December 16, 1994            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol. XLII  No. 82


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As hon. members are aware, public sector employees have made a substantial contribution towards this government's deficit reduction initiatives. Employees had wage freezes, days off without pay, pension adjustments and staff reductions. Most of these restraint measures were negotiated at the bargaining table and implemented with the concurrence of the public sector unions.

During the last round of collective bargaining government initially requested its employees to make a contribution of $50 million towards the 1994-1995 deficit reduction effort. We realized part way through negotiations that our revenues might possibly exceed original budgetary projections. Government therefore decided at that time to reduce the contribution requested from public sector employees from $50 million to $25 million. It was also indicated that if the anticipated improvement in our revenue position did not materialize as expected we would not expect public sector employees to make a further contribution. In essence, government agreed to take a $25 million risk.

As it turns out, the anticipated improvement in our revenue position not only materialized, but it appears, will exceed expectations. The degree of improvement was recently outlined for hon. members during my mid-year fiscal review.

Government has maintained throughout this period of budgetary restraint that compensation measures applicable to its employees would be eased when there was some improvement in the financial situation. In keeping with that position:

(1) We initially reduced the amount requested from our employees from 4.5 per cent in 1993-1994 to about 3 per cent in 1994-1995; and,

(2) As already pointed out during the course of collective bargaining, the amount requested from our employees for 1994-1995 was reduced from 3 per cent to about 1.6 per cent.

Given the better than anticipated improvements in our revenues, government, after discussion with the public sector union leadership, has now decided to further reduce the compensation restraint measures applicable to 1994-1995. I am pleased to advise that public sector employees will not be required to take one-and-a-half days off without pay during this fiscal year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: While we are under no contractual obligation to any public sector union to do this in 1994-1995, the action is consistent with our long-standing policy to ease the burden on employees if the financial situation improves. For these unions which have signed agreements in place there must be discussion now on the details of how to reimburse the employees who may have already taken their time off. For these unions still in negotiation, Mr. Speaker, our position at the bargaining table will be modified accordingly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My initial reaction to the minister's statement is that it is a positive statement for public sector employees. We are glad to see that the burden on them is being reduced over time by the government. They have paid more than their price of government's restraint measures over the last five or six years that this government has been in office. It is good to see that it is gradually being reduced and, of course, the one concern that I had the minister has addressed in the last paragraph of his statement, that some public employees have already taken time off because they thought they would be required to take time off without pay, so I am glad to see that discussions are under way with the unions to see what is going to be worked out in that matter.

Overall, it is a positive statement for public sector employees and I just hope, when we get the new Budget, that the attack on the public sector employees by this President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance will cease, that we will not see it in the next fiscal year. Because these people have had such a difficult time the last five or six years with inflation rates and the freezes and reduction in compensation. They are having a rough time making ends meet with the financial commitments they had made before they were met with those restraint measures, so I hope in the next Budget that the public sector employees will escape any attack from this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, on August 15, 1994, the sale of the Come By Chance oil refinery to Vitol S.A. Limited was completed. My purpose today is to give the House a report on the status of environmental measures being undertaken at the refinery.

One of the more significant aspects of the sale was the signing of a comprehensive Environmental Compliance Initiative. By means of this agreement, Vitol S.A. Limited has made a number of substantial commitments which will lead to major improvements in the environmental performance of the refinery, and to ongoing maintenance of those improvements through rigorous control and monitoring activities.

This Environmental Compliance Initiative has been made public, and has been distributed widely in the communities surrounding the refinery. It is thorough, and in the belief of the government, will address the major environmental concerns that have been raised about the refinery over the past few years.

A major commitment of the Environmental Compliance Initiative is to establish and maintain effective working relationships with the people who live in nearby communities. To this end, a Community Liaison Committee has been established, comprising representation from thirteen community organizations, as well as from the refinery's owners, my department and the Departments of Health and Natural Resources.

I recently had an opportunity to attend the meeting of the Committee. At that time, the refinery had been operating for some four to five weeks, and I must say, the members of the Community Liaison Committee expressed satisfaction at Vitol's efforts to date to address environmental concerns. I would also add that no significant concerns about air emissions from the refinery have come to my attention since Vitol took over operation of the refinery.

Mr. Speaker, under the Environmental Compliance Initiative, Vitol has also committed to address a number of other significant issues which have been the focus of complaints. Among them are:

- assessment and development of a sour water handling system intended to address one major source of odour; this work is currently under way.

- recovery of free petroleum products from the impounding basin, which has been identified as another source of odour; this work is to be completed by February 15, 1995.

- development and implementation of a terrestrial effects program, also due to be in place by February 15, 1995.

- installation of an additional sulphur dioxide monitoring station at Bull Arm during 1995.

- scheduled and progressive reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions over the next seven years from 40,000 tonnes per year to 25,000 tonnes per year. This represents a substantial reduction from the 61,255 tonnes recorded in 1993.

In addition, the company has undertaken renovation of heaters and other combustion systems which will improve both operational efficiency and environmental performance.

Mr. Speaker, these are but a few of the major initiatives which will help resolve past environmental problems. This Environmental Compliance Initiative is progressive. It represents a new approach by the new owners, one which is acceptable to the government. We are confident that it will allow the oil refinery to operate both viably and within the environmental regulations of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to commend my predecessor as Environment Minister, the hon. Patt Cowan, and my colleague, the hon. Rex Gibbons, Minister of Natural Resources, as well as their staffs, for their fine work in ensuring an Environmental Compliance Initiative which protects the assets and interests of the people of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for sending me a copy of his statement before the House sat this morning. I believe that this is a positive statement and I share the minister's satisfaction and optimism regarding Vitol S.A. Limited. I want to congratulate the Vitol Limited, who recently purchased the refinery at Come By Chance, for taking serious measures to address the environmental problems plagued by the refinery and surrounding communities for years.

I want to stress that I believe that these are measures taken by the new owners and are not happening because of the Department of Environment. I had many questions in the past for the previous Minister of Environment and Lands at the time and there was no action taken, Mr. Speaker. If the department had been concerned they certainly would have done something years ago. This is Vitol's action and I think Vitol deserves the recognition and appreciation for the action they are taking.

I am certainly pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the company is working with the communities, through the thirteen member liaison committee, and I believe Vitol's willingness to work with the communities is our best guarantee that Vitol is serious about the commitments undertaken. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the members of the House for this tremendous support.

I have never seen them show any such confidence in their members over there.

I would like to direct a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health.

Now, will the minister tell this House if the $800,000 announced in the March Budget to reduce waiting lists for heart surgery is being spent for that purpose and in what way is it being spent?

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

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

I have heard of Custer's last stand but I guess this is Loyola's first stand and to the extent that he may have aspirations. I wish him all the best.

There was, Mr. Speaker, money allocated to reduce the waiting list for cardiovascular surgery at the Health Sciences Complex. Policy and procedures were put in place to give effect to that; the waiting list has been substantially reduced to a point where it is now, about where it would be in any acute care situation or in any acute care hospital and the waiting list is not abnormal. The money is being spent for that purpose and it has addressed and met the need that it was prescribed to do and we are happy to report that to the House.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to tell the minister that in my short time as Health critic, I managed to move one minister out of there already.

Everyone knows that the only permanent solution is to increase the number of cardiovascular beds in the Intensive Care Unit. Now that was the intent of the $800,000. It took until November of this year to add just two extra cardiovascular beds to that unit and this decision only lasted a few days.

Will the minister confirm that those extra two beds only lasted a couple of days; now, why were those beds taken away just a few days after they were opened and who cut the funding?

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

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

To the last part of the question, to my knowledge the funding has not been cut. To the previous part of the question, the beds were put in the system consistent with what the people at Health Sciences, the medical experts and the administration considered to be necessary. The funding, as I recall, was not only to be dedicated to increasing beds on the ward, if you like, but also to provide some back up in the intensive care unit, and right through the system generally that would give effect to being able to do more heart surgeries and reduce the waiting list.

The last time I checked, which was just about a week or so ago, that has happened. The waiting list is now down to a reasonable level, and having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, let me again assure the hon. member and the people of this House, and the people of the Province, that where situations arise in dire emergencies medical service is rendered in a prompt, efficient manner, notwithstanding anything that might otherwise give cause to undue delay, so we do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Four out of fourteen beds in the intensive care unit were designated cardiovascular and it took until just before the November 11th weekend to open two extra beds. There were only opened a few days when they were closed again. Now, the minister knows we are back to the same old problem. Critical procedures are being cancelled, with patients still waiting in hospital for surgery and people outside are waiting on increasingly longer waiting lists because you have not dealt with this problem.

I ask the minister when he is going to deal with it?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, to the question again in deference to my hon. critic across the way, we have dealt with the problem. It has been successfully dealt with and it will continue to be monitored and the situation will not be such that people who require emergency service will be denied. It will not be such that people who are on a waiting list that is not of an emergency nature will be denied. They will get the service in a timely fashion, in a good medical practice fashion, and will the treatment they deserve and need. There is no need for the people of this Province to fear or to be taken in by any fearmongering that might be tried to be stirred up.

The health care system in this Province is sound. The health care system is good and the surveys and statistics that we have with respect to the opinions of the people of this Province verify and indicate that, and we will continue to do and deliver the service, promptly, efficiently, and effectively.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Environment about the government's new policy on waste importation which states, waste can be imported for purposes of re-use, recycling, reprocessing and recovery. These are vague terms which the minister doesn't define, or the policy doesn't define. Can the minister tell the House whether a proposal to incinerate waste to recover energy in the form of electrical power would meet government's new criteria under the government's definition of recovery?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this point in time we haven't a proposal of that sort. There has been some suggestions that there would be. Under the policy that we have it would be considered - if it is incineration it would be considered for final disposal. That is the policy and that is the position. Thank you very much.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the proponent of a waste to energy incinerator proposal for Long Harbour, North American Resource Recovery, or NARR, has received federal funding to investigate this proposition. I understand this proposal has never been formally submitted to the Province for assessment. Has the Province provided any funding or other assistance to NARR which is in any way related to any such waste to energy incinerator project?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know. I think that was federal money that was provided back a couple of years ago by some other government, I'm assuming.

No. First off, there is no proposal registered. There is no proposal registered, I will say it again. Secondly there is no provincial funding that has been provided to do whatever. The policy is now in place. Like I said, I think there was funding way back a couple of years ago by some former Tory government in Ottawa I think that provided that money. Thank you very much.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion there is clearly a conflict between the Premier and the minister whether asbestos-containing material from the U.S. can be buried at the Baie Verte mines under the new policy. The minister told CBC that the proposal can't be approved, yet the Premier on Tuesday past in this House said the proposal should go through a normal process. Who is right? What does the policy say with regards to this issue?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no difference. The Premier said that if a proposal came forward and met the criteria of the policy then it would be acceptable. If it doesn't meet the criteria then it is not acceptable. This proposal which has been under consideration, under assessment, for some time, is now not unacceptable under the new criteria. That is the case. The new policy is in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker. The member can get on with what he wants to. The fact of the matter is, we have a new policy in place and we have already indicated to the proponent for the Baie Verte project that it is not acceptable under the new policy.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I noticed the Premier wasn't applauding. I have some questions for the Premier.

On November 22 the Premier issued a written release announcing that the police were investigating pharmaceutical transactions in Ontario and Newfoundland, that the Member for Naskaupi had been relieved of all duties both as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and that the Premier himself would carry out all duties of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Why then is the Member for Naskaupi still functioning as the Minister of Justice and doing work of the Minister of Justice? Isn't the member's demotion just a pretence and a sham?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. The member as usual didn't state fully the position. The position was very clear. While the minister is relieved of his responsibilities as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the big concern that I have is that there not be any doubt about the direction of the police or the general supervision of the direction of public prosecutions in this Province. I have responsibility for that in the meantime.

I also stated very clearly - I stated in the House, I stated publicly through the media - that I would be assigning to the minister responsibility to continue to deal with certain things that are under way that have nothing to do with this and do not in any manner affect the fact that this police investigation is under way. He will continue to do those things in relation to the matters that might normally come under the Minister of Justice that do not in any manner affect the police or the director of public prosecutions.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have more questions for the Premier. Again, reality doesn't match the written word. I quoted directly from the Premier's news release of November 22, but I would like to ask the Premier: How can he keep in his Cabinet the Member for Naskaupi, at all, whether the member is there as a minister without portfolio doing Department of Justice work, and work of the Minister of Justice, or whether he is there with the title Minister of Justice doing justice work, with the member and his family either directly or indirectly owning Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited and getting the profit from that large business which does the lion's share worth of drug and hospital supply business to government institutions? Doesn't the Premier realize the conflict involved? Doesn't the Premier realize the reported growth in gross revenue of that firm from $24 million in 1991 to $44 million in 1993? How can the Premier tolerate that kind of conflict between a member profiting directly and very substantially from his direct or indirect ownership of Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited, and the member's participation around the Cabinet table in health policy decisions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the only extent to which reality doesn't match the written word is what the member has put forward in this House. The reality of what she says doesn't match anything, and that is the only extent to which it doesn't match.

Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear that the minister would continue to carry on such duties as I would assign to him that may well be justice related matters, but would not have anything whatsoever to do with anything that related to the direction of the police or the Attorney General function in the Province. I will continue to discharge those.

In the meantime, I am quite happy to rely on the best Attorney General and Minister of Justice I have had the good fortune to see in this Province in the thirty or forty years that I have been watching.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the other question raised by the Member for Humber East, and that is the question of the sale by Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited of drugs and drug related products in this Province, particularly to hospitals and other institutions that may receive their funding through the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, we have in place a Conflict of Interest Act that provides for and requires members to report their interest in any business that could have a conflict. It also requires members to report the interest of themselves and their spouses. This minister has fully and completed conformed to that requirement. The member who asked the question has not.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that legislation strictly sets out the standards by which members can continue to be members of this House, or members of the Cabinet, and continue to have an interest in business. Unless the member has some reason to suggest otherwise, and if she does then she owes it to me, at least, to provide the information, to the best of my knowledge the Member for Naskaupi has conformed totally to all requirements of the statute.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Doesn't the Premier remember that his law, when introduced in this House of Assembly, bore on its cover the name Edward Roberts? Doesn't everyone now realize that law was crafted by the Member for Naskaupi to suit his own personal financial arrangement? Isn't it obvious that that law allows the Member for Naskaupi, and other government members, to sin as much as they want as long as they confess to a commissioner who is precluded by the members law from reporting the sin to the public.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will go back and find out where the law was crafted but to the best of my knowledge it was not crafted by the hon. member at all. It bore his name on it because he presented it, as Government House Leader, as a piece of legislation for which the - that the government was putting forward for which he, as Minister of Justice, would have some degree of responsibility but my recollection is, there was a select committee of this House. My recollection is, it had the full endorsement of the House. I don't think -

AN HON. MEMBER: She was the vice-chair.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. member was vice-chair of the committee?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, she was not. Alright, then she was not vice-chair of the committee but it had the endorsement of the committee and the endorsement of the House. So the member's question is clearly without merit.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just thought I heard a lonesome knock somewhere - just based on assumptions.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I have a question for the Premier. Premier, the bill you will introduce shortly - which will be enacted into law in a short time - to promote economic diversification and growth enterprises in this Province, will your government be proceeding with this bill to gain trade enhancement zones for this Province, particular in light of our conversations before?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, and I guess most hon. members in this House know, the government has been trying now for all of its five-and-a-half years in office to see established in this Province a trade enhancement zone. Our efforts in that regard will not diminish in any way.

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

MR. CAREEN: Premier, there have been a number of meetings with representatives from the Placentia area regarding Argentia being given a level playing field to bid for offshore supply and HMDC wants to use St. John's and are willing to pay extra money for the flexibility to use that port. We are wondering and asking, if you will ensure - because Argentia, we approved it on paper, they can save $30 million a year by using Argentia - we are wondering if you would support us in our cause to be allowed to play upon a level playing field?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The member knows he does not have to wonder if I would support it. The member probably knows and probably has seen a copy of a letter that I wrote to HMDC two or three months ago - I have forgotten which, about a couple of months ago I would think - which asked them specifically to consider Argentia in their consideration of a supply base. I cannot direct them what to use but I asked them to make sure that Argentia was not in any manner disadvantaged by a failure on the part of the committee to give full and fair consideration to Argentia. Now I think the hon. member has already seen that letter. So he does not need to wonder whether or not I would do it, it has clearly been done.

Now, if HMDC wants to use St. John's, I cannot alter that and I will not take any steps to interfere with their decision to do that. If they choose to do it, that is of their choice. I am not sure on what basis the member says it could save $30 million a year. That is a figure that I know nothing of and I don't know that it has any merit whatsoever. It appears to be a balloon just pulled out of the air.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, could the minister give us an update of where the negotiations are relating to tax reform and tax harmonization? What discussions has he held recently with the Government of Canada and how are those negotiations proceeding? Can he tell us where we are heading at this point in time?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, another step in the saga of harmonization and tax reform will take place on January 23 when there is another finance minister's meeting. There is a lot of activity ongoing at the officials level with regards to the changes in the way the federal government and the provinces undergo tax collections. All I can say to the hon. gentleman at this point in time is that our position is clear, that we see tremendous advantages in harmonizing with whatever is in place after the federal government makes up its mind, so we want to see harmonization because we feel tremendous advantages that will bring us and secondly, in that process, we would like in some way to lower the RST rate in this Province, so with these objectives in mind, that's the way we are negotiating.

So far, we have not been successful as a group of finance ministers or a group of provinces in coming to any agreement. My reading of it is, that perhaps a nationwide agreement is impossible, that is my personal opinion, therefore we should perhaps look at regional agreements as a next best step, because the regions have much more in common and perhaps agreement could be reached in that way so we are continuing, but I am very discouraged that we do not have the situation settled now and I am looking forward to the discussions in January.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I find his regional concept interesting. Can the minister tell us if one of the objectives of this Province is to ensure that in any tax harmonization, any inequities in taxation systems across Canada are removed? In other words, will our RST be equivalent? Will the total tax burden be equivalent on sales all across Canada, and more specifically, is the elimination of the payroll tax part of that package? In other words, are we simply going to harmonize part of the tax system and still leave other taxes which are disincentives to development in place, in Newfoundland?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman is suggesting, is assuming that we simply have one government in this country and we have one big province or in other words, a country without provinces.

I would suggest to the hon. gentleman, that first of all, it would be impossible to get agreement on a single, unique tax system across the country for a number of reasons, one of the prime reasons being that the provinces would have to give up total control over their own destinies and I don't think the provinces, Mr. Speaker, are willing to do that. To get more specific, the payroll tax is not part of these discussions, this is a provincial tax administered in four of the provinces and is not part of the discussions in terms of harmonization; we are simply discussing the retail sales tax level and the - I would say GST level or whatever replaces the GST.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us how we can deal with tax harmonization, tax reform at this point in time when we are heading into a referendum in the Province of Quebec to decide whether or not that province will be part of Canada? Should Quebec decide to separate, what impact would that have on the whole tax regime throughout Canada and more specifically, is this government prepared to enter into an agreement with Quebec that would provide them an opportunity for economic union with Canada? In other words, can they have their cake and eat it too, as far as this Province is concerned?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, with regards to the tax situation, Quebec has already been harmonized, effectively harmonized with the federal government tax. They are the only province in Canada that has brought about this almost complete harmonization with the GST, so they have already taken that step and what the attempt has been, is to bring the rest of Canada to the same situation where, there is a harmonized RST, GST across the country, so the Quebec situation has no bearing on the discussions because Quebec is already harmonized.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Major donations to my official agent, I say to all members.

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

It has been brought to my attention that there is a problem being experienced by a number of fishermen who have applied to the minister's department which administers the boat rebuilding bounty program. I am told that several fishermen applied for this bounty, were left for several months before they were responded to, and finally found out that there was no money available. Is the minister aware of this problem and the hardship it has caused for a number of fishermen in our Province?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, the minister is aware of the fact that there was a problem with the funding into the program. That has recently been rectified.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I didn't quite hear the minister. Is the minister saying that those applications that were on file with his department for the boat rebuilding bounty, that were approved, that now funding has been found and those applications will be serviced and the money will be forwarded to the fishermen?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said that the shortage of funding has been rectified. If someone was notified before that their application was approved but there was just no money in the program to look after it at that time, then I would assume that will be done at this particular time.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Could the minister, then, inform the House how many fishermen were approved, received late approval, and what the additional amount of money was that funded them? Could he inform the House of that?

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

DR. HULAN: The hon. Member for Grand Bank always expects me to go around with a filing cabinet of details as to how many people were -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) combine harvester.

DR. HULAN: On the combine harvester, by the way...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: I perform only on Thursdays, the day before the beginning of the weekend.

I can assure you that I can provide the numbers some time later. The money that has been secured for the program hopefully will be enough to look after the additional applications that we received. Thank you.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The rural development council, which is the umbrella group for the fifty-nine development associations in this Province, were, without a doubt, the driving force behind the formation of the task force on community economic development.

Now that the recommendations and the report have been passed back to the minister, I would like to ask the minister: What does he see as the future for these fifty-nine development associations in regard to community economic development in the Province in the future?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we just received the final report of the community economic development task force. Cabinet is assessing the recommendations. Government is very supportive, has been, and will be in the future, very supportive of the rural development movement. We see them playing a very important role in the implementation of this task force, but it hasn't been made public. I guess the federal minister will have his copy shortly and it will proceed to the federal Cabinet, and our Cabinet is dealing with it as well, but we see the rural development movement generally, and the association, playing a very important role in implementing these important recommendations.

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

Petitions

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to stand and present a petition on behalf of 969 residents of my District. The prayer of the petition is: 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 residents of the District of St. Mary's - The Capes do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to undertake the upgrading and paving of approximately twenty-one kilometres of road on Route 91 from Southeast Placentia to the intersection of North Harbour Road, Route 92. We ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to address this matter as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this road that these people are trying to have some work done on is one of the oldest roads in our area. It was upgraded by the provincial government of the day in the 1920s. The Americans rebuilt the road somewhat in the early 1940s and maintained it well into the 1950s. The road is used on a daily basis by people from the North Harbour - Colinet - Mount Carmel - St. Joseph's - O'Donnells - Admiral's Beach area that use this road on a continuous basis to drive back and forth to Placentia area for a number of reasons.

One is for shopping. There is a bank in Placentia area, the central hospital is there for our area, there is a Placentia campus of the Eastern College, and the RCMP is also in Placentia. Because of all this this road is used on a continuous basis. These people would like to see some work done with this road. The fact that most of the roads in the area now are upgraded and paved and this road is something that needs to have something done with it as soon as possible. I hope that the minister in his wisdom will have a look at this road and try to find some dollars to help out the people in the area and indeed do something with the road.

One of the major items of concern about the road is the opportunity it has to develop our tourism industry in our area. Over the past number of years development associations, community future groups, have been working hard trying to develop our tourism industry in our part of the Province. This road is one of the major links in our area because of the entry port of Argentia, and many thousands of visitors who come into Argentia - we have the Cape St. Mary's seabird sanctuary. Indeed, on this road itself we have the Cataracts Park. Over the past number of years we've had many people coming into our area which really opens up the visitors to the southern Avalon area. The tourism development here - it is unknown at this point how many people we can bring in to the area.

If this road was paved it would be kind of an extra route that the people could take, a shorter distance to St. John's not only for the people who live there year-round but indeed for the tourists. I hope that somewhere down the road the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will be in the Christmas mood all next year and maybe find some dollars around to do something with this road.

This road is travelled by very many people. Every day I come over the road several times myself. At any time of the day you can meet several vehicles on that road travelling back and forth to Placentia or to St. John's or whatever the case may be. It is a good solid road that if upgraded and paved would make a major roadway for the people in the area. The whole item of tourism development is something that the organizations have been grappling with for a number of years now. Hopefully with the salmon enhancement of the rivers on this road we will see not only tourists coming from outside the Province, but indeed people from inside our own Province who will travel this area to take part in this. This is one of the major concerns that the people have.

I hope that in presenting this petition on behalf of the 969 residents of the area it shows that people really want to have something done with the road, and that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in his wisdom will find some dollars to at least begin construction and upgrading of this road. Hopefully within the next couple of years we will have something done in relation to a positive note so that the people can not only enjoy the luxury of driving along on some pavement, but indeed the safety that comes with it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you very much.

I am happy today to be able to rise and support my colleague's petition from that part of his district. Two weeks ago he supported a petition from my end of the district which had supplied some 1,300 names in a similar petition. The petition refers to about twenty-one kilometres of road that needs to be upgraded and paved. It has very historical value. People are looking at creating Newfoundland tourism on what they call the French Trail.

The French Trail takes in part of this road in the leeway of the hills where D'Iberville, some 300 years ago, left Placentia with eighty soldiers to go and take possession of Ferryland and St. John's.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: The Member for St. John's East said, murdered and burnt. I don't know about murder, but I know that he burnt, that he levelled those two places to the ground. He didn't take Carbonear, and coming back that winter, he wintered in Bull Arm - 300 years ago. Parts of this road are of very significant value.

As the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes says, there are many, many people who travel daily, this gravel road from Southeast Placentia to North Harbour area, to Colinet. They go for hospital services. They go to the Eastern Community College in Placentia. The RCMP patrol there daily. There is business they conduct in Placentia, and for the people our way, to go to St. John's or even out to that area of St. Mary's Bay north.

Many people use it, and in tourism it would provide another valuable link, a paved link, that people coming in off the Argentia ferry might use.

Now, in terms of Newfoundland tourism I think that persons who travel, resident Newfoundlanders who travel over a fifty-mile area are considered tourists as well, so if they didn't have the time this would make a shorter link on parts of the Avalon and open up a new area that could be quite valuable.

The member mentioned earlier Cape St. Mary's and the Cataract Park, so I am glad, as I said earlier, to be able to support this. I say to the minister, the Chinese have a saying, `The longest walk starts with the first step', and probably by taking some initiative to have a look to start this area, someday or other, we will see this pavement fulfilled.

Thank you.

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

MR. EFFORD: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, in 1995 we will have a request from the people of this Province to address some 9,500 kilometres of road. If and when the budgetary decision allows me to do some construction on those roads there will be a priority list that I will be looking over and I will make all the decisions at that particular time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present a petition on behalf of members of my district: 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 residents of the district of Ferryland, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of Employment and Labour Relations to immediately implement an emergency employment program. With the economic conditions that exist we find ourselves in a desperate situation. We ask the minister and his government to show compassion and understanding in this matter. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, I have had numerous calls from people in my district and many, many hardship cases. I had one call recently from a family of four people - I made reference to it before - who moved into another home, owe a few hundred dollars to Newfoundland Light and Power and can't get a power hook-up - a family, at this time of the year, on the income of a disability pension. The father had to give up work and take a disability pension of only $600-and-some. He has two kids in high school not able to afford to get books and he just hits the borderline on Social Services. They can't get assistance or have any drug costs covered.

There are many people in the Province today, while they may not be on social assistance, they are on the borderline and below the poverty lines that are established in this Province. An estimated 25 per cent of children in this Province are living in families below the poverty line. While they may not be in danger of dying today from starvation, I can assure you they are going hungry and their families and themselves are severely affected because of it.

The Premier in this House and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology stand and they tell us that in this Province today, the picture is very rosy, we are going to have 3.4 per cent growth in this Province, when the actual fact, Mr. Speaker, is that every single province in Canada today, except Newfoundland, has had a reduction in unemployment. All the other provinces have come out of recovery and have followed on the coat-tails of the United States and Canada overall. We are the only Province in Canada that is coming out of the recession without any increase in number of jobs. We have a jobless recovery in this Province. We have 21 per cent unemployment, the most severe that it has ever been. There are more families out there today hurting, more families in need of food and the basic necessities of life than there have ever been in this Province before - and they paint a rosy picture, they tell us that we are on a recovery.

Mr. Speaker, Professor Hill, I believe - I heard yesterday morning - has indicated that is not the case.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't know what he was talking about.

MR. SULLIVAN: He did have a clue what he was talking about.

I read many financial magazines on the economic view, and the quarterly reviews done by this government, I tell the minister, are no longer non-partisan. They have overtones of promoting what is best, picking out the best parts of this economy and not the real impacts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I don't care whose they are, we have to paint a true picture to the people of this Province. We have to paint a true picture and tell the real story.

I asked the members who are out in the districts and have seen it. I went to a house in my district a few months ago and under an emergency program - I mentioned this before in this House - they repaired a chimney because it was a fire hazard, and did some electrical work around there, but that woman and two children didn't have a door on the house except an outside storm standard door that you can see through - no inside door. Their family put siding on one end and the back of that house. They couldn't afford to put on any more, and still social assistance would pay heating bills, while, by putting up a door it could have saved them ten times the value. But `because it is not our policy we can't do it,' they decided to go out and waste money. That family couldn't stay there - the house is unoccupied and they are out paying rent. Social Services are paying rent in the City of St. John's for this family, at a very high cost. People are having to leave their homes - they own their homes but they can't get money to repair them up to a standard where they can live in them, and have to go out and be subsidized by this Province when, given a few extra dollars, a few thousand dollars, they could be staying in their own homes at much less cost to government and much better - and not upsetting the family by moving them out of the area in which they have lived.

There are, Mr. Speaker, many, many hardship cases out there. And I said to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations before, that it is incumbent upon this government to recognize those hardship cases out there, to do something to bring in an emergency employment program. I know short-term employment is not the answer in this Province, but short-term employment is a better response than no employment at all.

I think it is important that this government - the Premier put a gag order on all of these announcements by the minister, and a release went out, but this morning I heard the minister saying, I hope to have an announcement in my place in the House today. He said it last week and the week before and we just haven't had any response -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We haven't had any response from the government, and I think they should do something about it to meet the needs of the people in this Province today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand and support the Member for Ferryland with his petition on behalf of the people of his district in relation to an employment generation program.

I was sorry today not to hear the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I thought he would give us an early Christmas gift, so close to Christmas, the last day of the House. I thought he would stand in his place today and present something, but as I have said so many times before in this House, I know full well that the minister would like to stand in his place and present it, and hopefully we will hear over the airwaves in the next few weeks that something has come forward.

I am pleased today to stand and support the Member for Ferryland. To touch on a few things that the member touched on in relation to percentages and growth in this Province, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was on the airwaves about over the past couple of days, he forgot a couple of the percentages that I think he should have announced when doing his announcement, that I am sure the people of the Province would be interested in hearing. One was that there was a 200 per cent increase in social assistance recipients in this Province over the past three years - 200 per cent. It was on CBC Radio this morning, there are going to be 40,000 people in this Province this year depending on food banks, 10,000 more than last Christmas, and most of them, Mr. Speaker, a fair number of them, are within the confines of the St. John's area.

The stories on CBC Radio this morning - one lady said she didn't know where her next meal was coming from - are stories we have tried to bring forward in this House over the past couple of weeks that have met with ridicule and laughter. But they are reality, it is just that some people turn a blind eye to them.

Mr. Speaker, 25 per cent of the children in this Province are living below the poverty line. There are children going to school hungry in this Province, and for some reason or other the government fails to see that.

Ten thousand coats for kids were collected in this area over the past couple of weeks, almost double what was collected and distributed last year. And they changed the format of it this year a little bit, they decided to give coats to the adults so that the adults could buy coats for their own children. This really, I think, brings out the true message that we, on this side of the House, are trying to get across, that there are people hurting. There are people who are in desperate need of some type of assistance, and that is why we stand in this House day after day, presenting petitions on behalf of constituents of ours, trying to get the government to realize that there is a need out there for some type of employment generation program. It is an emergency not only in my district, but indeed, I would allow, in the fifty-two districts in this Province there is a need for some type of emergency employment program. I certainly hope that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, in his discussions with his Cabinet colleagues, can find the money somewhere to come forward with something that will alleviate the pain and suffering of the people in the Province.

We talk about the growth that has been happening in some industries in our Province over the past couple of months - over the past years, I should say - but it is what you would call a jobless growth, in my estimation. We may be having growth, but it is not resulting in jobs, it is not resulting in money in the pockets of the people of this Province. It is resulting in money in the pockets of the multinationals that are taking the money from our Province and putting it into Quebec or Ontario, or God knows where. The people of this Province don't feel the growth that the government opposite feels. The people in my district don't feel the growth that the government opposite is talking about. Because they are, for the first time in their lives, several of them have to return to social assistance. Several people I have talked to over the past number of weeks, for the first time in their lives had to turn to social assistance.

I think that is a sad commentary, not only on society, but indeed, on the government in general. I hope the petitions we bring forward here today looking for some type of short-term employment -and as the Member for Ferryland said, and I have said myself on several occasions, we know this is not the answer to the problems that face this Province today. We know that a short-term employment program is not going to take care of the many needs of the people of this Province, but it is something that is needed now to help some people along. Maybe one member in a family might be lucky enough to get some type of job to help through the winter months.

We are not saying that the government is going to come up with enough money to create the thousands and tens of thousands of jobs that are needed in this Province. No government can. We hope that the government will come forward with something that will take care of the emergency that is facing this Province at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is nice to have an occasion to rise in this House to say to hon. members, finally, after, as most members know, long discussions with the Federal Government on this issue, consistent with other employment initiatives we have had over the year, we have the Federal Government position. The government will be dealing with that position over the next couple of days and I'm very hopeful we will be able to address it in a proper manner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all minded to get out of here at an early time, so let's move ahead with it. I ask if you would first call motion 2, which stands in my name, and my suspicion is it will go through without debate, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2; it is moved and seconded as on the Order Paper.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, all I will simply say is the motion speaks for itself and I commend it to the House.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you be good enough, please, to put 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 (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, we have to deal with three bills and then the supply bill in Committee. All three of the bills will require amendment. If we could go first to Order 37 which is Bill No. 32, the public tender act amendments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Public tender act amendment. Oh, the amendment! I ask the Clerk to bring one over, I'm sorry. It is a really massive one, it strikes out a comma. But I'm sorry, I thought the - my instructions were that the amendments would be distributed.

Your Honour, the amendment is in clause 9, so when we get to clause 9 I will move it. If you would call the bill and we will deal with it.

On motion, clauses 1 to 8, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Government House Leader, on the amendment.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I would move that clause 9(a) of the bill be amended by striking out the figures and comma, quote: 4 3, 4" and substituting the figure: "4 (4)". That may read fairly well in Hansard and I am sure that the explanation is in the very words that I used.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 9 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 10 and 11, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act", (Bill No. 32).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, will you be good enough please, to call Order 36, Bill 44, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991", amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 36, Bill 44.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) refer to clauses 2 and 4, and I believe my friends opposite were given the amendments yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are just taking a few minutes -

MR. ROBERTS: If you want to take a few minutes, there is no hurry, have a look at them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well look, let us let that bill stand; we have one other to deal with and that is to ask leave to take a bill that we passed through Committee yesterday, that is Bill 18, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act" which stands as Order 7, today and to recommit it to Committee to move a further amendment.

I think I need unanimous consent to do that, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask if the Committee is prepared to agree.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Government House Leader have leave of the House to revert to Order 7, an amendment in the Committee stage?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Leave is granted.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

Would you please then, call, for Committee stage again, Bill 18, which is "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act", and I will have an amendment for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 18, clause 4.

Shall clause 4 carry?

MR. ROBERTS: No, the amendment will be to clause 4, Mr. Chairman, please.

It now reads, subsection 1 (2) of this Act shall come into force on Jan 1, 1995 ... we wish to amend by deleting 1995 and putting in the words 1996; the effect of the amendment obviously and very clearly is that the subsection 1 (2) will come into force a year from now as opposed to a week from now or two weeks from now. I move the amendment, Sir.

On motion, amended carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 4 as amended, carry?

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Just a short comment on this particular clause.

I don't see anything wrong with the clause from changing Jan 1, '95 to Jan 1, '96. In fact, Mr. Chairman, because of the budgetary process and everything that is about to be completed by municipalities in the Province, it would be the right thing to do rather than some of them change it two or three or four months down the road and find out that they had to pay back money or whichever; but there is one other thing, now, while I have a chance to say a few words on this, that I would ask the minister, he would probably be able to tell me now when he stands, because on the Order Paper today, Bill 62, is still on the Order Paper by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and I was wondering; I know it has not gone through second reading yet, but I am wondering if that will come today or not or will it just be dropped off the Order Paper?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I will deal with that.

The government decided not to proceed with that bill at this time. It will remain on the Order Paper but will not be called for debate this day.

On motion, clause 4 as amended, carried.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 44, clause 9.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, on Bill 44 we have two amendments, if we are back to that now, and I understand my friend from Ferryland has had an opportunity to peruse these. These are very technical and, in my understanding, are aimed at addressing one or two anomalies that have been discovered, really, in implementing the NLCS privatization. That is what I am told.

I would move the amendments if they are in order, Your Honour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it clause 1 you are amending?

MR. ROBERTS: No, clause 1 should be carried.

In clause 2 there are two amendments, Your Honour. The first would be to delete from subclauses 6.1(1) and 6.1(2) the word "credited". It appears, as the committee will see, in each case, in 6.1(1) and 6.1(2), so it is to be taken out and I so move, Sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to clause 2 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak briefly to the issue and the tidying up of the privatization of NLCS, and say that this activity took place over the summer after a bill was passed last spring. We haven't yet seen the actual contract. I wonder if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would be prepared to table the contracts that were entered into with respect to the privatization of NLCS? They have never been made public, and I wonder if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would be prepared to table those documents?

I also wonder why the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board was able to sell a company with annual revenues of $21 million, and a reported profit of about $3 million in the last year, for only $9 million? It seems that the government, in doing this, not only did they sell this company for the price of only $9 million, also gave them a guarantee of work for seven years to be able to earn, presumably, more than enough money to pay for the company in the seven years, so it seems to me to be much less of a privatization for the sake of other objectives than, in fact, a giveaway to a group of people who are then guaranteed the revenues and the profit to pay for the purchase price. It seems to be a very sweet deal, or a sweetheart deal, for these companies.

I have yet to see the details of this agreement. I know there were some negotiations going on all over the summer, and the minister made great comments at the time of the announcement of the deal, but we haven't seen the documents themselves, and haven't seen what exact obligations are placed on these companies who have taken over this work. There was all sorts of talk of all kinds of new work being brought to the Province as a result of this privatization, and I wonder what commitments are in the contract, or what contractual commitments there are in that regard.

Perhaps the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would be willing to respond to these comments and agree to table in the House, or make available to hon. members personally, copies of the contracts entered into on behalf of the government with respect to the privatization of NLCS. These contracts have yet to be made public and I, for one, would like to examine them to determine my view as to how the public interest, not only in the choosing of services but the public interest into possibly using this opportunity to diversify the economy of this Province, and particularly provide opportunities for all of those companies in the Province who are active in the computer software, or in the computer market, to play a role in the development of a viable computer software industry in the Province.

It is one of those new economy type industries that does not necessarily require a lot - your geographical location in the world is of little relevance to this particular type of business. It is one of those areas where I know from personal knowledge that we have an awful lot of highly skilled and talented individuals who are participating in that business and have a real concern, and still have a real concern, as to whether or not there is anything going to be done as a result of the privatization of NLCS that would ensure them having some role to play.

I for one would like to see what contractual obligations these newly privatized organizations have undertaken, and I ask the Minister of Finance to indicate his willingness to make available, either to the House by tabling it here today, or to me outside the House, a copy of the contracts entered into on government's behalf with the new owners of the NLCS enterprise.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. BAKER: I have just a few brief comments, Mr. Chairman.

Obviously, I am not going to now table copies of the agreements. I do not have them, number one, and number two, it will take awhile to get them. Number three, I do not know what implications that would have and I have to find out, so obviously I cannot now table the agreements. I would like to point out that the process of the privatization of NLCS was a very highly competitive process and the leader without a party down there - and we now have a party without a leader, so it is an interesting combination, anyway the leader without a party, tries to characterize this as some kind of a cooked up sweetheart deal whereby perhaps we wanted to provide some humongous benefit to Bell Sigma, Anderson Consulting, or NewTel, and that we cooked up this whole thing simply to provide them with some windfall.

I find it very difficult to respond to such implications, Mr. Chairman. This was a very competitive process with very competitive companies involved, including companies like IBM, and companies like Systems House. If this was such a lucrative deal then obviously a company like Systems House or a company like IBM would have made a better offer. This was a highly, highly competitive process in an extremely competitive industry.

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to comment on the hon. member's accusations, I suppose, if they are that, that somehow this was some sweetheart deal cooked up. I feel sorry for the hon. member as he always seems to be looking for these bogeymen behind the woodpiles.

I would like to tell him, Mr. Speaker, there is neither one here.

On motion, first amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, the second amendment is also to clause 2 of the bill and to add after the proposed Subclause 6.1 Sub 2 the following. "2.1, an employee who elects to rejoin the pension plan under this section may elect to purchase a period of service from the date of his or her completion of thirty-five years of pensionable service to the date of his or her election to rejoin the pension plan at a cost that shall be prescribed by regulation."

Again, Sir, I think the wording of the amendment says all that needs to be said and I simply move the amendment.

On motion, Clause 2 as amended, carried.

On motion, Clauses 3 and 4, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, could I now move that we add Clause 5 which will read as follows: "Paragraph 33, 1, (g) of the act is amended by adding immediately after the word "sections" the figure and, "6.1,". Again, I am sure the committee has followed that carefully, Sir.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause #?, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you please call Motion No. 1 which is supplementary supply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion No. 1, Bill No. 63.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) in the full House. Then Your Honour will have to rise the Committee and we will - we are going to do supplementary supply. We have to go back to get the message from the Lieutenant-Governor read first, back into the House.

Your Honour, let us rise the Committee, report the three bills with amendments. We will deal with those and get the amendments cleared up, then come back into Committee stage.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report having passed Bill Nos. 32, 18 and 44 with amendments, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, amendments to Bill Nos. 32, 18 and 44 read a first and second time, ordered read a third time today.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: The message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor is dated December 12 1994 and reads as follows:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit further supplementary estimates of sums required for the public service of the Province for the year ending March 31 1994 by way of further supplementary supply, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you be good enough to put the House in Committee again and we will deal with the supplementary supply bill there?

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

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

Bill No. 63, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This bill is essentially a routine bill covering off some expenditures, supplementary supply, from the year ending March 31, 1994, so from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994, totalling $36,500,000, involving $6 million in employment and labour relations, and a social services overexpenditure of $30,500,000.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I thought when the minister got on his feet he was going to give us an early Christmas present and resign, bringing in a piece of legislation this late in the game looking for $36 million that he spent last year. I don't understand the minister. I had more faith in him than that.

There is not a great deal we can do with this particular piece of legislation, obviously. It is an annual thing that has gone through. That is one of the powers the government has, that by the time it comes to the House of Assembly it is far late to do anything but yell and scream and bawl about it. I would take the opportunity to point out, though, that the bulk of this is for social services overexpenditures, and I recall very succinctly during the time of the budget debate, pointing out to the minister that they had grossly underestimated that, that in view of the economy, in the view of the unemployment situation, and all the projections that we had, that certain projections of revenues were overly optimistic, certain projections of expenditures were underestimated.

I have been proven wrong as it relates to the revenue projections, and I am pleased to see that. The minister has already told us that revenues are ahead of expectations and government has benefitted from that although, as I pointed out in debating that a few weeks ago, the bulk of that came from federal transfers, so the minister has benefitted from a windfall there.

I think there is a lesson in this particular piece of legislation, that it is unrealistic in this day and age, with the present economy, for government to put in place a budget that does not provide ample funding for the social service system and for social assistance recipients for the programs that will be necessary there, for the projects that the minister invariably comes in with each year, looking for funding to fund special make-work projects to help these people, for the funding that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations invariably comes in each year looking for additional funding to put in place an emergency response program, which we had all hoped to hear today.

We must accept the fact, as much as we don't like it, as much as we would all like to see the financial situation of the Province and Canada change, as much as we would like to get away from that type of government job creation project and put more emphasis on long-term job creation and strengthening of the economy. It is a fact of life in Newfoundland and Labrador today, this government has tried to stay away from it in five successive budgets, and they have been wrong five times, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to a couple of points brought up by my friend from Mount Pearl.

First of all, he is absolutely right; the social services expenditure projections have been off by a certain amount each year. I would like to point out to him that the method of projecting ahead for the next budget on social services expenditures used to be that you take the average of the current year and project that for the next year, and we did that for a number of years.

Then last year we decided to change it so that in this year's budget, what we did was, we took the maximum for last year rather than the average for last year, the maximum point in time for last year and projected for this year's budget. So there was quite a jump in terms of the budgetary amount for social services this year but even that, Mr. Speaker, did not handle the situation and as the hon. member knows, the social service caseload has gone beyond what we had, still beyond what we projected.

In preparation for next year's budget I am considering doing a more in-depth analysis on projected caseloads, especially in light of what may be happening with the federal programs. Nobody knows exactly what they are going to do but certainly it is going to have an affect on us. When we are preparing next year's budget we are going to not just take the maximum load this year but also try to do an accurate estimate on what percentage increase and try to build that in next year's budget. So he is quite right in his comments about those particular expenditures, we are trying to deal with it and do a better estimate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1994 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill No. 63)

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I think we are now at the point where we can go back into the House and deal with third readings. So if you will be good enough to rise the committee and perhaps ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply has considered the matters to it referred, has directed me to report that it has adopted a certain resolution and ask that bill be introduced to give effect to the same and as well, ask leave to sit again.

On motion, amendment to Bill No. 63 read a first, second and third time.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses to the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1994 the sum of $36,500,000.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1994 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 63)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, if we can maybe moderate the private conversations a little, those of us who are attending to the business of the House could get on with it.

There are thirty-four bills now at the stage of third reading. My suggestion, Sir, is we start with Order No. 2 and simply take them one after the other. There are, I believe, one or two members who wish to speak on one or two of the bills. Of course a bill may be debated on third reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Nobody on this side, I have to say, but I understand my friend for St. John's East -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, as my friend for Gander said, my friend for St. John's East is now in the happy position of being a leader without a party who is sitting next to a party without a leader. Maybe the two can get together. In any event - it wasn't my line, it was my friend for Gander.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I want to say on this leadership thing, I want to place on the record, that I have already offered my considerable expertise in leadership matters both in winning and in losing to my friend for Ferryland and my friend for Humber East. She may be off the list after this morning, I have to tell you.

Your Honour, could we call Order No. 2, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes I may.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend for Grand Bank is too smart.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: If I may suggest to the hon. Government House Leader, we could do them individually, or if we knew which bills were not going to be debated I could call them all as (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I literally cannot hear Your Honour because of conversations. I'm sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. If we might have a little quiet in the House just so we can determine how we will do it. I could either call all the bills as a group and ask for third reading on them all or do them individually. If we know they are not going to be debated it might be simpler to have one third reading of them all.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm quite prepared to do them as it were en masse, if Your Honour deems that appropriate, within the (inaudible). There are thirty-four bills here. We can either call thirty-four or we can deal with them individually.

MR. SPEAKER: I would rather do them as a group. I think it would be simpler.

MR. ROBERTS: If the House agrees we will do it now. My friend for St. John's East wants to be heard on one bill so let's get him out of the way first. What is it, Jack?

MR. HARRIS: Bill No. 52.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I will be guided by the Government House Leader, but if you want to do that.

MR. ROBERTS: If you would call Order No. 14 and then we will hear from my friend for St. John's East. Then we will do the other thirty-three bills in one fell swoop. The whole House will now wait for my friend for St. John's East. If Your Honour would call it.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 52 entitled "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act" be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak to this bill at third reading because I think that it needs to be pointed out that there are an awful lot of individual difficult circumstances that are in abeyance as a result of problems with the leaseholds of their land.

They are problems which need to be fixed. They are problems which are costing people thousands of dollars, and they are problems which are impossible to fix without legislative changes. They are preventing people from obtaining mortgages, interfering with the normal buying and selling of property by individuals in St. John's who have difficulties with titles, and they are not new problems. They have been known for a number of years. The government has had for a couple of years a report designed to try and bring about these changes. We are now here in the last couple of days of our short fall session dealing with a fairly complex piece of legislation that there obviously isn't time to fix in such a way as to solve all the problems.

I will give an example of one of the problems that one of my constituents has brought to my attention and has brought to the Government House Leader's attention. For some years now, at least in 1993 and again this year, and I have been getting a number of calls on this issue for some time - this legislation which has gone to the trouble of coming up with a scheme which I approve of, and I said so at second reading. A scheme which would put all of the leasehold interests in the leased lands for residential property for ancient and modern leases, would vest title to that land in the city, and the city can insist that the individuals pay to the city the amount of money which landlords were compensated for their land.

But what I have concern about is the speed at which things are happening and the fact that, despite much effort on the part of my own constituent of whom I speak, and representations made to the Department of Justice, the legislative scheme that we have here does not appear to address the situation where a particular property still falls between the cracks of legislation because this particular property is subject in part of its land to an ancient lease which would be covered by this property, but in another part of the land on which a portion of the individual's house rests, the leasehold interest is perhaps neither an ancient nor a modern lease unto the definitions because the modern lease requires that there be a covenant to build a house on the property in order to qualify it as a modern lease. Thus, we have a situation where a person's back garden and part of the land on which the individual's house rests, is leasehold land which cannot be purchased under the legislation and, in this particular case, the landlord, the owner of the freehold of the land, is unwilling to sell the property.

So that's the situation that I think the intention of the Leaseholds in St. John's Act is attempting to resolve by vesting leasehold property in the city, that there are very substantial difficulties created for individuals, and this one hasn't even been resolved in this legislation. And I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the government did not bring this legislation forward earlier in the Fall, so that a legislation committee could have sorted out whatever anomalies or problems there might be and allow the whole legislative scheme to be put into place right now. But the problems that are ongoing, that are still causing difficulties for this particular individual and many others, cannot yet be resolved.

The solution proposed by the Government House Leader is to have the bill proclaimed today in Part I, which would extend all leases to December 31, 1995. We did something similar last year, Mr. Speaker, to extend the leases to December 31, 1994, and I believe earlier it was done to extend them to another date. All of these have been temporary measures, Mr. Speaker, we now have another temporary measure which is to proclaim Part I and to send all of Part II to a committee.

I know that the committee will be able to address some of these problems and hopefully, in the Spring, the legislative changes that are coming forth from the committee can be incorporated into the bill, changes introduced, and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Government House Leader treat this legislation on an urgent, priority basis when it comes back into the House, so that we are not waiting from when the House opens in February, or whenever it opens, that we are not waiting until the end of June in a session like today's, to finally get through this legislation dealing with twenty or thirty or forty or fifty bills at one time.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government House Leader to commit, upon receipt of the report from the legislation committee, to immediately, as the House opens, bringing forth these amendments and not let them drag on to the end of the session for passage.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it will be found that all sides of the House would be prepared to agree to give this speedy passage if it could resolve individual problems that have been of long standing.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would agree with third reading of the bill and speedy passage of same, to extend the leaseholds that exist in St. John's, the ancient or modern leases that may have expired to December 31, 1995, and ask, in fact, plead with the government on behalf of my constituent of whom the Government House Leader is aware, that the changes that need to be made to look after her particular problem as well as some others be made as quickly as is humanly possible and that upon the return of this legislation, of the report of the legislation committee, to seek an immediate passage in the House of Assembly as soon as the session opens and the report of the committee is received.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Those are my remarks.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The hon. gentleman is correct when he says that he has, on occasion, over the last couple of years, written to me in my role as then the Minister of Justice about a particular situation in which a constituent of his finds herself. I have also had representations from the lawyers who represent that particular person and she is in a very unusual situation.

I had been told that the amendments set out in the second part of the bill would, in fact, address the situation but I gather that may not be the case. I don't want to be argumentative. My learned friend advises me it is not the case, I am not here to argue one way or the other. I want to speak to the officials and find out precisely what they have to say. What I do say, and what I have said to him privately, and will gladly say here in the House is this: The bill will be referred - I am not sure we refer a bill, but the relevant Standing Committee, the Standing Order 84 committee, will deal with this bill.

Now, that is a matter for the committee themselves - when they deal with it, how they deal with it - but the committee will be asked to deal with this bill. I make the request now, as I did at second reading. In the course of that, this situation can be examined. It is a very unique situation, I think my friend, the Member for St. John's East would acknowledge, a very unique situation. If we need amendments to the bill, as it will then be an act, to deal with the situation, if that is the best way to deal with it, then government would be prepared to bring those in.

There may well be other amendments requested to the act and that is the reason we are sending it to the committee. The scheme, we suggest, as in the bill is a very far-reaching scheme and goes well beyond simply trying to deal with one particular situation. I do make that commitment quite clearly without any hesitation. We will try to address the situation in which this particular individual finds herself.

Thank you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that government still wishes to do third reading of the bill and have the act proclaimed, and you were speaking about (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry - look, guys, I can't hear the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it government still wishes to have third reading and have the bill passed into law.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, yes, please, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: As I mentioned earlier, I have on the Order Paper for third reading all the bills listed in Orders 2 through, and including 33, excluding 35 and 36, but including 36 and 37. Is that correct?

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, let me just read them off so at least we have a record. I am reading now from today's Orders of the Day. We have Orders 2 through 33, 36 and 37, and I move third reading, Sir, of all of these bills.

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

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of The Province Respecting Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies". (Bill No. 20)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act". (Bill No. 35)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mining And Mineral Rights Tax Act". (Bill No. 30)

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

A bill,"An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law". (Bill No. 57)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Recording Of Evidence Act". (Bill No.60)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act". (Bill No. 55)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act". (Bill No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act (No. 2)". (Bill No. 54)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act". (Bill No. 53)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill No. 46)

A bill, 'An Act To Provide For Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises In The Province." (Bill No. 51)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act." (Bill No. 50)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act." (Bill No. 47)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Livestock Insurance Act." (Bill No. 49)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act." (Bill No. 33)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act." (Bill No. 15)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Works, Services And Transportation Act (No. 2)." (Bill No. 31)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Works, Services And Transportation Act." (Bill No. 16)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act, The Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Orders Act And The Support Orders Enforcement Act." (Bill No. 64)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospital Insurance Agreement Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act." (Bill No. 61)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Reductions Of Pension Contributions By Employers In The Public Sector." (Bill No. 58)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act." (Bill No. 34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill No. 44)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act." (Bill No. 32)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I understand that the Lieutenant-Governor is actually taping his Christmas message but he will be with us as soon as he can. My suggestion would be that we simply leave and hang around in the common rooms or where have you and Your Honour would let us know when word has come that the Lieutenant-Governor has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. For members, I think the Clerk suggested he would probably be here at approximately 11:30 a.m., so members might -

MR. ROBERTS: About 11:30 a.m.?

MR. SPEAKER: Approximately.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sure we know, Your Honour, but it will be fairly soon. It may well be 11:30 a.m. or so, but we will all have a chance for a cup of tea.

MR. SPEAKER: Very good. The House will now recess until the Lieutenant-Governor arrives.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

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

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: Your Honour, it is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland, to present to Your Honour a Bill for the appropriation of Supplementary Supply granted in the present session.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1994 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service".

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: In Her Majesty's Name, I thank Her Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to this Bill.

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

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

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

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)

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

A bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of The Province Respecting Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies". (Bill No. 20)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act". (Bill No. 35)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law". (Bill No. 57)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Recording Of Evidence Act". (Bill No. 60)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act". (Bill No. 55)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act". (Bill No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act (No. 2)". (Bill No. 54)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act". (Bill No. 53)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act". (Bill No. 46)

A bill, "An Act To Promote Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises In The Province". (Bill No. 51)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act". (Bill No. 50)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act". (Bill No. 47)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Livestock Insurance Act". (Bill No. 49)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act". (Bill No. 33)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act". (Bill No. 15)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department of Works, Services And Transportation Act (No. 2)". (Bill No. 31)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Works, Services And Transportation Act". (Bill No. 16)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act, The Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Orders Act And The Support Orders Enforcement Act". (Bill No. 64)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospital Insurance Agreement Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act". (Bill No. 61)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Reductions Of Pension Contributions By Employers In The Public Sector". (Bill No. 58)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act". (Bill No. 34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill No. 44)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act". (Bill No. 32)

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

I would like to thank the members of this hon. House for their deliberations over the last five weeks on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. At this festive time of year I would like to wish each member of the hon. House and their families, a very Merry Christmas, a happy, healthy and prosperous 1995.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Your Honour, may I, on behalf of all members of the House, accept Your Honour's kind remarks with gratitude. May I also extend to Your Honour and Your Honour's family our good wishes for a healthy, happy and prosperous 1995 and a joyous Christmas season. May I also take this opportunity to extend to Your Honour and by doing so in this public forum, also indicate it publicly that I, as Your Honour's first minister, am very grateful for the warm and cordial relationship that Your Honour and I enjoy and, in our weekly discussions, I help keep you informed and you help keep me advised. Between the two of us I think we do our best to discharge our responsibilities to the people of this Province and I want to publicly acknowledge Your Honour's contribution in that regard.

Thank you, Your Honour, and again, best wishes for the season.

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Thank you, Mr. Premier, I reciprocate your kind remarks.

MR. SULLIVAN: Your Honour, on behalf of the Official Opposition I extend to you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and to all members of the House of Assembly and especially the staff here of the House of Assembly who have worked hard and diligently to ensure that the business of the day gets expedited in the proper manner. So I hope there will be health and happiness in the New Year to all members here. Thank you, Your Honour.

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Thank you very much for your remarks.

MR. HARRIS: Your Honour, on behalf of myself and my party I would like to join with the Premier and the Member for Ferryland to extend to you my best wishes to you and your family for a Merry Christmas and also to take the opportunity, while I am on my feet, to wish all hon. members and the staff of the House the compliments of the season.

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Thank you very much.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, in moving what will be the final adjournment of the year I would like to add my own word of thanks to all on both sides who have cooperated from time to time in helping to move the business of the House forward, and I speak on behalf of the new House Leader, my friend from St. Barbe. Given the training he had yesterday I am sure he will be very anxious to take over and I certainly am nominating him for the position. I commend him to the Leader of the Government for this position. I have to tell you though Chuck, I have to tell you - the glory is brief.

Your Honour, I wish all a very Happy Christmas and I know I speak for all in the House. I want to say a particular word of thanks, Sir, to you and to the Clerks at the table, the Pages and those who work so hard to help us to do our job here. We at least, who are members of the House, get to take part in the fun. The others simply have to stand and sit, that is their role, to wait, and that includes our silent Sergeant-at-Arms today who I understand has had laryngitis, and thus the Clerk has had to help him announce the Governor, and to the attendants in the galleries. I don't know if he is still up there but Jack Oates has been in the House even longer than I have, Mr. Speaker, and has heard more words said, more words spoken than any member of the House ever in the history of this Province. So if that isn't worth at least the Order of Canada, Grade III, I can't think of a thing that is.

Your Honour, I move that when the House adjourns, it stand adjourned until the call of the Chair, the Speaker, or in his absence from the Province, the Deputy Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and date stated by those of the proposed sitting.

I move the House do now adjourn, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Before pronouncing the adjournment I would like to just join in the best wishes of the Government House Leader and also our staff at Hansard, who probably not as long as Jack but certainly bear the unpleasant duty of listening to us at all times, and the press.

So in any event I would like to invite members to a reception which, at the courtesy of the Government Caucus, is being held in their room as soon as we adjourn. So Merry Christmas to all.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned at the call of the Chair.