with, that this is a money-making racket for government, that is just as silly, as everything else they have said over there in the past three or four weeks since this House opened, pure silliness, a money-making venture for government. If nobody drinks and drives, then there will be no fees charged and that is what we are trying to accomplish here, to make our highways safe, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair has called for order. Unless we have order, we won't proceed.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I want to have a few words on Bill 30. It is obvious that there is a fair bit of this legislation that we all support, Mr. Chairman. I say to the minister, I don't know if the minister fully realizes it or not that he indeed is allowing, is tolerating, the consumption of alcohol and driving. His bill allows that, permits that.

If the minister feels so strongly that there should be no drinking and driving then let's have zero tolerance on our highways, I say to the minister. Not .05, let's have zero tolerance. The minister's only defence of the bill is to shout at us continuously that we support drinking and driving, but the minister's own bill condones the consumption of alcohol and the operating of a motor vehicle, I say to the minister. Don't blame it on us that it is .05.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I want to say to the minister, they don't even have the breathalyser set at .08, I say to the minister. Is he aware of that? That when you blow into the breathalyser and fail it you will not fail it at .08.

MR. EFFORD: That is because of the law.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Because of what law? Now you are talking about impairment. Someone had to come up with the level of .08 for the level of impairment and conviction. What I'm saying to the minister is that if you blow into the breathalyser now before December 30 - the minister is not listening to me now. I'm trying to make a point to him. You will not be convicted now unless you blow .10. You will not get a conviction.

Our point to the minister is this. If you don't want any drinking and driving, zero tolerance, but the point is that you are targeting a group of people in this Province who are not the problems on our highway, we say to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not with people at .01 or .02 or .03 or .04 or .05, I say to the minister. These are not the people who caused injuries or were injured on the highways, and that is the point the minister is missing. The Member for Placentia's point, and any other number of members have said, the problem is not with those who stop in and have a beer and go home, or a glass of wine and go home. He is not the problem. I don't know why the minister won't listen. Why won't the minister listen, I say to him. Because -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, you don't listen, that is your problem. When you do listen you listen to the wrong people. All you mind is Tories, Tories, Tories. That is your problem. That is why we are going to be here next week, it's because of people like you.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You better talk to your colleagues behind you then. Because they care if they are here next week. They don't want to be here. The sooner you get some sense into what you are doing here and realize that your own colleagues don't want some of the things that you are doing, as well as us, the sooner we will get out of here. If you want to finish this House this week you better tear up a piece of legislation or two and not have it brought to the floor of this Chamber, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. You better get rid of a piece of legislation or two or we are going to be back here next week.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister won't listen to the point. I'm quite prepared, Mr. Chairman, today, now, to let the minister.... Why doesn't the minister if he is so against drinking and driving make an amendment now for zero tolerance? Why doesn't he instead of making the amendment now to bring this in on New Year's Eve - make this bill law on New Year's Eve now. He couldn't get it done for Labour Day. He wants to have it done now for New Year's Eve. Why don't you rise in your place now and move an amendment that we have zero tolerance? Why doesn't he, I say to the minister.

If you are knocking us so much about supporting drinking and driving and we are for drinking and driving and you can't believe it, get up and move an amendment for zero tolerance. Then it is done with. There will still be people drinking and driving, I say to the minister, he knows that.

AN HON. MEMBER: But he won't have people drinking and wondering where they are.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, that is right. Stand up.

MR. EFFORD: You don't have to have alcohol to not know where you are.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, and I say to the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: You are an example of that, John.

MR. MANNING: There is a prime example with the Premier of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister is impaired here in the House.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The member -

MR. MANNING: There is a prime example with the Premier with that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The member who -

MR. MANNING: The Premier doesn't think there is anybody hungry in this Province. He doesn't have any alcohol in him and he thinks it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The member whose judgement is most impaired in this Chamber is the minister. It is quite obvious from what we have seen coming from this minister the last two or three weeks, what he has brought forward here, there is no doubt. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, his judgement is impaired, there is no question this minister's judgement has become impaired this last month. Really his judgement has become impaired and I am surprised that his Cabinet colleagues are allowing it to go on because it is so embarrassing for them and so damaging to the government, what this minister is doing. His whole judgement is totally impaired.

So we don't support drinking and driving. I am going to conclude my remarks by saying we do not support people driving and operating motor vehicles while impaired but if the minister will do a foreign analysis of statistics, he will see that the people who he has targeted are not the problems on our highways. They are not the causers of accidents. They do not cause injuries on our highways. They are those that are .10, .15 and over who causes the problems on our highways and these are the people he should be targeting. Now he cannot enforce, the minister is unable to enforce those blatant chronic drinkers and drivers on our highways. He cannot enforce it. Now the big question to the minister, how in the name of god does he hope to enforce this .05 level?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to do it himself.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would not be surprised. I would say when I go home from here Friday he will be parked out by the Roaches Line with the mobile breathalyser unit.

AN HON. MEMBER: He will have to find a phone booth so he can change into his (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I wouldn't be surprised that he won't be. I would say he will be out with the police. Now I want to ask the minister, will he now get up and move the amendment? Does he want to go all the way? Does he really believe that there should be no consumption of alcohol while operating - will he get up now and make an amendment that - if it is zero tolerance on the highways, I ask the minister? Now get in your place, get up out of it. No, he will not get up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct a technical problem. I would like to move the amendment to Bill 30 so that Clause 18 of the bill is struck out and the following substituted, `the commencement eighteen, the act coming into force on December 30, 1994,' seconded by the Member for Eagle River.

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

MR. HARRIS: There is more than technical problems with this act, Mr. Chairman. There is more than a technical problem on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman, with this piece of legislation and with this minister because what we have -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for St. John's East. I would ask all the other members please to allow the hon. member to be heard.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I say in all sincerity, there is more than technical problems with this particular piece of legislation. We are dealing here with a kind of a `me too' legislation that this government is bringing in because it exists in some other provinces, for one. He did not produce one single statistic, not one single piece of information about drinking and driving related to statistics in this Province. He did not produce one argument to justify why, between .05 and .08, there will be fewer accidents. In all those provinces that have similar legislation not one province is able to say that there was one less accident as a result -

MR. EFFORD: Are you saying then (inaudible)?

MR. HARRIS: I will deal with the minister's little logical problem in a moment. I will deal with the minister's little technical, logical problem in a moment. The minister says, am I agreeing with drinking and driving? That is the minister's statement. I will deal with that in a moment but the minister is bringing in legislation which he hopes will raise a considerable amount of money. He wants to bring it in for the last end of the year cash grab on the highways. He could not get it in before Labour Day when he figured he might make a lot of money, and now he is bringing it in for December 31.

What he is saying is that we ought to have a law that says you can't drive a vehicle when your blood alcohol content is between .05 and .08, but he has provided not one shred of evidence that it will save one life, save one accident. Not one shred of evidence has he brought in to that effect, and he has done that without any justification and without any logical defence to it, without providing any support for this bill. He has failed to recognize there has been a vast change in public attitudes about drinking and driving over the last number of years, resulting in a very serious decrease in the number of charges, even, for impaired driving under the Criminal Code of Canada - a drastic decrease in the number of charges - but with greater vigilance, I might add, on the part of the police, higher penalties in the courts, greater vigilance on the part of the RCMP and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and yet fewer people charged, fewer people convicted.

There is a reason for that, and the reason is that public attitudes have changed, that there is, indeed, a public attitude that opposes drinking and driving. In fact, you can't go into a liquor store without coming out with a bag which has a `Don't drink and drive' logo on it that everybody is familiar with, so public attitudes have changed dramatically and as a result the number of impaired driving charges has been reduced.

The minister is not satisfied with that. He wants to have more people dealt with by the law, on very flimsy grounds and very flimsy evidence, and anybody who opposes the minister's ideas on this he accuses of being in favour of drinking and driving. He accuses anybody who opposes having a ban on a blood alcohol content of .05 and .08 as being in favour of drinking and driving. Well, I say to the minister, he has it in his power, as the minister, if he really supports that there should be no drinking and driving, to legislate it. I am sure that the Cabinet over there, one of his Cabinet colleagues, would present the motion on his behalf. I see the Deputy Government House Leader jumping at the chance. All he would need is a nod from the minister, and the Deputy House Leader would be very anxious to change the .05 to .01, or .00. All he needs is a nod. I see him nodding there now, but he needs a nod from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I only have ten minutes, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I will get the nod from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation before then, but if the minister really believes that there ought to be zero drinking and driving in this Province, then I say to him: Stand up for what you believe in. Don't be a hypocrite in this House. Stand up for what you believe in. If you really believe that, don't use weasel words. Don't act like an Omadhaun. If you really believe what you are saying, then get up in this House and have one of your colleagues move an amendment for .00. I say to the minister, don't be a hypocrite; get up and do it, because we are sick and tired in this House of this minister in particular, but lots of people over there, saying one thing and doing another. He has gotten in this House every day since he has been here -

MR. MURPHY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, time and time again hon. members can use the word hypocritical, but to say that another hon. member is a hypocrite, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to ask the member to withdraw that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, the member said that the minister was a hypocrite. Yes, he did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair didn't understand it that way but if the hon. -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I did use the word hypocrite but I say on the point of order that I did not call the minister a hypocrite. I said to the minister that he should not be a hypocrite, and that he could avoid being a hypocrite -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: - by getting up and moving an amendment consistent with what he has been saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member knows that he can't say indirectly what he can't say directly, and I ask him to withdraw that.

MR. HARRIS: If the Chairman thinks that I have called the member a hypocrite then I would have to withdraw, but I did not call the member a hypocrite.

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

The hon. member knows that if he disagrees with the decision of the Chair that there is a procedure in place to challenge that.

MR. HARRIS: I would withdraw any unparliamentary remarks, Mr. Chairman, and go on to say that the minister has an opportunity to avoid being called a hypocrite.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair cannot tolerate this kind of thing. I ask the hon. member to withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him. Flick him out.

MR. HARRIS: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman, but I would invite the hon. member to do the hon. thing and act consistent with what he has been saying in this House for the last month. That if he is opposed to drinking and driving then he get on his feet and move an amendment. He has an opportunity to do the hon. thing. I'm prepared to yield to the hon. minister if he wishes to stand and indicate that he is prepared to do the hon. thing, that he is prepared to do what he says and what he implies by his remarks across the House. If he really thinks we ought not to have any drinking and driving that he should have a law that is consistent with that.

If he is not prepared to do that then he should withdraw the whole bill. He should withdraw the whole bill because he hasn't provided any sensible reasons for it, other than his suggestion that anybody who opposes it favours drinking and driving. That is all I've heard from this minister, that if you don't support this bill you are in favour of drinking and driving. That is all he said. That is the only argument he has given, the only one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 18, there is an amendment.

Shall the amendment carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 18, the amendment.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I want to speak to the amendment.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not to take much time because we got bogged down in this longer than I thought we would be today, Mr. Chairman, I must say. It is because of the behaviour and attitude of the minister really that we are bogged down on Bill No. 30.

The minister has moved an amendment here to clause 18 which says this act comes into force on December 30. I'm just wondering really what the minister's reasoning is for changing it to December 30, 1994. Why didn't the minister say January 2, 1995? It is a peculiar date, I say to the minister. On December 30, 1994, this minister wants to bring this act into force. Can he amend the amendment?

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure he can, yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Why doesn't he amend it to make it effective January 2 or January 3, 1995, I ask the minister?

MR. SULLIVAN: And move that it be deleted.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. SULLIVAN: Move that December 30, 1994 be deleted and be amended (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Can I do that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, an amendment to the amendment.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Is an amendment to the amendment in order, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will second it - seconded by me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I move, seconded by my colleague, the Member for Ferryland, that `December 30, 1994' be deleted, and change it to read `January 2, 1995'.

On motion, sub-amendment defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The sub-amendment was defeated. Shall the amendment carry?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 18, as amended, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act". (Bill No. 30)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 6 - which bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 20? We have already dealt with Bill 20, I believe.

MR. BAKER: The description of the bill is in the long title. It is "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of The Province Representing Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies". (Bill No. 20)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 20, okay.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, it is an agreement whereby the Government of Canada agrees to pay all taxes due to the Province by the government and its agencies that are imposed by the Province, and the Province agrees to pay all taxes to the Federal Government owed by the Provincial Government and its agencies to the Federal Government. So, in essence, this is the agreement that we are discussing here today.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, Order 7, Bill No. 35.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 7, Bill No. 35.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very simply again, this is a minor change with fairly significant consequences. What it does is, it tries to straighten out a situation whereby, according to our Pensions Funding Act, employers in the Province are required to make payments into an employee pension fund, and there are some 300 of these funds around the Province.

In some instances, employers have been a bit lax in making their payments, and what this does is, it says that in instances where they don't make the payments in compliance with the act, they can now be assessed interest and penalties in accordance with the act. This is to ensure that the workers out there who have pension plans with their employers are protected, and the proper funds are deposited at the right time and earn interest so that the fund remains 100 per cent funded.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act." (Bill No. 58)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 17.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, this is pretty straightforward. It covers the $500 per kilometre for roads under the guidelines under the MOG grant. I think most members understand what that means by now.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have already has something to say on this particular piece of legislation when it was introduced by the minister, but I can't help spending a few more minutes on it, especially in view of the fact of what has happened since we introduced this particular piece of legislation, and especially with the introduction of Bill 62.

Earlier today, I was speaking on the Loans Guarantee Act about what would happen if Bill 62 goes through this Legislature, Mr. Chairman - tie that in with the $500 that, I said today, went to $2,000 per kilometre back in 1989 down to $39 and the minister last year put it up to $500, and is going to put legislation in place now that would keep it at $500, and make sure that the cap doesn't go up - what is it $41.5 million, I believe, the cap on the MOG grants? I think it was $41.5 million last year and it won't go over that this year.

Mr. Chairman, if members opposite would look at section 3, especially 3 (1) and see that the funding total by expressing the difference as a percentage of the total local revenue incentive component - that is where it will come from, the local revenue component. If a municipality is due any more monies or funding from municipal affairs that is where it will come from, that is where the reduction will come from, totally.

Now, I asked the minister when he introduced the bill - last year, I think it was 13.5 or 13.2 per cent, I am not sure. I have it here in a Ministerial Statement he made at that time. I think it was around 13 per cent, the total reduction in the local revenue incentive component. I believe that was across the board to keep it within the $41.5 million.

When the minister gets up he can probably answer another question, one that is often asked by municipalities around the Province, and by various individuals: Does he foresee anything in this upcoming Budget to raise the cap from $41.5 million to probably $42 million, $43 million, or $44 million, raise the cap on the municipal operating grant, because this, coupled with the fact of what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has done with regard to snow clearing and with taking over the local roads - the thing with this one that municipalities don't realize, is that this is a twelve-month thing. This is not just snow clearing, it is maintenance, snow clearing, the works, all maintenance on roads in any municipality twelve months of the year.

Mr. Chairman, I see the advisor to the Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs there now. Now, if this is what the member is doing, I doubt very much that the Member for Fortune - Hermitage - I hope he is not passing that along to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, some of that advice with regard to Bill 62. Because there are quite a few members opposite - even the Member for Bellevue, if this goes through, he is going to have a lot of problems in his district as well.

The Member for Gander was on council before, and probably the Member for Harbour Grace, the Member for Fortune -Hermitage for sure, was on councils, the Member for Carbonear, the Member for Port au Port; the Member for Conception Bay South knows what is going on with her council out there. Conception Bay South has a debt this year of something (inaudible) the Loans Guarantee Act of $3.2 million. The most important thing here that the minister is going to get hit with is that in another two weeks, municipalities have to have their budgets in. They are not allowed to have a deficit budget. They have to have a balanced budget and it has to be in, under the municipalities act, by December 31.

The minister - in Bill 62 he brings it in, he has April 1 1995. If that goes in with budgets announced December 31, how - well, when it comes to the Municipal Operating Grant it is nothing new. Because they changed it the last couple of years, Mr. Chairman. Especially from 1989 on, the budgets were changed three years in a row right in the middle of the fiscal year.

I ask the minister, when he gets up - one of the questions I never asked before: Is there a possibility of raising the cap on the MOG for the fiscal year 1994-1995? I would say, the answer to that is probably no, but in any case, in speaking on behalf of municipalities in the Province - because I don't see, by the way, and I don't mind saying it, I don't see anybody else out there today speaking on behalf of municipalities in the Province. I remember the days of old when there was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I don't care who hears me say it, and I'm not worried about the individuals on it. If they want to sit down and debate with me what has been happening to municipalities in the Province, they can do it any day of the week. But I'm telling you, someone has to say it. I say to the minister and his colleagues, it is about time we started putting some type of funding back into the Municipal Operating Grant, especially as it pertains to the cap.

What members opposite don't realize is that when there is a cap on something, $41.5 million, there is no incentive. The only incentive is to put up the taxes so you can get the local part of it. But when you have municipalities that have a certain mil rate, and if they put the mil rate from 5 up to 20 it is not going to make a heck of a lot of difference with regard to the money they get in that municipality. Because the value of the properties in that municipality are very low, and one of the reasons for the Municipal Operating Grants under the equalization component is just that. Where there is a variance and a difference between the cost, for instance, of a home, of $25,000 in Jackson's Arm versus one in Mount Pearl or St. John's of $90,000 or $150,000, that is where the equalization component comes in. That is where municipalities will pick it up. Under this, where there is a cap of $41.5 million, and where the money is going to come from the local revenue incentive component of that MOG, then there is no way in the world for them to get extra funding - none.

Now, having said that, I will say it is a lot better for municipalities to be getting the $500 per kilometre than the $39 they got a couple of years ago. If we are working up from $500 to $550 or $1,000 next year, then well and good, municipalities have something to look forward to. But, Mr. Chairman, when the minister closes debate on this, I would like for him to address the question that I asked, especially as it pertains to the cap on Municipal Operating Grants of $41.5 million.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, there wouldn't be anybody any happier in this House than myself if I could come in here in April or May, whenever it is going to be, or in March, and get up and say that the cap was off the MOG. I don't need to go any further than that.

Let me make another comment to the hon. member. I'm surprised he would say that he seems to be the only person in the House who is representing municipalities in the Province. To be honest about it, he did a good job when he was on the Federation of Municipalities, too. But I think I'm going to have to take a little bit of credit here and offer a little bit of credit to the Members for Waterford - Kenmount, Fortune - Hermitage and a number of other people who served with me when I was on the Federation of Municipalities. I will say this - and I don't think the hon. member will disagree with me - I will honestly say that I think the two years that member and myself were on the Federation of Municipalities, those were the two best years we had in a long time, because we did a lot of work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Grants Act." (Bill No. 17)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Order 9, Mr. Chairman, Bill No. 18.

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

MR. REID: When we introduced this bill some time ago, the hon. the Member for Menihek made some comments to me and we have spoken a number of times about it since. I think there may be some way that we can accommodate his concerns, but basically, Mr. Chairman, this is - the municipalities will no longer be able to impose municipal taxes on the value of machinery and equipment in their particular buildings. It will affect some municipalities in the Province but not all. It falls in line with the Strategic Economic Plan as well as the EDGE legislation and we, as a government, think it is good legislation - legislation by the way, that the Federation of Municipalities has addressed as well. Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, just a few short comments.

There are a few areas in the Province - my colleague, the Member for Menihek - I know, the minister, when he spoke the other day in defence of him, was going to look after the problems with regards to Wabush or Labrador City. So I don't know - that is a fairly substantial amount of money there, I think, something like $800,000 or $900,000 or is it $300,000? It is a fair amount, a fair chunk of money but that is not - across the Province it is more or less just an anomaly, really. There aren't that many that would be affected by it. But this comes, I suppose, from a couple of years ago when the changes were made through the charging of business tax from Newfoundland Hydro, Newfoundland Light, and utilities such as cable companies and Newfoundland Telephone and so on. That was done at that time and, as far as I am concerned, it should have been done years ago. I suppose it would be tied into what has been done now with regard to the - it will be just on the buildings and not the contents, the equipment, because some of the equipment in some of those buildings, Mr. Chairman, is fairly expensive stuff, especially hi-tech equipment.

I used to always, when I was on council, look at the business tax structure whereby you could charge an estimate. An individual or a business person didn't have to come in but you could charge him an estimate - estimate the business that he did and charge him out a business tax; but yet, a person who came in, if he could come in and show his books, well, then, you could charge him a business tax on the exact amount, on gross.

The difference with that, as the member knows, is that, say, for instance, you had a little convenience store or an oil company, for instance, doing the biggest kind of sales on retail and wholesale, and then you had a retail outlet like a garage or something like that, you could probably have $1 million worth of gas or one or $2-point million worth of sales in gas, very little profit, but yet you had to pay your business tax based on your gross revenue. Here is someone else who could come in with probably $150,000 worth of sales, paying the same taxes on that gross, and probably had a 25 per cent or 30 per cent mark-up - and that is where the injustice was. So there was some injustice before this particular piece of legislation - no question. That injustice should be addressed now with this particular piece of legislation - if a place like Wabush or Labrador City was addressed. There are some other areas - the Member for Roddickton...yes, that sawmill down near Roddickton might be affected. There are a few places around that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, well, anywhere that gives a grant in lieu, well they wouldn't be - but anybody who has a bit of high technology or anything at all in the building, I am telling you, they could be hit hard. In any case, I think that the minister and his colleagues might be able to address some of the concerns that some of those municipalities have, because there aren't that many. I think, regardless of municipalities that come up on the Municipalities Act - that is something I don't like about the Municipalities Act. Most communities in the Province are covered by the Municipalities Act, except for the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, Grand Falls, Gander or Corner Brook and a few places like that. Because it is under the Municipalities Act, there is no flexibility, I think the minister should have some flexibility in those cases to make some amendments to those particular pieces of legislation.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act." (Bill No. 18)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 26, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act". (Bill No. 56)

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I am aghast at how co-operative the Opposition and this side of the House is with these bills this afternoon. I guess what it boils down to is that my hon. critic over across the way knows what he is talking about. He can get up and he can question - he is doing a good job and I have to compliment him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes. Well, you know I had planned to stand here for a few extra minutes this afternoon,but my hon. colleague, the Member for Port de Grave, took up all my time, so now I have to do it in a hurry.

Mr. Chairman, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act", that is the Northeast Avalon Fire-fighting Service and it is basically to set the formula back to January 1, 1992.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I didn't speak on this particular piece of legislation the other day, because I let the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl and the Member for St. John's East; it is within their jurisdiction so I didn't speak on it. Just a few, short, comments now, and some of my remarks will deal with the general aspects of fire-fighting in the Province.

You know, members opposite know that about 95 per cent of the fire-fighting in this Province is done by volunteers; 95 per cent of all fire-fighters in the Province are volunteers - not paid, all done by volunteers, helped out by the councils in their particular municipalities and so on, and cost municipalities very, very little.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I want to make quite clear, and I think it was mentioned by one of the members the other day, this government, or government, regardless of what government it is, governments that are in power this past - pay the City of St. John's approximately 15 per cent for fire-fighting in the city. Mount Pearl - I would say probably the same thing, any place where there is a paid fire -

Now, what the minister didn't mention the other day, and he could correct me if I am wrong when he gets up, is that I believe the Provincial Government pays a portion, I think it is $200,000 or $300,000 towards Emergency Measures in St. John's, if I am not mistaken. There are some monies paid out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, okay; but what did it come to last year, wasn't that $200,000 or $300,000 as well or probably more? I think it was $1.2 million for fire-fighting; there were monies paid out for this emergency measure, you pay it all - there are three categories, if I am not mistaken, that government pays the cities now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That's it, 911.

Now, other municipalities around don't see this kind of stuff and granted, they are not looking for it, some municipalities who could help towards a 911 number, but that is a bit far-fetched now.

In the formula for this new regional fire-fighting service, there was a suggestion there that it would be 60/40. Now, I don't think for a minute that the minister is going to agree with paying 60 per cent - or agree with that formula, I should say, I will leave alone the percentages. But I don't think for a minute the minister is going to agree with that particular formula - I don't think so.

Mr. Chairman, the thing I don't like about this, and I have to say it here today, is that this is retroactive legislation to January 1, 1992. Now, we know, and I said it before this day that that is two years and say, for instance - I don't know when the minister is going to make his decision on this particular piece of legislation or a decision on the formula, but say, for instance, he brought it in; it is not going to come in now, it is not going to come in before January 1, guaranteed it is not. What about municipalities who have to have their budgets in now, before December 31?

Now, the City of St. John's is a little different; they are not held to the Municipalities Act, they are held to the City of St. John's Act, but Paradise - and some of the members opposite have them in their districts, they have to have their budgets in by December 31, so how can they make adjustments to their budgets? That is one question that the minister might be able to answer when he gets up. Because this is going to be a very large amount of money involved here, especially retroactive, so two years now, and then, the upcoming year - so really it would be three years involved in this particular piece of legislation. Some of those short questions, Mr. Chairman, the minister could probably answer when he closes debate.

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

MR. REID: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HARRIS: I understand the minister wouldn't even close debate if he spoke, Mr. Chairman, but I will make my few remarks and then he can respond to both comments if that is his wish?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the hon. the minister for yielding.

I just want to say briefly that in connection with this matter, it has been a pretty thorny issue for not only the City of St. John's but for all the municipalities around the area in respect to the cost of fire-fighting. It is one of the effects of the Province's - related to the amalgamation plans, I guess, and the downloading of responsibility for certain services to the municipalities. But the reality is, Mr. Chairman, that it is not just St. John's, but all of these communities have been participating in the fire service, in any event, whether they had their own individual volunteer fire brigades or not. Pouch Cove has one, Torbay has one, Flatrock. These communities that have their own fire trucks and their own volunteer fire brigades certainly participated in their own fire-fighting at their own expense, but there was always a significant back-up there from the St. John's Fire Department, now the St. John's Regional Fire Department, which provided the back-up service and, in some cases, the primary service to all the region.

The fact of the matter is, it has to be paid for, and if there is agreement as to the method of payment, then that is a wonderful thing. That seems to be pretty hard coming. It may be there now, but I think there has to be a recognition that some sort of phase-in must take place, and perhaps the City of St. John's is more capable, with its tax base, of paying a bigger share of the responsibility, but there is a limit as to how far they can go, particularly when what we see happening in the St. John's region, and what we have seen for the last number of years with all the smaller municipalities outside, is that individuals have been making decisions based on community taxes to locate their residences outside the City of St. John's to, in fact, move out to C.B.S. or move out to Paradise, move out to Torbay or these areas because they feel they could avoid the kinds of tax rates that the citizens of St. John's have had to pay.

What that has created is a bit of unfairness. These individuals would be getting the very same services as the citizens of St. John's, but pay less by way of taxes for it, and not be contributing to the overall cost of these services in the way the citizens of St. John's have. I know this has been a problem. It is also a problem, of course, for people who always lived in these communities. If you always lived in Pouch Cove or Torbay, you didn't move there to get lower taxes, you always lived there. The tax burden is increasing because of the cost of these services having to be shared now by everybody, so there is an adjustment that has to be made and there has to be a bit of give and take on the part of everybody to allow this to happen.

MR. MURPHY: That is why a lot of people moved out there.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for St. John's South is just agreeing with what I said. A lot of people moved out to C.B.S., built a magnificent big house at a cost of $60,000 or $70,000 or $80,000 and said: Hey, I am going to save myself $1,000 a year in taxes by building out in C.B.S. instead of building in St. John's.

I have no problem with people living in C.B.S., if they want to live in C.B.S., but if the services they are demanding and insisting upon having are going to be the equivalent of what the people in St. John's have to pay for, and they are getting it from the citizens of St. John's through this regional service, then they should have to pay their fair share, and that is all we are talking about here. It has been left to these people to try to work out what that fair share is. If they can't do it, obviously there has to be some governmental action and maybe the government should be contributing to a solution to that problem.

I think that is obviously the key and maybe some people are holding out for that, but I think that is reasonable. It is reasonable. When these amalgamations were done, for example, for the sake of saving the Provincial Government money in the long run, putting the Goulds, for example, in with St. John's, was all done to provide for a more sensible regional government and Municipal Government, and I agree with that. I did not oppose the amalgamation of the St. John's urban region. In fact, I thought they should have gone further, as hon. members may know, but in addition to adding the responsibilities of the Goulds, for example, to the City of St. John's taxpayers, there ought to have been some compensation to the City, a one-time grant to assist in that, and the same kind of thing may have to be done to resolve the problem here.

I agree that whatever is done, of course, should be in effect going back to January 1, 1992, because that was the implementation date, and I think it is only fair that the City of St. John's be reimbursed for the expenses that it has incurred since January 1, 1992 as a result of having to accept the responsibility for the cost of the St. John's Regional Fire Department.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and ask the minister if perhaps he could comment on what contribution the provincial government is going to make to the resolution of the problem in the St. John's urban region?

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

MR. REID: First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me answer a couple of quick questions, or answer quickly a couple of questions. Special consideration for budgets? Yes, certainly. To the hon. Member for Humber Valley there will be special considerations if we can get a deal that is suitable to the six communities, St. John's and Mount Pearl included, then we will have to make arrangements for those smaller communities to adjust their budgets so that they can accommodate the repayment to the City of St. John's.

How soon a deal? Got my legs crossed, my eyes crossed, my arms crossed, and maybe I might be lucky enough, if I work hard enough, I suppose, and get the cooperation from the municipalities, maybe by the end of the year I will be able to make some announcement. Maybe even by December 31, like I said.

The last question that was asked me, would I consider, or would government consider putting some dollars into that whole program? I really do not know at this particular point in time. It is a question that is being debated presently, and hopefully I will have some answer in the next week, or in a couple of weeks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City of St. John's Act." (Bill No. 56)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 40.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, very quickly, this is the City of St. John's and the City of Mount Pearl changing the mil rate. That is the one that the hon. Member for Waterford - Kenmount addressed when I introduced this bill. It is something that the City of Mount Pearl has been after now for over a year, and the City of Corner Brook as well. It will give them a balanced rate and they can now set different rates for businesses in comparison to residences. It is already in St. John's and now we have moved to the Corner Brook Act and the Mount Pearl Act.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything wrong with this. The only thing I do see wrong with it is why it was not there before? Something I think the minister is going to have to do with the Municipalities Act, along with the City of Corner Brook Act, is it is going to have to be updated. A lot of amendments over the years have occurred under the Municipalities Act. The whole act should be addressed.

There should be a new act done up covering the Municipalities Act and the Cities Act so all those amendments can be in there. When a council sits down today under the Municipalities Act, and if a new councillor came in council today and took up the Municipalities Act and went through it he would get what's in it but if anything else came up, any day or any week after, after all those years they would have to go back and pluck out a bunch of amendments that would be, I would say, just as thick today as the Municipalities Act itself. That is how many amendments have been made over the years to the Municipalities Act, to the City of St. John's Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, and the City of Corner Brook Act. That is one of the things that the minister should probably take under advisement.

Mr. Chairman, this is good because it gives the City of Corner Brook and the City of Mount Pearl some flexibility in what they charge with regards to property tax and business tax.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, the whole act is being completely revised and we should be ready in the spring to introduce, or if not the spring the fall sitting, to introduce the new Municipalities Act.

Thank you.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act." (Bill No. 40)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 10, Bill 5.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

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

This bill went through second reading and went through fairly easily, but as a result of the consideration that was given to the bill in Committee, that is the Standing Committee of the House, there were certain amendments that were proposed and certain amendments that were accepted and they will be moved by my colleague the Minister of Education shortly. Should I explain what they are now? Thank you.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, these amendments have been given to the Opposition, they affect clauses 11, 14, 21 and 20 and I will table them.

MR. FUREY: Seconded by me.

MR. DECKER: Seconded by the member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 20 or 21?

MR. DECKER: Clauses 11, 14, 20 and 21, seconded by the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There seems to be some confusion about the amendment.

MR. DECKER: Clauses 11, 14 and 21, was it 21?

MR. FUREY: Yes, not 20

MR. DECKER: Not 20, I am sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so the amendments are Clauses 11, 14 and 20, to set the record straight.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was going to make that point which is now clear and also I would like to ask just one question; I addressed this before. I spent too much time on a point - What was the rationale behind changing the number of elected people, that is in clause 11. (1) from nine down to seven, the elected members of the council, and in clause 11. (2) for changing the number that the minister shall appoint from three to five? You know, what was the basic concern, I would be interested in knowing for that change?

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

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

The reason why the change was made was basically to bring the total composition of the council in line with what is in place with most other bodies of this type within health and within government generally, and the concept is that there should be more, either lay representation on these councils and this one in particular, or at least less representation that comes solely as being the appointees if you like, of the group, the professional association whom they represent; so in this case there was provision for the twelve people on the council which is a fairly large number and at nine and three, it was felt that that was too high a proportion that was being appointed by the council and it left too little representation from the lay sector or, appointments by virtue of having confirmation of the minister, so what the amendment does is, reduce the appointees to the council from twelve to seven, it provides for three lay persons to be on the council and it also provides for two additional people from the pharmaceutical profession, from the pharmacists to be appointed by the minister, so it basically gives a more balanced council and it is in line with basically, on a ratio basis, what is now in place with pretty well every other governing body in similar professions, so it is basically the bringing in line with what is traditionally now in place elsewhere. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak for a few minutes on the bill on the amendments. I was on the committee which considered this legislation and participated in making the recommendations to the House, most of which have been accepted by the minister and by the government. The one that I do have some difficulty with, well there are two that I have difficulty with -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I request that hon. members keep their private conversations down. I am having difficulty hearing the Member for St. John's East because it is very confusing in the Chair trying to follow all the amendments when there is such a noise.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I support the amendments for the most part, Mr. Chairman, because they are in fact, for the most part, the amendments that were proposed by the committee and they were fully discussed by all members of the committee on a couple of occasions. We had meetings with officials and asked for further information and got a lot of information to enable us to consider the bill as an example I guess of the committee system working. Mr. Chairman, the one that I do have some difficulty with, with one of the amendments and proposals of our committee, was that there be a change in the number of members of the association elected to the twelve member council to be not more than seven. Now the reason for that was because when we compared it to the other health care or health professional governing boards, there were very few boards that had more than a simple majority of members of the profession.

The dentists, for example five out of eight are dentists. Chiropractors, three out of five are chiropractors. In the medical board, seven out of twelve were medical doctors. So that is, generally speaking, the rationale for saying there should only be seven elected by the association instead of the nine out of twelve. Most other boards have the balance of the board chosen by various different methods. Some members of the general public, in the case of the dentists, the other three members would be two dental auxiliaries and one member for the general public but I do have a little bit of a problem here, Mr. Chairman, because - and the minister might try and explain this to us - I don't know how he came to the conclusion or government came to the conclusion that the other five members to be appointed by the minister and not elected by the association, why two of them are required to be members of the association or pharmacists. If the object is to increase the number of lay persons or others on the board, why would there be required to be nine out of twelve pharmacists on this board when, for example, with the chiropractors only three out of five are, and the dentists only five out of eight are, and in the medical board only seven out of twelve have to be. In occupational therapists, only three out of five are to be, et cetera, et cetera, but for some reason the minister has chosen not to accept the recommendation of the committee, which was basically to say seven elected members from the association and five appointed by the minister.

The amendment goes further and says that of those five - I don't know if the minister is paying attention, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't want to have to say it four or five times and take up more time, but I would like for him to respond to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister is listening. (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is a concern I have there.

The other changes I fully support, in particular that regulations made under this act now must be made by the minister and not made by the board itself. I think it was a concern that too much control and power was being given to the Pharmaceutical Association on matters involving, for example, which drugs ought to be included in the pharmacists exclusive domain, and it seemed to give the pharmacists that power. It is a bit of a conflict of interest to have the pharmacists deciding which drugs can only be dispensed by pharmacists and which drugs can be sold over the counter. That seemed to be a major conflict of interest, and now that is left to the minister to make those regulations, presumably upon recommendations from the individuals.

I would ask the minister to respond to my concern about the composition of the pharmaceutical board. It is now to have, with the amendment, still twelve members, nine of whom will still be pharmacists. It just happens that two of those pharmacists are going to be appointed by the minister. That doesn't happen in any of the other health care boards. It doesn't happen in chiropractors, dentists, denturists, dispensing opticians, embalmers and funeral directors, hearing aid directors, or the medical board, nursing assistants, occupational therapists, physiotherapists or optometrists, so I ask the minister why is he making a special case here for pharmacists which is not made for any of the others, including the medical board, dentists, denturists or whatever. Would the minister respond to that, please?

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

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

The comments from my colleague across the House are not quite accurate. He listed all of these and I have them here in front of me as well. There are thirteen boards that he referred to and they all have different numbers to compose their membership. If he looks at the medical board, which he just said was composed differently from this one - as a matter of fact, there are more medical people on it, just for his information, than there are pharmacists on the pharmacy board. On the medical board there are twelve, and that is the closest analogy, because there are twelve members on the pharmaceutical council. On the medical board there are seven medical practitioners elected by the association and there are two medical practitioners appointed by the minister, so that gives you nine, and there are three others, one of which may be a medical person; so that gives ten out of twelve. And on the pharmaceutical one here, we have nine. So there is nothing inconsistent with what we have done here. We think we have struck a proper balance between council-appointed people, between lay people and between professional people from the organization as appointed by the minister. We think it is a fair balance and we think it is a proper way to go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Does this have anything to do with pharmaceutical supplies, I wonder?

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the minister's remarks here. There is a very special - for some reason, pharmaceuticals are being treated differently from other boards. Now, the member mentions the medical board, which has twelve, and they can have nine because two other medical practitioners are appointed by the minister from four nominees of the association, but I guess there is a bit of a hierarchy, Mr. Chairman, in these boards. For example, the chiropractors don't get to elect anybody. They are all nominated by the minister, or chosen by the minister, from three of five nominated by the association and two members of the general public. The minister is right that the medical board is the closest one to what he is proposing here, but it is not like the dentists; the dentists have eight, five dentists elected by the association and the three others are two dental auxiliaries and one member of the general public. So there are only five out of eight there, a simple majority to those who are in the profession. For some reason, the pharmacists are being treated more like the doctors, less like the dentists, and not at all like the chiropractors, denturists, dispensing opticians or nursing assistants, who don't seem to have much say at all, who are the members of their governing board here. I still say that the minister hasn't explained why, in the case of drugs and pharmacists - particularly when these individuals can have a great deal of influence over what is covered under the definition of drugs, what must be dispensed with a dispensing fee of $10 or $8 or $6 or whatever it is - they have a lot of control over their own profession in ways that will affect costs by government, in particular, by nursing homes and hospitals, in looking after the drug needs of people, and there is an awful lot of control here by members of the profession.

I think there is a need for a greater level of public watchdog because of these reasons, and I wonder why the minister is making a special exception here because it happens to involve pharmacists. Can he explain that?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to delay this. I think the hon. member is being somewhat nit-picky because, if you look at psychiatrists, there are four or five in that group who are of that profession. If you look at physiotherapists, there are five elected by the council. There could be any number. It could be eight, two and two; it could be seven, three and two. I think the member is really being a little nit-picky. We are consistent with what is happening in other boards of this size under health, the medical board, and I would suggest there is no need to explain or debate it further, Mr. Chairman.

A bill, "An Act To Continue The Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association." (Bill No. 5)

On motion, amendments carried.

On motion, clauses 11, 14 and 21, as amended carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, we have two short bills on education which are essentially name changes, Order 15, Bill 37. I would ask the Minister of Education -

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association Act." (Bill No. 37)

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, Order 16, Bill 29.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 16, Bill 29.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The School Trustees' Association Act". (Bill No. 29)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, Order 23, Bill No. 36, "An Act To Amend The Mining And Mineral Rights Tax Act".

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Chairman, as we discussed in second reading this bill primarily implements some taxation changes that we announced in the 1993 Budget a year and a half ago. There are other minor housekeeping changes but these are positive changes for the exploration and development of the industry and I recommend them to the House.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, as we said in the second reading debate anything that is going to improve on the exploration of the mining industry in this Province we support. My colleagues have spoken on this and have outlined what they thought should be implemented in it, that is not there. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, we have made our remarks clear.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mining And Mineral Rights Tax Act". (Bill No. 36)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: In the absence of the Attorney General I wonder if we could do Order 24, Bill No. 52, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In the St. John's Act".

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 52.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act". (Bill No. 52)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could move that the Committee rise and report phenomenal progress in the absence of the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Maybe if he stayed away another day we would finish the Order Paper.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm wondering if Your Honour would perhaps undertake to send a strong message on behalf of all members to the Government House Leader and ask him wherever he is could he stay there for at least another forty-eight hours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that it has adopted certain resolutions and asked that bills be introduced to give effect to same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. L. SNOW: As well, Bill Nos. 42, 20, 35, 55, 17, 18, 56, 40 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm sorry, I can't hear the Deputy Speaker (inaudible) reporting.

MR. L. SNOW: The Committee reports that certain resolutions were carried and asks that bills be introduced to give effect to same. As well, Bill Nos. 42, 20, 55, 17, 18, 56, 40, 37, 29, 36 and 52 were carried without amendment, and Bill Nos. 30 and 5 with amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: May I ask, was that Bill No. 35 or Bill No. 55 reported without amendment? I'm sorry, I just want to clarify whether that was Bill No. 35 or Bill No. 55 carried without amendment.

MR. L. SNOW: The Chair? Could the - Bill No. 35, is it? It looks like Bill No. 55 here.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it is Bill No. 35.

MR. L. SNOW: Bill No. 35.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 35.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House reports that it has considered the matters to it referred and has directed him to report that it has adopted certain resolutions and recommends that bills be introduced to give effect to the same, those being Bill Nos. 38 and 39 by resolution.

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 (No. 2)" (Bill No. 38); and,

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957 (No. 2)" (Bill No. 39)

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Could we, while we are going through the procedures, agree that the clock has stopped?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

Is it moved and seconded that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. so we complete the business of the day?

Motion carried.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that it has considered the matters to it referred, and have directed him to report Bill Nos. 42, 20, 35, 17, 18, 56, 40, 37, 29, 36 and 50, without amendments.

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

On motion, amendment to Bill Nos. 30 and 5 read a first and second time, ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I should report to the House that we managed today to clear two motions through the three stages and thirteen bills through committee. That is a fair bit of (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the government members are hosting a reception right after the House and we invite all members to join us, including the security and the Pages, the media, anybody that is listening, next door at the government member's board room.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until 2:00 p.m.

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