The House resumed at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

We were at the time of adjournment doing order 17, Bill No. 28. Order 17, page 2 of the Order Paper, Bill No. 28, "An Act To Abolish School Tax Authorities."

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We don't want to have too much more to say about this particular piece of legislation. I don't know what more can be said about it. It has all been pretty well said, I think, from both sides of the argument. I don't think there is anyone who is opposed or has been opposed to the abolition of school tax, but it is what has replaced it, I guess, brings concern.

As I said before when Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were promised that the school tax would be abolished, they never thought for one moment that they would see their personal income taxes increase now over a three year period by 6 per cent, and as a direct result of the abolition of school taxes in this years budget, we will see an increase of 4 per cent. That is obviously very closely tied to the government's decision to abolish the school tax. A 4 per cent increase in personal income tax is pretty significant - pretty staggering.

Of course what else we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is the infamous payroll tax which the government brought in a couple of years ago. The ceiling on that has been reduced from $300,000 to $100,000 on payroll, and that payroll tax has been applied to the fishing industry of all things, Mr. Speaker. The fishing industries of all industries we have now slapped with a payroll tax.

Now I don't know for how much longer the government will derive any revenue or very little revenue from payroll tax on the fishing industry, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, because it is shrinking out there very, very quickly. There is a very grave situation in the Province's fishery, but for the Minister of Finance and the government to decide to apply the payroll tax to the fishing industry was certainly lacking in foresight, I have to say to the Minister of Finance. Lacking in foresight to apply that infamous payroll tax to the fishing industry with the turmoil and the state of the fishing industry in this Province. We have fish companies hanging on by their fingernails, what few are left out there. If anyone watched the news last night it looks pretty serious for a lot of the small fish companies, the independent companies out and about the Province. And to have to face that staggering now payroll tax for, it would have to be a very small fish company that would not be paying at least $100,000 a payroll -

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What is the Minister of Finance over there moaning and groaning about? I mean my God, doesn't the Minister of Finance realize what he is doing to the Province? We cannot afford to have any more fish companies go bottom up for whatever reason, whether it is resource, whether it is because of provincial government imposed taxes -

MR. R. AYLWARD: He is like Clyde. He wants to sacrifice everything.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Province can't stand it, I say to the Minister of Finance. Even though you stand up and you applaud the abolition of school tax, but what have you done because you have abolished this tax?

DR. KITCHEN: We have replaced it.

MR. MATTHEWS: You have replaced it? You have more than replaced it, I say to the minister, more than replaced the tax.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You have doubled it.

MR. MATTHEWS: And questions have been raised about the assets of the school tax authorities, what is going to happen to all that? You have a couple of hundred people out of jobs, another couple of hundred.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighty-eight.

MR. MATTHEWS: Not really. Eighty-eight employees are displaced, or eighty-eight will be kept?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: There are eighty-eight employees left

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. MATTHEWS: Now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: How many will lose their jobs, then?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who knows?

MR. MATTHEWS: Who knows? Well there you are now. You see, there is another example of what this government does. It makes recommendations -

MR. R. AYLWARD: I hope that is in Hansard.

MR. MATTHEWS: It makes blanket recommendations without knowing the impact; blanket recommendations without knowing the consequences to the people of this Province. It does not have the answers. It makes great recommendations on all kinds of matters. It recommends do this, do that. It does not know the consequences, and could not care less about the consequences, I say to the Minister of Finance - could not care less - does not even know the impact on the Minister of Social Services budget, the things that he is doing; does not know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) next election.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, imagine when we are all gone. Imagine what a saving that will be to the government. You will have another twenty or so unemployed people that you will be proud of.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Scallops are gone.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, scallops are not gone, I say to the Member for Eagle River. He can talk about scallops all he likes. He knows as much about what scallops are gone as he knows about the rest of the Newfoundland fishery, and that is not very much, I say to the Member for Eagle River. He pretends to know a bit about it, but knows very little. He might know a bit now since supper time, when he went out with the Member for Port de Grave. He might have taught him a few things about the fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member for Port de Grave might have taught him a few things about the fishery, but the few things he knows I would say the Member for Port de Grave taught him, because he does not know very much about it himself - any of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The French got the scallops.

MR. MATTHEWS: The French got the scallops, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Crosbie took them from you.

MR. MATTHEWS: Crosbie. It is a world court decision. What is wrong with the Member for Eagle River? It is a world court decision. Crosbie took them from them.

If you are going to say anything about what happened today, I would tell you the ones that you should be attacking. It should be your Trudeau Liberal buddies. The seventy-two treaty is still a noose around the neck of the people of this Province. That is the only reason there has to be any discussion of what is coming down today, I say to the Member for Eagle River. The only reason there will be any discussion on resource and reciprocal arrangements is because of the infamous Trudeau treaty with France - no other reason. Otherwise, it would be cut-and-dry today, I say to the Member for Eagle River. So if you are going to mouth off about Canada, France or anything else, attack the right people.

What we have today is a world court decision - a world court decision that is final and binding.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crosbie (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Crosbie has provided what?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that we are on Bill -

MR. MATTHEWS: We are on a tax bill.

MR. SPEAKER: On a tax bill, but we are -

MR. MATTHEWS: On a tax bill, which by -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right, and Newfoundland is being taxed by the (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, and there are a lot of implications for what has happened today to the tax of this Province - a lot of implications. Think of the tax the Province would derive if they had that 40 per cent or 50 per cent of scallops coming into Newfoundland to be processed. Think of the taxes, the income tax, the 4 per cent extra income tax the Minister of Finance would get because he abolished the school tax. Four per cent more he would get off everyone working on the Burin Peninsula in a scallop plant; 4 per cent more of the personal income tax; and Clearwater would be sending him in more payroll tax, because he has now reduced it to one hundred thousand from three hundred thousand; and the other small operation directly across the harbour from Clearwater now will have to send the minister in payroll tax.

DR. KITCHEN: Bring back the school tax?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, bring back the school tax. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to be worse off because of what you did. The thing about it is, if the bottom line of the Province was improving we might accept some of it, but the bottom line of this Province is worsening. It is worsening.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is in good hands.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is in good hands because the minister's philosophy is to have as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians unemployed as is humanly possible. Send them to the Minister of Social Services. Get them that $300 or $400 dole. That is what his attitude is. That is his philosophy, hoping they will get so desperate that they will all go off to the mainland, and then there will be 150,000 or 200,000 people left. That is what he is hoping for - the Jay Parker formula by another name, resettle the works, that is what the Minister of Finance wants, it is obvious, he does not want to put anybody to work here in Newfoundland.

Can you imagine, the Minister of Finance to impose the payroll tax on the fishing industry and the Member for Eagle River mouths off about the fishery, can you imagine, he has some concern about the fishery. They are not one bit concerned about the fishery, if you were you would have some effect on the Minister of Finance and the other ministers in the Cabinet who make the decisions, and you would tell them the fishing industry, the small companies cannot stand it, but you have not done that, there has not been a whimper from the Member for Eagle River about applying the payroll tax to the fishery.

He pounds his chest about abolishing the school tax but he does not utter a word about the people in his district having to pay another 4 per cent personal income tax because of the minister's last Budget; you never hear him saying the poor Labradorians cannot afford that. He never ever says it, he never says it, I say to the member, but you know, we understand, you are dyed in the wool, just follow the leader, do not think for myself, blame it on others, do not take any responsibility yourself or this government, responsibility for anything. That is the attitude of the Member for Eagle River and others opposite. Follow the leader blindly; it does not matter that most of my district is unemployed, it does not matter that we have increased their personal income tax by 6 per cent since we came to power, it does not matter one bit.

All that matters is that they can go around, wave up the old thing and say: we abolished the school tax, but it does not stop there, what happens as a consequence of the abolishing of the school tax? That is the key, what happens because you abolish the school tax? Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are beginning to realize what has happened because you abolished the school tax; they did not like the school tax either, I have to be honest about that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, they do not like any tax but neither do they like being hood-winked by the Premier and members opposite, who went around during the last election and all they said was we are going to abolish the school tax, and Newfoundlanders said: My God, great! Abolish the school tax, but never once said now once I abolish the school tax you are going to have to pay more tax or another tax, no one said that; all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians heard was: the school tax is going to be abolished, that is all they said. Little did they think that along would come Dr. Hubert and slap them with the taxes that he slap them with because he has abolished the school tax, no one thought of that, they know now.

They know now about the great promises of Clyde and others. Some of the members opposite had ads on the radio day after day. The Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, had it on the Marystown station every day. Abolish the school tax, every day, ads, ten and twelve, fifteen ads a day and of course, the other thing was -

AN HON. MEMBER: It did not work in your case.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh it worked in my case. The school tax was not a factor in my district I will tell the minister. Most things were not a factor down there, only good representation, that is what mattered in my district. I remember the Member for Burgeo Bay d'Espoir, school tax and he was going to have the hydro centre kept or restored to Bay d'Espoir, that was his two big election planks -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Guaranteed.

MR. MATTHEWS: - that is guaranteed. We know what happened to the hydro centre, now we know what his people are paying in taxes, fifty/fifty. The Minister of Finance, can you imagine, for the people of this Province to have the fiscal matters of this Province in the hands of that Minister of Finance. They really must sleep well when they go to bed at night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), very popular.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, you are a very popular Minister of Finance, there is no doubt about that, you are very popular. Mr. Speaker, as I said, most of us agree with the abolition of the school tax, most of us agree with that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Now the Minister of Education should be quiet. Because he has been the biggest supporter of school tax this Province has ever seen. He and the Minister of Energy. Biggest supporters of school tax. I remember when the minister announced the abolition of the school tax. I thought the poor Minister of Energy was going to die in his seat. His nose went and knocked the wood. He turned pale, he got weak, he could not believe what he was hearing. Big supporters of school tax, both of them. Great supporters of school tax. The Ministers of Education and Energy. But reluctantly they have been brought around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Education has given more lectures supporting school tax -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Double-daylight savings time. Now, Mr. Speaker, you talk about relevancy. What does that have to do with school tax? The government would have probably made more money on clock tax if it had stayed ahead.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It's a good thing we haven't got double-daylight savings time or he'd have it taxed.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Minister of Finance would tax the clocks, I would suspect. Because the only thing he hasn't taxed now is the time. Taxed everything else.

Once again though, what deceit. To convince Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that this infamous tax was gone, this poor, bad tax. That is all you will ever have to think about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Then to slap them with a 6 per cent increase in personal income tax, and that terrible, regressive payroll tax. That is what he has done, that Minister of Finance. If you want to talk about double-daylight savings time we will leave that for a more appropriate bill. Because I always want to be relevant. I never stray.

So that is the conclusion of my remarks on this school tax bill, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if any of my other colleagues want to have a few words about it. I know the Member for Humber Valley has some serious concerns about some of it, and the Member for Menihek is writing me notes now. It is time for me to sit down because he wants to have something to say. So we will wait and hear what he has to say about it.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments. I wasn't going to have anything to say, but based on a few of the comments coming from the other side of the House I have no choice but to say a few words.

A couple of questions to the Minister of Finance with regards to Section 5(2), and the "...collection of school tax under this Act including the power to remit interest and penalties." I wonder would the minister inform the House of what the amount of interest is going to be and what the penalties are. Because from what I can understand now officials in the Department of Finance are going to do the collecting for the backlog in the school tax. That is going to be very interesting because the inspectors now in the Department of Finance haven't even got time to go around checking for the RST. Haven't got time.

All the taxes around the Province today, businesses closing. Because they haven't paid the RST, they are foreclosing and forcing them into bankruptcy. What are the collectors going to do as of July 1 when they start knocking on doors in this Province trying to collect the school tax that has not already been paid? Can you imagine?

I never did like the school tax, to be honest with you, I will say it here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Let me finish, Mr. Speaker. There was always a way, but no matter what had to done, no matter what way you looked at it, if members would listen, there had to be something else put in place, another tax to take its place. So it is still there, but by another name.

I can assure you, when the tax collectors from the minister's department start going around knocking on doors in this Province after July 1, we could not pay - you would never get enough money to pay, in a campaign - for the damage that is going to do to this administration; unless they do not do it; and I have my doubts, if I come back here next year and ask how much the minister collected - because when they start knocking on doors in Sop's Arm and Pollards Point and Deer Lake, today when there is 40 per cent unemployment out there, eighty in some places, I can tell you, you think it is not going to be good for this laddie. When election time comes, I will not even have to spend any money on advertising, because as soon as you knock on the door and tell them you are from the tax department, look out - and who sent them? Clyde.

That is going to happen, as sure as I am standing here today, if the minister and the administration keep their word, that they are going to collect all the school taxes, the back taxes, as of July 1. The School Tax Authority could not get it. They got some by going to court, but Mr. Man, when the Department of Finance, directly tied to government - at least they could blame it on the School Tax Authorities before - now when they knock on the door, it is directly tied to the Liberal government.

I just caution the minister. It is going to be very interesting to see how much he is going to collect.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is what I am saying. It is not going to be enforced. I would venture to bet that come this time next year, 90 per cent of the taxes owed today to the School Tax Authorities of this Province will not be collected - will not be collected. If they do - I hope they do. I hope they try, at least.

Let me make another comment, because it is very disturbing when you hear, especially ministers; and it is not so bad I suppose, backbenchers, because they are not sitting around the Cabinet table; therefore they do not really have any influence with regard to policy. I can understand from some of the comments that it is going to be a long time before they ever sit around the Cabinet table.

When I heard a comment from Eagle River, saying those who can afford to pay should pay - the Minister of Finance - those who can afford to pay should pay.

Do members opposite realize, I wonder, today? I know there is one member over there who realizes. He realizes all too well that businesses today in this Province, those that are still alive, those that still have their doors open, and those who can still make the payroll Friday evenings -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: If the minister would hear me out, I am sure that his colleagues around the Cabinet table - I can see now some of the comments being made. They must just shudder at the wonderful ideas coming from the Minister of Finance. I can imagine. I certainly would not want to have him involved in any business; but what is going to happen, business people have to pay regardless.

How many businesses in this Province today are making a profit? Very few. How many businesses have to pay this school tax? They pay it, regardless of if they make a cent or not. Right? They pay it. The Member for Baie Verte knows what I am talking about, and there are other members in the House who know it. The Member for Port de Grave knows exactly what I am talking about. Regardless of what they do, or what they do about machinery or anything else, they have to pay that tax, supposing they never make a cent. It is paid on gross - not net.

I think that members opposite should realize, especially today where businesspeople in this Province are just struggling, and who do we expect to keep the people employed in this Province today? If it is not government, it has to be the businessperson in this

Province, and, Mr. Speaker, they are hurting. They are hurting and by this time next year they are going to be hurting more because regardless of what the bottom line is, whether it is black or whether it is red, they have to pay that business tax and that is where it is going to hurt, so I say to members opposite, at least, something they could do, is take a look at businesses in the Province with regards to the implication of this particular tax.

The other question I would like to ask the Minister of Education, I asked him last fall on this particular question pertaining to school tax and I must say I thought he was sincere with me then and probably he still is, I just did not get an answer. On the amount of taxes that would be paid to school boards in other parts of the Province now, would it be equal regardless of what it is? I think you said at that time that it was 400 and some odd dollars paid to a school board in here versus $150 or $180 in other parts, would it be uniform and level it up all over the Province, levelling it up with St. John's where other areas will see a benefit and a substantial benefit?

AN HON. MEMBER: All areas would benefit, (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, if that is the case, as I said to the minister then, if other areas of the Province benefit, Mr. Speaker, that is the only positive thing that I see in this particular school tax bill - that other areas of the Province will benefit because it will go directly to the school boards, but based on the business tax and based on the methods of collection of the school tax, pertaining to the individuals in this Province, Mr. Speaker, then I think that this is going to be a regressive act, and I say to members opposite, that they should certainly do something and take a second look at the business part of this particular bill.

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

MR. TOBIN: I would like to serve notice, in case anyone in the House does not want to stay around for half an hour when I am speaking, they can leave, but in case they want to stay and listen, they may do that as well. But I want to have a few words to say on this piece of legislation because I think it is regrettable, some of the proposals that the Minister of Finance has made. As I understand this piece of legislation, and I stand to be corrected, the government will sell off all the assets of the school board -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: - for example the school board -

MR. MATTHEWS: No, The School Tax Authority.

MR. TOBIN: - the School Tax Authority on the Burin Peninsula will be sold by public auction as I understand it, will revert to the Crown, and I will ask the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, instead of talking to the old laughing jack, if he will listen to this. It is my understanding and I would like him to address it when he gets up, that the assets of the School Tax Authority will revert to the Crown and then they will be sold by public auction or disposed - okay, disposed of through public auction, but at the end of the day, that money from the disposal of these assets will revert to the general revenue of the government. Now, I think that is wrong.

If I may take the School Tax Authority for the Burin Peninsula, I think the assets that are sold, the money for that should be divided between the school boards on the Burin Peninsula rather than revert to the general revenue of the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: They what?

AN HON. MEMBER: The school boards will get extra money.

MR. TOBIN: The boards will get extra money. We will see the extra money that they are going to get. We have just seen the way that you attacked the special needs children in this Province in terms of extra money. You put a $5 million cap on student assistants and then sent a couple of your employees around the Province to find out how to re-allocate. You got up this evening and spewed out a few notes and figures but you didn't talk about Lab West, the Burin Peninsula, the West Coast, or other parts of the Province. You told the House this evening, I don't know if you realised it or not, that you are not worthy to be the Minister of Education, because you have schools in this Province that do not have student assistants.

MR. FLIGHT: They will next year though.

MR. TOBIN: They will next year?

MR. FLIGHT: They tell you they will next year.

MR. TOBIN: At the expense of whom?

MR. FLIGHT: I tell you, they will have them.

MR. TOBIN: At the expense of Lab West, the Burin Peninsula, the West Coast and other parts of the Province. Are you going to tell me that it is in the best interest of this government and this Province that you take away from physically disabled or other special needs children in this Province and give to other areas. Sure, they need it in other areas. But you should give it to them not by taking away but, as my colleague from Menihek pointed out the other day, by levelling up, not levelling down. That's what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you should, too, after what you said the other day about student assistants in this Province, and it is recorded in Hansard. I can tell you that what you said about student assistants has been circulated in my district and in other parts of the Province. The Minister of Employment would not let me speak today on behalf of the teachers, the students, the special needs children and the parents of these children. That, too, will be on the fax machine tomorrow to the various schools in my district.

This Minister of Education is going to take the money from the assets of the school boards and send it around the Province, not Mr. Speaker, give it to the school boards from the school tax authority. The President of Treasury Board would be better off listening to what is being said in this debate rather than reading Trudeau's book.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will speak. I have a half hour to speak. I told you when you got up if you didn't like what I was going to say, you could leave. Some of the people who don't like what I am going to say are people who don't stand in this House and get involved in debates. As a matter of fact, a constituent came to me and my colleague this evening and asked if her member has ever spoken in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I said: 'He is better off not speaking, because there is a good chance he could end up like the Minister of Forestry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking about?

MR. TOBIN: You know who I'm talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not talking about me.

MR. TOBIN: No, no.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to this bill again, I ask the Minister of Finance, will he reconsider what he is going to do with the funding from these assets? Will he consider putting it into the school boards of the various areas that are covered, rather than put it into general revenue? What is happening is that the Minister of Education is stripping the education department of this Province, he is attacking the schools, he is attacking the teachers, he has continued to attack the special needs student. He will go down in history as being the worst Minister of Education that this Province has ever had; he will also go down in history as being the man who made the most money by doing studies in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I know he gets a pension from the University - I am wondering if he gets a pension from studies? - he did that many in this Province. And now he is here denying everything that a teacher or a student or a parent could dream of in the education system. Things they took for granted when we were in government, this Minister of Education is now stripping the schools of them, and I find it sad to see teachers opposite, people like the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the Member for Carbonear, the Member for St. George's, and the Member for Fortune - Hermitage - I shouldn't say the Member for Fortune - Hermitage because I know the Member for Fortune - Hermitage and the Minister of Mines and Energy, were opposed to the government stripping the School Tax Authority and putting in place a higher burden of taxation.

MR. MATTHEWS: That's right, so they were.

MR. TOBIN: I know that both of these gentlemen were opposed to what has taken place here. And I know that the Member for Fortune - Hermitage is not at all excited about the fish plants in his district, the small fish plants that are probably going to be taxed into closure by this government for replacement of the school tax, and that will result with people not having the money to be able to pay the bit of money they were paying. The Member for Fortune - Hermitage is not at all excited about the fact that the plant in Harbour Breton and all these other places will be taxed to the hilt, no wonder, the Member for Carbonear cannot be excited about all the small fish plants in his district, or the Member for Port de Grave, that will be taxed into closure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I wouldn't be surprised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, they are closed and can't afford to open, that's what is going on in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I tell you, I don't have to take any lessons from the Member for Port de Grave or anyone over there as it relates to fisheries in this Province, I can tell them that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: What is going on in this Province today relating to the fisheries is sad. You have a government and a Minister of Fisheries who take no responsibility whatsoever. You have a group of men and one woman who sat around the Cabinet table and decided to impose a business tax to replace the school tax, on the fish plants, on the men and women who work in the fish plants in this Province. The Member for Port de Grave should talk about the fisheries in this Province when the very government that he sits in the back benches and supports, have put a tax on the fish plant workers in the fish plants and on the fish in this Province; the first government that has taxed fish, the first government that has put a tax on fish is this government here.

When was there ever a payroll tax on the small fish plants in this Province before? When? We all know the problems the small fish plants, in particular, have, and yet, you sit over there and you will support this piece of legislation that will tax the small fish plants; tax the fish, tax the men and women. I can hear them all attacking Crosbie and everything else but I don't hear the Member for Port de Grave or Carbonear or Eagle River or anywhere else, talk about the government taxing the fish plants in this Province that are having a job to survive; that's what is taking place. And you have a Minister of Finance who has about as much compassion as the Minister of Education, and that is none. That is what you have.

MR. EFFORD: You have nine fish plants (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. EFFORD: Nine fish plant owners out in my district (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: So what? You should put them on the agricultural board.

MR. TOBIN: So what? Put them on the board. That is right. Why don't you put them on the agricultural board, like the Minister of Forestry did with one of his buddies?

MR. R. AYLWARD: You get your way paid back and forth then.

MR. TOBIN: That is right. Put them on boards and fly them back and forth.

MR. MATTHEWS: For meetings.

MR. TOBIN: That's what is taking place in this Province. Probably they will be.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to clue up in the next few minutes.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Clue up. You are clueless, anyway.

MR. TOBIN: It wasn't I, Sir, it was the Premier of this Province who said you lacked the maturity to become a - it was the Premier of this Province, not I, who called you a fool. It was the Premier of this Province, not I, who said you were immature, that you lacked maturity, that you were childish. You should not be worried by what we said, you should worry about what the Premier said.

Ed Roberts said the other day: I am running in Naskaupi because the Premier wants leadership and Cabinet material in Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a slap in the jaw!

MR. TOBIN: What a vote in the confidence of the Member for Eagle River! If I were the Member for Eagle River, I wouldn't shout across this House, because too many arrows can be shot back, not what we said but what the Premier said and what the unelected member has been saying.

I will, in conclusion, say that the education system in this Province is in desperate shape. It is in sad shape, and I honestly and sincerely believe that under the Minister of Finance, and under the Minister of Education, they are in for rougher times. Until such time as the Premier kicks both of those men totally out of Cabinet - because I do not think they should be in either position -but until such time as the Premier kicks both of them out of Cabinet, then they are in sad shape.

The only thing is, if they have to keep them in Cabinet until 'Danny' matures, then they might be there until the next election.

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

MR. WINSOR: I have a few words to say on this bill. Like most of my colleagues, I want to say, it was an act to abolish school tax, but it was the only tax that was ever abolished and was replaced with one that was even more severe. I don't know how we abolished it. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister of Finance to answer a couple of questions when he gets up to conclude his speech. I want to ask the Minister of Finance: How many of the present school tax authorities own the property that they now have, and how many are rented? So what are the assets of the buildings when they are going to be sold? I am sure the minister has checked into that. He knows what the assets are.

In my case, in the Gander one, they are in rented properties. The only assets they would have would be the value of the equipment they have inside. I am sure that somewhere in the Province there is a school tax authority that owns the property. The minister should know what the value is.

The Minister of Education has given some indication that the money is going to go back into education. The Minister of Finance says, 'no'. They cannot get their act together today to determine who is going to get the money, so I would like for the minister to answer that question.

I would like for him also to tell us today, in approximate figures, what is the value of the unpaid school tax in this Province? The minister should know that, because it could be - and is - a substantial amount of money that is owing. If it is collected, will that go back into the school system this year? Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I want to know about the exemption level. What is the exemption level for this year? Is it still at $7,000 or thereabouts? How can it be determined when the... is it $3,500 for half a year? Or are these people who are now liable for taxes, who do not know at this point in time if they are going to have to pay, and come December 31, and they discover they have made $7,100, are they now going to be liable for $125 or $150, or whatever it is? Because the minister had said that if they do not pay by June 30 they are going to be liable for the full year. People need to know that.

The minister fails to address the fact that many of the people in this Province pay school tax through payroll deduction. They have not started work yet. They have not been able to afford to pay tax so far this year. It has been pretty tough out there. If you have to pay that school tax based on what you get in UI, it has been mighty tough. But many of them have paid it through payroll deduction, fifteen, twenty dollars a month, for the four or five months that they worked seasonally. Is the minister now saying that they are not going to be allowed to do that this year, and they are going to have to pay $120?

I think it is time for the minister to tell the people how he is going to correct these anomalies that are in this Bill that require people to pay a year's tax if they are not paid up by June 30. That provision, 9(2), should be stricken out of the Bill. It is not fair. Because there are a number of people who cannot afford to pay sixty-five dollars now. They cannot afford to pay two dollars. They might be able to pay it when they get back to work in July, August or September, but they cannot afford it now. Yet this Bill says that they are going to be liable for double the amount that they normally would be, plus they are going to have to pay 2 per cent on their income tax for the entire year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's wrong. The Minister of Finance should correct this. When it gets to the Committee of the Whole I would like to see the minister change 9(2) to make it reflect what it actually should be.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to have a few words on this Bill, the infamous Bill 28, "An Act To Abolish School Tax Authorities And To Provide For The Collection Of Unpaid School Tax." I just want to have a few words to say concerning the school tax, this particular Bill being proposed by the Minister of Finance, who suggested that he only had three options when he considered what to do with the problems associated with drawing up the Budget of this Province. Those three options being: one, to borrow; two, to increase the deficit; or, three, decrease services. There was a fourth option which he fails to mention, and we have all heard of what other administrations are doing. That is, to be a little more creative and imaginative in presenting a budget. You do not necessarily have to raise taxes to collect more money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: By creating more economic opportunities out there so that it creates more investment, more employment. That is how you create more wealth in a province. But, Mr. Speaker, that is something different that this administration has not looked at.

The people in western Labrador are upset about - they recognise that the government, any government, any level of government needs money to deliver services and they have always paid for services in Western Labrador, they have always paid more than anybody else in this Province for their services. They always paid more and in education, Mr. Speaker, we had the best education system in this Province by far, but, we paid for it. We paid locally through a dedicated tax in the school through the School Tax Authorities or we paid through contributions through the mining companies, the Iron Ore Company of Canada and Wabush mines that contributed to the local school boards or through the local School Tax Authorities, and they got their money, Mr. Speaker, by the wealth that was created by the miners. That is how they got their money.That is how they got their money, by the wealth created by the individuals living there and sending their children to school.

Mr. Speaker, we see that what they have done now, is abolish the school tax, this regime has abolished the school tax and come in with this so called high school tax. They have a higher tax. I have constituents of mine who are now paying as much as $400, $500, $600 more in school tax because of what this Minister of Finance has imposed upon them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: They are making almost as much money as the Minister of Finance, -

AN HON. MEMBER: With his pension or without?

MR. A. SNOW: - and, Mr. Speaker, they are not pensioned; they are not pensioned. Now, Mr. Speaker, what disappoints them, is not so much the paying of the taxes, what disappoints them is that his seatmate, his buddy, cut back the services. Before, when they paid their school taxes, it was a dedicated tax and spent in Western Labrador; now we see what did they do? His Minister of Education cuts the services, the Minister of Finance takes the money, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation cuts his office and what did they do? they all buy themselves a car each every year, that is what they do and cut back services in Western Labrador, they take the money out of Western Labrador and cut back services. Lay off teacher assistants, lay off school teachers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: They have to go to the Post Office.

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Speaker, a 4 per cent income tax increase drastically affects the amount of money a person has to pay in Western Labrador and they would agree I think, wholeheartedly to pay more if they thought they were getting more for their dollar, but they are going to get less now, teachers are going to be laid off because it is not a dedicated tax now other than dedicated to the pork barrelling that this crowd is going to do; that is the only thing that it is dedicated to now, Mr. Speaker, and of course, we have seen the payroll tax increased by one-half of 1 per cent on the mining companies and by 1 per cent imposition on other companies, with the threshold being lowered from $300,000 down to $100,000, so we see small businesses being hit even harder, small businesses -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, yes, small businesses. Somebody mentioned to me the other day that they have a new idea at Enterprise Newfoundland about how to start a small business in Newfoundland and Labrador, a new program they are announcing shortly and the first thing is that you have to begin with a large business and when this crowd gets at them for a year, you will have a small business if you start with a large business.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) twenty years (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well now you have finally bring it to fruition. You heard about it, now you are implementing the policy. But, Mr. Speaker, the other thing that is affective in School Tax Authorities, the abolition of the school tax, is the fact that senior citizens in Western Labrador used to get a 90 per cent tax rebate on their property tax brought in by the town councils in Labrador City and Wabush, lo and behold, that was a good measure. We felt that we did it because we wanted to keep more senior citizens in the area; now this regime saw fit to tax these people on their income.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is tremendously unfair to these people who have contributed so much over their working lives to the education in general, and to all the services that are being provided by all levels of government. Now they are being hit in their senior years. They are being hit again with taxes in a school tax, by an increase in the abolition of the school tax, from which they were exempt before, and now they have to pay in income tax.

The abolition of the school tax, albeit I know that most people are not in favour of taxes, of any taxes, but the abolition of the school tax is to the detriment of education in Labrador West because we are going to end up, as residents of Western Labrador, having to pay more money and get less services.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member of Finance. If he speaks now he closes the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I want to just clear up one bit of misunderstanding around the floor here. That refers to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Education, and my other colleague, the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy, and the terrible accusations that have been hurled across the House, defaming these hon. men, saying they were opposed to the school tax.

Every member on this side bears marks - physical marks - of the ways these two members have forced us to pass the school tax. I want to pay tribute to these two hon. members tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: For persuading us to abolish the school tax.

One question that came up during the debate had to do with the disposal of the fixed assets. Now the money that is realized from the fixed assets 'is' going to be distributed back to the school boards. Did you hear that? It is going to be distributed back, but it is going to be distributed back in a fairer way than if we had given each school board its own assets - the assets of its school tax authority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Because some school tax authorities have many assets, and some have few, so they are all going to come back into the consolidated revenue fund, and this will be used to level up the equalization that school boards give.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: Now what could be more fair than that? What the hon. members were proposing was that he who has, keeps, and he who has not, what odds? That is the same attitude they have been displaying with respect to the school tax, the fork like ??? mentality of the Member for Menihek who says, we have a great school system here. We have all kinds of money that we are going to put into it, and the rest of you fellows, forget it.

That is not what this Province is about. This Province is about sharing. He who has shares with he who has not. That is what this party believes in, and that is what we are going to go through.

That is why we have abolished this terrible tax about which the Tories are so proud, and if they get reelected, I suppose it is possible, theoretically, to think about it, but I guarantee you, if they campaign on the reinstatement of the school tax, they are going to have a hard job in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Abolish School Tax Authorities And To Provide For The Collection Of Unpaid School Tax" read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 28).

MR. BAKER: Order 18.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend Certain Taxation Statutes In Relation To The Payment Or Imposition Of Interest." (Bill No. 29).

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, this is a routine bill which I think all hon. members will support.

What we are doing here, a number of the taxation acts have written in them certain rules about the imposition of interest. This came up largely because under the Retail Sales Tax Act we had to charge 1.5 per cent per month compound interest on overdue accounts. This was imposing tremendous hardship on some businesses who thought that they were up to date. We audited them and found out that they, for some reason or other, forgot to include a piece of equipment or pay tax on it some years ago. When the interest was cumulated at 1.5 per cent a month - which works out to be about 20 per cent a year - this imposed a tremendous burden - and we were powerless to change it unless we changed the Act.

So this is the impetus for that, to change the Act, so that the Cabinet could have the power to lower the tax as interest rates went up and down, and so on. So that is mainly the purpose. While we were at it we looked at all the other taxes and said: why don't we have some sort of a similar policy across all our tax acts?

Basically, that is what this Bill is all about, to enable the government to adjust the tax rates without having to come before the House every time that a bill changed. As interest rates go down we want to be able to keep - they have to be higher than the regular interest rate, because we do not want to, say, borrow from the government instead of borrowing from the banks. We do not want to get into that. But we do not want to punish businesses because of an inordinately high tax rate that we are powerless to change.

That is basically what we are doing in Bill 29, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just listening to the minister, he is talking about government being able to reduce the amount of interest as interest rates fluctuate or increase accordingly. That is for someone who owes government money, right? What about the provision where - I do not know if it happens on any occasion, but I am sure it has happened and probably continues to happen - where someone overpays, unknowingly. It does happen. I see the Member for Bellevue smiling and grinning a bit over there. But it has happened on occasion. I think it happens perhaps more often than members realise. What is the provision there? Will the government then pay back with interest as well? Under the same formula? That is just the question that I have on it.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, on page 5 here of the Bill, Section 37(1) reads: "Where a corporation pays to the minister an amount which exceeds the amount of tax required to be paid, the minister may refund to that corporation the amount of the overpayment, together with interest, at the rate and in the manner that is prescribed by the regulations." So there is that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: "May," yes. The intention is to pay a rate of interest. It will not be the punitive rate of one point whatever it is per cent that we will be charging, but it will be a fair amount.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend Certain Taxation Statutes In Relation To The Payment Or Imposition Of Interest," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 29).

MR. BAKER: Order 19, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 19.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Application And Effect Of Certain Acts Passed In The Present Session Of The Legislature Upon The Revised Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1990". (Bill No. 27).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is purely a matter of form. Where the revised statutes are now in place and have been printed, and a statement was made about this sometime in the last couple of weeks. This Bill simply indicates that there are certain acts that have been passed that have involved amendments and changes that now we are saying apply to the revised statutes of 1990. This would not have been included in the bills themselves when we went through them, so it is simply to make legislation that we have passed in the last year applied to the revised statutes that is all. It is a matter of form.

On motion, a bill," An Act Respecting The Application And Effect Of Certain Acts Passed In The Present Session Of The Legislature Upon The Revised Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1990", (Bill No. 27), read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 22, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, 1973 and The Liquor Corporation Act, 1973", (Bill No. 34).

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of this bill is to merge the two organizations, the Newfoundland Liquor Licensing Board with the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. What is proposed is that the Liquor Corporation look after all the administration of the Liquor Licensing Board and the employees would be the employees of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, but there would be a board for the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation which basically is a business board interested in running the affairs of the corporation, the importation and the sale of liquor and so on, and the Liquor Licensing Board which looks after the establishment of licenses to sell alcoholic liquors and so on, that that board would be separate, and we want that separate because they have a very distinct and precise function, but we want the savings that we will accrue by having the administration of the two boards done by the one organization.

This is basically a fund saving measure, it is a cost-cutting measure that we introduced last year and we are now putting the legislation together to merge the two organizations, keeping separate the two boards. The only connection between the two boards is that the President of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation will also be the Chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board, but the members would be different. I think that should do for now, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: I just want to raise the concerns that I raised before in the Budget Speech when this was mentioned. I know the minister is trying to convince us that this will be an administrative amalgamation, but when you have the Chairman of the Marketing Agency of the Liquor Corporation, whose duty it is to market as much liquor as he can in the Province, that is what he has to do, that is his job, to market liquor and raise taxes for the minister, and then you have the same person, as Chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board, who has to control the amount of liquor outlets that are in the Province, nothing that can come out of that except a direct conflict of interest.

I do not see how the minister can say that there will not be a direct conflict of interest in having the chairperson of both boards the same person, because they both have very distinct, almost opposite and probably opposite duties. If I am a marketer, if I am the head of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation and it is my job to sell as much of my product as I can, well that is certainly a very clear and distinct function from me, as Chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board who has to put the reins on where the establishments are, who has to set or enforce the rules that govern the establishments that are around the Province, and who does and does not get licensed, and where they do and do not go.

Mr. Speaker, a prime example of this has already happened in this Province. It seemed to be sloughed off at the time by the minister. But there was a beer selling license issued to a person in Labrador, in North West River. This shows an example that somebody wanted to sell beer in North West River. The Liquor Corporation wanted to sell beer, allowed the sale of beer in North West River. Then it was arranged, or somehow that person got a license to sell beer. Then when the liquor regulation side of it came into force and they found out, for some reason or other, we are not sure, probably political interference, but we are not sure, that someone complained that the liquor was being sold in North West River in this convenience store, the license was pulled.

Now I say that this is going to be the rule rather than the exception in the future, when you have both boards operated and chaired by the same person. This could happen any time at all from now on. I just want to raise the concern. I am not going to prolong the debate.

But we will be keeping an eye on it. I suggest to the minister - because I do not think he is doing this purposefully to create that conflict - but I say to the minister that he should keep close tabs on it for the short time that he will be minister in charge of this Liquor Licensing Board. He has another few months, but he should watch it. Because when I get in there after the next election I will be going over this very carefully to see that there were no conflicts of interest. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does raise a point that bears thinking about. We are watching the situation carefully. So far there hasn't been a real problem with the chairman being the same person on each of the two boards. The members of the boards are different and they are in the majority. We may have up to four other members on the Liquor Licensing Board and I think it is five or six on the Liquor corporation. The chairman is the common element to keep it together.

I see at the moment no problem there. If this conflict does become a problem then we will have to change the legislation. We will be watching it very carefully. I do not foresee it as a problem. Because the people of the Liquor Corporation, we do tell them how much revenue to raise, and it is true, they want to raise revenues, but increasing the number of liquor outlets is not always the way to increase revenues. But there is no doubt about it, that these two functions must be well performed. We do have to restrain or to handle the sale of alcohol in a very responsible way, there is no doubt about that. The wishes of the communities have to be taken into account when we decide whether we are going to establish a new liquor establishment or a lounge or even a retail outlet. The thing has to be considered whether this is in the public interest for this to happen. In fact, I would like for the public to be involved even more than they are now in making these very serious decisions.

I am pleased with the way the Liquor Licensing Board has been operating. It must be realised that there are well over 1,000 lounges and well over 1,000 retail establishments selling, and a variety of special events. So that the number of establishments to be regulated are quite large in number. Once in a while something slips through, I'm sure, but it does not happen too often. In fact, I am very pleased with the way the Liquor Licensing Board has been operating. Hopefully they will continue in that way. But if anything does occur that leads us to think that there would be a conflict then we will have to change that. But I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that will happen if we are all careful. Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, 1973 And The Liquor Corporation Act, 1973," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 34).

MR. BAKER: Order 24, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Election Act Respecting The Holding Of A Plebiscite In The Province". (Bill No. 36).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill is exactly the same as a debate we had a little earlier about the new Elections Act, in terms of the amendments to that particular Act. At that point in time I pointed out that the possibility of plebiscites, especially a plebiscite on the constitutional question, is a likelihood, and that we wanted to make allowances in our legislation for the holding of such a plebiscite, not knowing the complete nature of it. It is not a very detailed amendment. However, we have gotten through the second reading stage, the committee stage in terms of the Elections Act, and we need to make the same amendment to the old Elections Act, because the new Elections Act will be proclaimed at a point in time where we are confident that the act can be carried out. As members know, there is a little bit of work that has to be done by the chief electoral officer, whoever he or she may end up being, and the staff before we can be assured that that particular procedure could work.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, any elections or any plebiscites will be held under our current Elections Act as the by-elections now going on are being held under the current Elections Act. As a matter of fact, it was only a couple of days ago they signed a proclamation for special polls. We are still operating under the old Elections Act and the special polls. So, Mr. Speaker, we find it necessary to amend the old Elections Act in case something may happen in the next five or six months, which it probably will, that requires the holding of a plebiscite. We want to cover all the bases. So this amendment is exactly the same as the one we previously discussed.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I see now why the President of Treasury Board was not willing to accept any changes in The Elections Act to accommodate, particularly, the students of this Province, because I don't expect they have any intention whatsoever of proclaiming The Elections Act. This is the reason why they have to bring this bill forward now, Mr. Speaker. I don't know when this appeared on the Order Paper or when it was distributed, Mr. Speaker, but it was after our debates the other day on The Elections Act.

Mr. Speaker, this act to amend our present Elections Act to allow the Cabinet of this Province to dictate exactly when we will have plebiscites, what the question will be, how much money can be spent on the plebiscite and who can participate in the plebiscite, that is what this bill will allow the Cabinet of this Province to do, Mr. Speaker. I must say that I completely, utterly and wholeheartedly disagree with allowing the Cabinet of this Province to make such decisions.

Mr. Speaker, if there is a need for a plebiscite to be called quickly in this Province, I would rather see some provision in this Elections Act for the House of Assembly to be called back immediately to set the rules or, at least, to approve the rules that were set by the Cabinet of this Province. Mr. Speaker, even if there was limited debate in this act I would agree with it, or agree with is more, at least, even if the debate was limited and mentioned in this act.

Mr. Speaker, I have no confidence whatsoever that the Cabinet of this Province will prepare a proper question and make the proper rules to carry out a plebiscite in this Province. The main reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is because we saw what happened to our little plebiscite on Meech Lake in this Legislature. When it was obvious that the Premier was going to have trouble winning the vote, Mr. Speaker, the vote was cancelled. I would expect that if we are about to have a plebiscite in this Province and the Premier has his question on the plebiscite and feels he is going to lose it, he will again come up with some reason to cancel the plebiscite.

Mr. Speaker, it is much too important a question, much to important an issue, especially the Constitution that will be discussed, to allow the Cabinet of this Province the right to set the rules or the right to call off or start up a plebiscite whenever they wish. The minimum at least should be that the House of Assembly be recalled to approve, if not set, the rules that will be set down to govern a plebiscite in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, with those few words, that is it for me.

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

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

We expressed some concerns about this, as hon. members will know, yesterday in the House. The Member for Humber East, particularly in Question Period, asked some questions really of the government on this issue of the plebiscite provision. We do have concerns about the power that Cabinet will give itself pertaining to the operations of a plebiscite in the Province. That is one concern that we have.

The other thing is, and the Member for Kilbride has alluded to it, why would Cabinet want to give itself the authority to - in Section 172 of the bill it says: The Lieutenant Governor in Council, which in essence is Cabinet, may at any time before the day on which the plebiscite is to be held - it could be the very day before the vote - why would Cabinet want to give itself the authority to cancel the plebiscite? That is a question that I would like to have explained. I do not fully understand it. Why would you go through the whole process of a plebiscite, the number of days, whatever it would be - I suppose perhaps the same length of time as a provincial election, but perhaps it would not have to necessarily be the same duration. It could be two weeks, three weeks, a month -

MR. TOBIN: Because there a bunch of dictators.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well maybe that is what the government is gearing up for. Perhaps now they are next to bringing in a piece of legislation - they tried to slip it through late in the session when people are tired and want to get things done. They will have one come in now that they may be able to, up to polling day of a general election, cancel the vote.

In a plebiscite in essence, you are asking the people of the Province to vote on a question, on an important issue to the people of the Province, and you pose a question. The Cabinet now will give themselves the authority, once this passes, that up to the day before the vote, the Premier of the Province can say: I am cancelling that now. We will not be voting tomorrow.

What is the reason for that? Can the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader, or someone else explain that? Why does Cabinet want all the powers that they are trying to get by amending this act, and by trying to incorporate this very provision into the new elections act? I do not fully follow the logic.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The same reason they cancelled the Meech Lake vote.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well it may be the same reason he cancelled the Meech Lake vote - maybe. He was in danger of losing that one. He knew it. The infamous Thursday, roll the dice. Well Clyde did not roll the dice. He did not have the vote. He decided he was not having the vote, and when old Elijah Harper put up the white feather and said, 'no', that was all he needed. I have had a few ideas since what Elijah Harper should have done with the feather, but I cannot say it here, because I am sure Your Honour would call me to order.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It could possibly be unparliamentary.

MR. MATTHEWS: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: It would not tickle his fancy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well I am not saying whose fancy I would have liked for Elijah to tickle with the feather, but I think you all know who I am thinking about.

MR. TOBIN: Does she write books?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, it is not a her. It is a he.

These are the concerns that we have. We think the Cabinet is asking for extraordinary powers. I do not know what the members opposite think of it, but can you imagine being out and about in this Province with a plebiscite on for thirty days, or forty or forty-five days, and then the day before the vote someone announces there will not be a vote tomorrow; that the government of the Province, the Premier particularly and the Cabinet, has now decided that we are not now going to have a vote. A big news flash the night before the vote - it is now cancelled; all over; much ado about nothing. We have decided now that we will not have the vote.

What can be the reason for that, other than they want that provision in case the day before the vote the government suddenly realises that the question they proposed to the people, that the vote will not come back in the government's favour?

MR. R. AYLWARD: It could be a non-confidence vote, I guess.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well I ask the minister now, the minister sits in a Cabinet. The minister, I am sure, has had a look at this piece of legislation. I am sure he has. He has heard the reasons for this. Why do you want it, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs? Why would you want to go through the process of a plebiscite and then the day before cancel the vote? Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs answer me that one? Would the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs like to go through the process in this Province of municipal elections for, say, November 23 for the 300-odd municipalities in this Province and, then, the day before the vote, put out an announcement saying: There will be no votes tomorrow. I say, there will be no votes tomorrow?

MR. HOGAN: That is not what that says.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is not what it says? Well, let me read for the minister what it says.

Section 172, Bill 36, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act Respecting The Holding Of A Plebiscite In The Province," put forward by the Hon. Edward Roberts, Minister of Justice, ordered to be printed by the hon. House of Assembly, the Cabinet really. Section 172, I say to the minister - he should refer to the bill, I am sure he has a copy of Bill 36 - "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may - the Lieutenant Governor in Council being the Cabinet - "at any time before the day on which the plebiscite is to be held, cancel the plebiscite." Does the minister understand that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) council meetings.

MR. MATTHEWS: Council meetings, but what we are doing is gearing the people of the Province up for or against the question of plebiscite put forward by the government and, up to the day before the vote, the Premier can announce to the Province that there will not be a vote. So, why would the Cabinet and the Premier want that authority, I am asking the minister?

MR. HOGAN: Why not?

MR. MATTHEWS: Why not! The minister cannot explain why they would want to have it, but he is saying why not. Now, can you imagine what we are witnessing here tonight, Mr. Speaker? A minister of the Crown, now. First of all he denied that it was in the act, denied that it was even there. He cannot tell me why he wants it there, as a minister of the Crown, but he just says: Why not? Now, doesn't it verify the criticism of this very, very government? The rest of them over there, in the front benches, don't know what is going on, don't know why certain things are being asked to be passed in this House, don't know what the implications are for the people of this Province. They just nod in approval. It is unbelievable that a minister of the Crown would make such statements on such an important issue.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Only one of them questioned him over there, ever. One fellow questioned him over there and he is in the backbenches.

MR. MATTHEWS: He is in the backbenches. One person questioned him.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Only one ever questioned him.

MR. MATTHEWS: And there will never be another question him.

MR. R. AYLWARD: No.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, because that member will never get another chance to question, not as a minister.

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, that is right.

MR. MATTHEWS: And the rest of them nod. Don't know where they are leading us, don't know what they are up to or where we are going. Unbelievable!

MR. WINSOR: The President of Treasury Board nods in agreement.

MR. MATTHEWS: The President of Treasury Board nods. So, when the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader, gets up, these are the concerns we have about this provision.

MR. HOGAN: This has nothing to do with municipal elections.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the minister, it has nothing to do with municipal elections, but I made a comparison, Mr. Speaker, that if on November 23, 1992 there were municipal elections scheduled in this Province and councillors out and about the Province were campaigning for three, four or five weeks out in their various municipalities and, the day before the vote, November 22, there came a decree from the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs: I am sorry, people and potential councillors in this Province, I am cancelling the vote."

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: But this is what you will do with the plebiscite, I am telling the minister. I am drawing a comparison.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible) have to say.

MR. MATTHEWS: This is real, cancelling a plebiscite. So you think that is all right? You think that is okay? Why do you think that is okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because circumstances warrant it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Circumstances. What circumstances? That the Premier might get into his head the day before the vote to say this is not a good idea, people are going to reject my question, so I will cancel it. Is that why?

MR. NOEL: We could have a national referendum called.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, you could have a national referendum called. What would that have do with it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: It is interesting to hear the Chairman of the Elections Committee back there being the authority when yesterday we went through Bill 1. I am going to tell you something, if I didn't know any more about that than the Chairman of the Committee did yesterday, I wouldn't be here now talking about this Elections Act amendment. He brought it in and didn't have a clue about it, Mr. Speaker, didn't have a clue.

I asked him the other day: Where did you get some of the things in the bill?

He said: from other provinces -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, you could not give me an answer because you did not know anything about it and you do not know what you have set yourself up for at the next general election, I say to the Member for Eagle River, the Chairman of the Committee, you do not know what you have set yourself and other members up for, here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)>

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me say to the Member for Eagle River, that we have won voice votes here, we have won them that have been overturned.

MR. HOGAN: (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, what if? Well, if it is never going to happen, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, why do you want the provision? If you are so sure that it is never going to happen why are you asking for it, why do you want to give yourself, as a member of that Cabinet, that authority if it is never going to happen?

I have never seen a group of people who preach democracy, who want to put a question to the people of this Province -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Are you as stunned as you appear to be?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I am stunder than I appear to be. Most people tell me I look smart, I say to the Member for Eagle River -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, most people tell me that I am pretty sharp and smart-looking. Now I do not know how bad their eyesight may be, I do not know, I say to the Member for Eagle River. But, it is amazing you know, I mean, the Member for Eagle River takes it so lightly because you see, when this is going on you will be down in your district, if you are still the member, pushing your side of the argument, and if you are somewhere that night and you are watching Here and Now, you will hear the big announcement by the Premier that tomorrow: come home Danny, come back to St. John's because there is going to be no vote anyway.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, he won't call me.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no, no, he certainly won't say that on the television. I said, you will see it on Here and Now, he is not going to call you, we know that; he has good reasons for not calling you because he knows you are one of those who said those terrible things about him to the media.

MR. TOBIN: There are a lot of people in '82 who would like to cancel the vote too.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, a lot of people, but why, I cannot understand this, what is it all about? Why do they want the authority, can someone explain to me why you want that authority?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, but at least we have a man in our caucus, I say to the minister, at least we have a man, so what is the question the minister the minister is asking.

AN HON. MEMBER: Constitution (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: This is not a constitutional question, this is an amendment to the Elections Act, it is not a constitutional, it is an Elections Act amendment. Elections Act, not the Constitution, we know all about that; we know more about that than the hon. minister knows -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I am going to tell you something. When we are talking Constitution, if the Member for Pleasantville is one of this government's advisers on the Constitution, I say: By God in Heavens, she will soon be gone now; she will soon be gone now. It makes no wonder the Premier is on his way back from Brazil if Wally Noel is advising on behalf of the people of this Province on the Constitution. I mean, it is like the Member for Menihek said: It makes no wonder he is so hung up on Triple E because he thinks it is shoe widths; he thinks we are talking about the widths of shoes, for God's sake!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Triple E rubber boots, that is what they have.

MR. MATTHEWS: Triple E, yes, Triple E.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Rio?

MR. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) from Rio?

MR. MATTHEWS: We know who is on the way back from Rio and I am going to tell you something. You know what is amazing about it I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, that for the Premier of this Province to have to go to Rio to find out that this Province is falling apart. He had to go to Rio to find out and now he has to come back to attend to provincial matters. I say it is about time; I am glad he went to Brazil if he finally realize that. Blame it on Rio. Rio went down as part of the Canadian delegation -

MR. TOBIN: Same as Wells.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, - and after the Premier pouted and sulked enough, he was invited -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No but after, after the Leader of the Opposition was invited; after, that is why he is down there and you know something? It was amazing last night. I watched the television last night, and if you did not know the difference you would think that the Premier invited John Crosbie down to Rio. That he allowed him to be down there with him. Can you imagine the arrogance? Make no wonder he's coming back. I am hoping the Government House Leader will get up now and tell me why the Premier wants that power? Why do you want it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, in this amendment, as in the amendment to the new Elections Act, there is a clause, Clause 172, which says: "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, at any time before the day on which the plebiscite is to be held, cancel the plebiscite."

Now I'm worried about that. I suppose if you had a suspicious and devious mind you might in fact come up with the idea that we could go around having plebiscites on all kinds of things, and if we felt the mood was going against the opinion of government that we could, at the last minute, do our own little poll and cancel it. I can see where there is some concern by members opposite. I too am concerned, very deeply concerned.

First of all, let me assure hon. members that the reason it is there is that in this particular instance there is a possibility that there could be a provincial plebiscite, and while that is on there is a possibility a federal plebiscite could be called on the same issue. If that is the case then we would want the possibility of simply cancelling the provincial plebiscite.

So that is the intent of this. I am very worried. I am worried about enacting a clause that is so broad that could be misused. I think, perhaps sometime in the next twenty years, when we see that there is a possibility of being replaced by a government that may be devious, and may have ulterior motives, that at that point in time I think maybe we should do another amendment. I am worried for that reason. If members opposite got control of government and had something like that there, I am afraid they would use it to the hilt.

So I will assure hon. members of two things. Firstly, that we will never use it in that way; secondly, that before there is an indication sometime in the next twenty to thirty years there may be a change in government, that we will then come to the House and close that loophole, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Election Act Respecting The Holding Of A Plebiscite In The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 36).

MR. BAKER: Order 14, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act". (Bill No. 23).

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to help pilot this particular amendment through on behalf of the Minister of Environment and Lands, who is out doing work on behalf of the government. It is a very simple amendment. The previous government, as a matter of fact, talked about this. Talked about permitting private initiatives into our parks. Private initiatives such as bumper boat concessions, convenience stores, selling their baked goods, that kind of thing.

They talked about it but we did it. Now the government has agreed to permit private sector concessions into the parks. This particular amendment is required to make that legal. The amendment really says: "This amendment to The Provincial Parks Act would permit the Minister of Environment and Lands to issue leases or licences of occupation for commercial purposes to parts of provincial parks which do not exceed 1 hectare in area...." So the idea is just to make it lawful and legal to issue licences and permits to members of the private sector or the business community who wish to undertake commercial ventures in the provincial parks.

That basically, Mr. Speaker, is the purpose of the amendment.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture that this is a good piece of legislation. We did start the process. As a matter of fact, when I was minister, before I left Culture, Recreation and Youth, which then the Parks division was under, we started looking at provincial parks and what we could do to make them more attractive. We were concerned about the usage in the parks. We wanted to get more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and other Canadians to utilize our parks. We thought a way to do that would be to make them more attractive, to have concessions and other things in there, where people could buy goods and just improve the whole atmosphere I guess of going to parks.

So I would say to the minister that I support the legislation that he is putting in here. I am just wondering. There was some consideration given to privatisation in general, say, to some parks. I do not know where that has gone, but I believe there was a call went out for proposals. There were proposals that went out -

AN HON. MEMBER: Public tendering.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I am talking now about parks. Certain parks. Just certain parks. I believe a proposal call went out to see if there was anybody interested in running a park, kind of taking it over. Just one question some of my colleagues have about the legislation I would like to ask the minister, and ask him to respond to. Will this process be put in place through public tender? Or are you asking me, as a private citizen say, if I want to do something of a commercial nature, say, in Frenchman's Cove Park, which is in my area of the Province, is it incumbent upon me then to get in touch with the Parks division to say: look, I am interested in doing this, do I have your permission? Or will there be certain commercial activities identified and then the Department will go to tender? I am not sure what the process will be.

It says here, in 8.1(3): "...the minister may prescribe the terms and conditions governing the cost or type of construction and the location of buildings or structures...." Not more than 10 per cent, not to exceed 1 hectare, and so on. I would just like for the minister to answer some of these questions. I say basically I support it, I think it is good, but these are some of the concerns that we have and we would like to have the concerns addressed.

MR. TOBIN: The call for tenders or proposals for development of sites, rather than give it to their buddies, right?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know, that is what we would like to have answered, I say to the minister. A good piece of legislation but just those couple of concerns. If you are doing something to make our parks more attractive and get more people in them, we totally support it.

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

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. FLIGHT: The two issues raised by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. The privatisation of parks is still what it was back when we all talked about it. It has been discussed. No action has been taken on it. To my knowledge no parks have been privatised or no portions of parks have been privatised. It is a concept that may work, and it is being worked on. Officials are looking at it. But at this point in time nothing concrete has been done with regards to privatisation.

As far as the businesses that will establish in the provincial parks as a result of this amendment, or as a result of the policy adopted by this government, it will be incumbent upon the individual who has an idea. If he wants to start a bumper boat concession in Frenchman's Cove Park then it is incumbent upon him to contact the officials of the Department of Environment and Lands, Parks division. There is a committee of civil servants and people, I think, from various departments, which sits to judge the application. If the application makes sense, the concession is awarded.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. FLIGHT: Sure. I have no problem, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, by leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: I just wanted to ask the minister, what protection then would there be, if I have a proposal for a particular park of some commercial nature, what protection would I have, say, someone else may not end up doing what I proposed or would like to do? That is what I am concerned about because we all know what happens and if I come up with a unique proposal for a park that I think could work, that I could make a buck of and so on, what protection is built in it for me that I do not wake up a few mornings after, a few weeks after and someone else is doing what I wanted to do?

AN HON. MEMBER: In the same park?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, in the same park and other parks, but in the same park?

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

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how that could happen; in the first instance, the committee which sits, receives and judges applications are bureaucrats, civil servants and there is a process at the end of the day when they make recommendations to the minister as to the projects that should be approved. I understand, Mr. Speaker, also, that any concession that is given will have a five year duration, Mr. Speaker, and renewable after that, so I do not think the concern that the hon. member has is well founded. I think, Mr. Speaker, that as he said earlier, it is a good amendment, it is a good idea and I think the parks service and the people of Newfoundland will be will served as a result of this action.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act", (Bill No.23), read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 26, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act", (Bill No.39).

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Very basically, this is a house-keeping amendment that would permit the Municipalities Act to allow local service districts to do what other forms of municipal governments are doing in allowing annexation, the joining of communities of one or more, or even two local service districts becoming one and as subsequent under paragraph 1.

Under paragraph 2 it just changes the existing legislation to accommodate the first part of the amendment under 634 (1), which is really 629 of the regular act.

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

MR. WOODFORD: The minister says that this is mainly a house-keeping matter with regards to the additions and the deletions in 1(34), some deletions and some additions but in section 2 of the act there are some new additions there, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose you cannot very well argue with a lot of that, but the thing that I see, through the whole bill, seems to me to be a bit hypocritical, what the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has been doing for the last three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it is.

MR. WOODFORD: I mean the minister was not there at the time, but the previous minister is going around the Province, to amalgamate municipalities and the reason he has given for that is to be more efficient and viable communities, viable councils who would be afforded the right under the local revenue component, under the equalization component and so on but, under a local service district -

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Just a word of caution, Mr. Speaker, I think that someone in the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has overlooked something because I had a request last year from a local service district in Pollards Point requesting that they form a community council, and they were turned down by the Department of Municipal Affairs.

What the government is doing with this bill is putting something in place. Local service districts in the unincorporated areas in this Province do not and cannot collect taxes. They are considered a corporation, but they cannot collect taxes. They can only levy a fee and collect a fee.

AN HON. MEMBER: A fee for service.

MR. WOODFORD: Every cent that an unincorporated area in this Province or a local service district in this Province gets from the government, they get it - outright grant. Municipalities governed under The Municipalities Act, whether they are a community council or whether they are a town council, can only get funding from government under the local revenue component, under the equalization component, the road component, and the household component.

If the minister is going to give this authority - and I caution you; I will tell you right now, you are going to have problems - to local service districts to annex and amalgamate, they will never, and I say this here tonight, they will never form a community or a town council. Why should they? They can access all the funding in the world from government and do not have to put anything in return - nothing; because under the components -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true, Rick.

MR. WOODFORD: They can levy a fee.

MR. DOYLE: They can only levy a fee for service.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: I will give you a prime example. I have a prime example in my area where I had a municipality apply last year to be recognized as a council -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: But we are arguing just the opposite. We are saying to municipalities, put up your property tax; put up your poll tax, because we are not going to pay you. Now we are going to put a local service district in place where whatever funding they get, whether it is under the community water program or whatever, is outright grant from government. The only thing they collect is a fee.

Members should realize that this has been going on for years, and this is what the Department of Municipal Affairs for years is trying to get out of.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, it may not be the purpose, but I can tell you it is going to be the result. I can assure you. Members opposite, including the Member for St. George's, next year is going to be in with a request for Municipal Affairs for a grant for a local service district in his particular area that is going to be an outright grant - no components applied; no 60/40; no 50/50's; no nothing. That is the way it is now, and this does not change it.

What the minister should be doing to those municipalities is telling them: put your council in place and then you will come under The Municipalities Act and the MOG system - the municipal operating grant of municipal affairs - the same as every other council in the Province. Then whatever fee you collect it goes against, and you can also get forty-five cents on the dollar, or whatever it is under the local revenue component and the household component. You are going to run into problems, I can assure you. If you do not run into them this year, you will probably next.

The reason the Department of Municipal Affairs just gave Pollards Point a 'no' was because they were saying: Why do you not get together and form a community council?, but that is not so. This is so local service districts can get together and form a larger local service district, which is defeating the purpose.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, why don't you make them a community council?

MR. WOODFORD: Okay, I will sit down now and let the member explain to me otherwise.

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

MR. SHORT: After three years of being involved with this particular issue I am certainly glad to see this amendment to the Municipalities Act come before the House because I have spent the last three years trying to form a local service district in the Codroy Valley. It is a result of that work that brought this amendment before the House.

Three years ago after I got elected the people of Codroy Valley were looking for funding to fix the incinerator. I came to the Department of Municipal Affairs and I got them $14,000 which was cost shared 60/40. I soon discovered, however, that one of the local service districts had to apply for the money, and when it came time to pay back the 40 per cent, there was nobody to pay back the money. There were thirteen communities in the Codroy Valley, and there were seven local service districts, and what I call kitchen table local service districts because all they did was they would come and get, say, $20,000 for a water system, they would spend the $20,000 and the next year they would come back and they would continue on. But in the Codroy Valley what we had was a franchise holder who was appointed by the Department of Environment and Lands who collected the garbage and collected all the money, and there was no money to fix the incinerator. So the Department of Municipal Affairs was giving out the money for the incinerator, but somebody had to pay back the 40 per cent share.

I went out to the public and said - and I have had fourteen public meetings over the last three years out there - I said if you want more services than just water then you are going to have to form yourselves into one local service district, and in order to do that you have to disband the seven local service districts that are now there. That wasn't possible. I checked with the deputy minister at a public meeting where we had 300 people ready to go with this thing, the deputy minister who wrote the legislation back in 1978, and it was his intention at the time that they would be regional local service districts. It was never the intention when Municipal Affairs brought the bill in originally to have local service districts in every individual community. So in Codroy Valley you have thirteen communities, seven local service districts, and six with nothing.

I will tell you another thing. I discovered when we were trying to get the local service district formed in the Codroy Valley that there was another $20,000 that we could have accessed under a federal government fisheries program because there was a wharf in the Codroy Valley, and we couldn't do that either because there was no fire brigade in the Codroy Valley. So really what we are looking for is one local service district out there so that the people can apply to municipal affairs on a cost shared arrangement for fire fighting equipment and for incinerator repairs, or whatever it is. That is not a grant, but it would be cost shared 60/40. So it is important, I think, that we be able to bring this amendment before the House so that the seven local service districts if the public - and I emphasize that if the people in the community want this, then it will go ahead, but only if the people in the thirteen communities want one local service district. That is part of the amendment as well, that we would go back to the community and look for their support. If they don't want it, as I have said to them in fourteen different public meetings: If you don't want any more facilities than a water system, fine. I will not force it upon you, but I am saying to you that there are more things that should be available to you if you had one local service district and everybody working together. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into an argument. I will debate with the member. But three things here, Mr. Speaker, three things, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: One of the first questions I have is why not councils? That can be done despite what people say. Why not councils?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, sure. You can see why they don't want it. I just gave the minister my copy of the Municipalities Act. But there is not a local service district or an unincorporated area in this Province today under the Municipalities Act, under the MOG system, under the repayment of capital debt on capital projects, eligible for a 60-40 funding from Municipal Affairs.

MR. DOYLE: Where did you get that, 60-40?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Not one! If it's done, Mr. Speaker, it's illegal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Because it must be a special program. First, it's illegal.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, and they're after doing it.

MR. WOODFORD: Second, Mr. Speaker, they are not allowed to even get a government guaranteed loan. The Department of Municipal Affairs cannot sign government guaranteed loans on behalf of a local service district in this Province. Can't get a special grant! But they can get, under the water system and so on, they will get a fifty or twenty-five - no member opposite can tell me otherwise. I know the difference.

Now I know the member, I can understand where the member is coming from, no question, and I sympathise with him. Because I have the same problem with local service districts. But I say to the member, and I say to the minister opposite, that what they should try to do - I have the same thing, they do not want a council. Now if you do not want a council you know what they are afraid of. The trick -

AN HON. MEMBER: After the previous administration was in power the Bay St. George local service district had to be formed in order to do a cost sharing arrangements for a new fire truck, $76,000.00.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes. Sure you can, because it is a 75-25 program, and it was applicable to every municipality in the Province, whether they were a local service district or an unincorporated area. That was a special situation done under the Municipalities Act. The member is dead on, you are dead on right, and I agree with you. It was a good program because of the life and death situation with regards to fire problems in the Province. So when it comes to municipal affairs, Mr. Speaker, you were allowed to do that. But you are not, and were not, allowed to do under the other part of it, I say to the minister again.

Now, under the Regional Services Board Act that the previous minister rushed out and explained to municipalities and came in the House and thought - I thought there was some kind of an emergency up. He brought it in, he passed it in the House. I do not know, but maybe I'll ask the present minister this question, I doubt it is even proclaimed yet. If it is it had to be done since last fall. Because under the Regional Services Board Act, the new Act that was brought in and passed in this Legislature last year, we could have done that, and the member could have done it, under the Regional Services Board Act, and you would not have any problems whatsoever. So I say to the member he should get after the officials in Municipal Affairs -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: But under the Regional Services Board Act, Mr. Speaker, as members know, the minister, not even the Lieutenant Governor in Council, except for a couple of clauses in it, had the power to do and look after what the member is looking for. Then they would have no choice but pay, because there would be a regional services board, they would have to pay their share, and then they could access funding under some of the programs that are available today. But this is -

MR. R. AYLWARD: And they'll be in debt for the rest of their life.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: The unincorporated areas, it is going to have to be put to them. Now the argument that Municipal Affairs gave me, which is not even, as far as I am concerned, logical, and that came out I think it was last August, that: we can't let you form a community council because you are only a population of 500. Try to talk to the community of Sop's Arm and see if you can amalgamate and form a community of 1,000 people or more, and then we can give you community council status.

Now what is the difference, when you look at the components under the Municipalities Act, under the municipal operating grant, and look at, on a per capita basis, that is how the whole thing is broken down. Everything today is broken down on households. Whether all the households are in Pollards Point, whether all the households are in Sop's Arm or whether they are out in the hon. member's district, it doesn't matter, the same amount of funding goes in because it is based on the total property value in that particular municipality. So this is an opportunity we had to put a council in place, it was refused, it was turned down, and now they are back to square one.

So just a few words of caution. I am only saying that this bill, itself, could have probably gone a bit further and said: Under The Regional Services Board Act be established as a community council so that they can have the proper elections every two years, under the community council part of it, or town council every four years, whichever. Then they would be eligible under the programs and that would help the member and other members. It is going to be a nightmare for you when they all start coming looking for funding.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, just a few words of caution to the minister and members opposite. I am not telling them what to do or how to do it but, as I said, a few words of caution. I would submit to the minister if a request comes in from a municipality, especially with a population of around 400 or 500, that is what we are looking for, municipalities to form a council and accept some of the responsibility that goes with the forming and running of a council. Then they would be eligible under the component system of the MOG. Then they would be off the minister's back, off the member's back and would be able to do their own work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would advise the minister and especially the Member for St. George's to listen to the words of wisdom from the hon. member because what he is saying is correct. What the hon. Member for St. George's wants to do, and should be able to do in his district, cannot be done under local service districts. So he should take heed of it. It is up to you if you do, but you won't achieve your goals the way you are going, is all I am saying. You will have to go through the Regional Services Board or town council. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber Valley explained that quite clearly. I am sure the members will look into it.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing an amendment to The Municipalities Act and I was hoping that, between the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, before this House closes this session today, we would have an amendment to The Municipalities Act, to The City of St. John's Act, to The City of Mount Pearl Act, Corner Brook and the City of Grand Falls - Windsor Act, if that is what it is, that would accommodate the problem the farmers in the City of St. John's, in particular, are having with the tax assessments that they received January 1.

I welcome to the gallery, Mr. Speaker, the federal MP for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I believe this is his cousin right here.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the minister a question, rather than continue the debate, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture or the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. We will all remember that in January of this year when we amalgamated the Town of the Goulds and the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board with the City of St. John's, the day after, on January 2, assessment bills were sent out, or within the next month or so, to the farmers in that area. The unreasonable rates that the City of St. John's charged the farmers would have virtually put them out of business. Now, we did have meetings with the City of St. John's and the Federation of Agriculture, and I happened to attend that meeting. The City of St. John's agreed to defer their taxes and their assessments for a six-month period. Now, we have twenty days left to try to solve that problem.

The Federation of Agriculture met with the minister, met with both ministers as far as I understand, and I believe the resolution should be - and I said it from day one - amendments to The Municipalities Act, appropriate ones, establishing, as we do with property tax, a uniform rate of taxation for the businesses of farms throughout the Province.

We only have twenty days left to do this. This House is going to close in the next day or so, so I am very disappointed that now that we are amending The Municipalities Act, that the two departments have not gotten together in the meantime and brought in that amendment immediately. It is one amendment, probably one or two sections, which should be able to be written up in fifteen minutes. I do not know why the delay, unless the policy or the decision has been that we do not do this. I do not understand, because in thirty days time The City of St. John's are going to ask for their taxes. By the time the House opens next October or November again, it will be too late for the farmers because they will be assessed for the whole year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well I know that The City Council has agreed to look at it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well you cannot change The Municipalities Act by an Order in Council; and you cannot change The City of St. John's Act by an Order in Council; and you cannot change The City of Corner Brook Act by an Order in Council.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the delay. It is a fifteen minute process to write up this. It would be a shorter amendment than this amendment, if we did it. There is already a section in The Municipalities Act and The City of St. John's Act and The City of Mount Pearl Act dealing with property tax on agricultural land. It is not an overly burdensome process to have that amendment put forward.

I just ask the ministers when it will come. It cannot come before next October now, but what can we do on June 30 if the City of St. John's insists that the farmers have to pay their full property tax? Are there any plans for the - and I know The City of St. John's, the accountant or whatever they call her down there - the person who is in charge of taxes down at City Hall - has said that they have pretty well agreed to say, well there is no sense bringing in the tax if government is going to make this amendment; but that is not the city council.

The city councillors, such as city councillor Dinn, who is not overly in favour of having any farm land in the Goulds, and the deputy mayor Andy Wells, who is actively lobbying to have the agricultural zone removed in that area - these are the people who are going to make the decision; and on July 1 their decision could very well be that we want our tax money. If they want their tax money, that is the immediate death to the agricultural activities in that area.

If they are going to collect seventeen to twenty-one mils on all of that farm land that is in there, which is the city tax rate for businesses - it is no good shaking your head. They have no choice right now but to collect that much if they are going to charge a business occupancy tax, if that comes.

I just want to know what the minister's plan is if the city council makes the policy decision to say, we want our money on the day after June 30.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take much time on the debate on this bill, but I want to ask the minister, and perhaps he can address it in this one. I had four or five communities who formed a local service district. As a matter of fact, they attempted to form a council. They began the process in 1989. They went around the community and got enough support, 64 or 65 per cent who wanted to form a town council - a population of about 1,000-1,100. Officials at the minister's department insisted that they form a local service district as opposed to a council, with that kind of population.

I wonder if the minister could explain why he would want communities to form local service districts, as this piece of legislation is suggesting, and then you have communities who, when they combine, as they amalgamate, five communities, they would have been big enough to form a council; yet officials at the minister's department seem very hesitant to allow the formation of new town councils. Can the minister explain why that is so?

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he closes the debate.

MR. HOGAN: We have three different issues here at hand, Mr. Speaker. The first is dealing with the legislation that

we are talking about tonight. The purpose of that is to consolidate and allow for existing services that might have been provided under a number of communities.

On the second hand we have the situation that is being addressed by the hon. member for Kilbride. I say to him that both ministers are cognisant of that particular problem. Take it from us that vehicles or mechanisms can be put in place in co-operation with the City of St. John's to accommodate that if they have the desire. I suspect they have.

I can't address the question put up by the hon. Member for Fogo because I don't know the specifics about which he talks, and I can't imagine any reason why you would opt out for the kind of situation that he is talking about. It must have happened previous to my coming into the ministry. However, the act that we are talking about, like the amendments to the act, has a specific purpose. That is to consolidate for these limited purposes only that do accommodate local service district, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act,' read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill No. 39).

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the raising of loans by the Province, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to have a few words about the loan bill. We are proposing to borrow and wish the approval of the House to borrow $365 million this year. I am proud to some extent that we are able to keep the borrowing down to $365, but I look forward to the day when our taxation will take care of our expenditures, that our income and our outgo will be balanced. But to have to go in the hole $365 extra million this year is something that I am not proud to say. I am proud that we don't go in higher, but at the same time going in the hole, which we have been doing ever since Confederation is a very serious point, and where the people are burdened, burdened, burdened with evermore debt. It is time that Canadians got out of this thought that you can borrow your way into prosperity. We can't do it. Every time we borrow we make the future a little bit bleaker than it was before, and that is what we have been doing.

Mr. Chairman, let me go into the details of the loan bill. This year on current account we are going $29 million in the hole, hopefully no more. On capital we will go $210.8 million. The total budget requirement is $239.8 million. We are going to retire some debt, $99.5 million, put some money in the sinking funds, $55.9 million, so that the total debt retirement package is $155 million which when added to 239.8 comes to $395 million. We can borrow $30 million from the Canada Pension Plan, and that will leave us from capital markets $365 million, which is what we are proposing to borrow here now.

Now, we are proposing that we go to the capital markets twice this year. We are hoping that we will be able to go soon for approximately $125 or $150 million and then, perhaps, we will be able to borrow the remaining $200 million later on in the fall. That will mean that we will be borrowing $385 million on the capital markets this year, but we will be retiring some debt of $155 million, which means that our net borrowing requirement will be $230 million. So we need the authority to borrow that, but we also need a little cushion here in case next spring we go over on the budget and, of course, hon. members may hold up Interim Supply like they do from time to time. So we may need a few dollars for that. So we are suggesting $135 million there, which gives us the $365 million. Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, we will not need this, but we need the authority to borrow in case we do.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know where the Minister of Finance gets whatever is needed, the gall or the gumption, to stand in this House and talk about borrowing. What the minister has just said is a reflection upon his incompetence as Minister of Finance in this Province.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He is proud of his incompetence.

MR. TOBIN: His incompetence.

Now, there are issues in this Province that are extremely important and if you have to borrow money to deal with them, it should be done, such as the teachers' assistants, such as the disadvantaged children, that the Minister of Education has chosen to attack in this Province. Day in and day out the education system is coming apart under this minister. Probably the Minister of Finance can give him a few dollars out of this hundreds of millions of dollars that he is borrowing and put something in place for the disadvantaged children of this Province.

I would also like to know how much of this money that is being borrowed is going to go into place to pay for the Premier's gardeners, for the people to go down and set his flowers and cut his lawns, for the chauffeured cars that the Premier drives around in, for the chartered or the fixed-wing aircraft that he travels around this country in, for the tens of thousands of dollars that the Premier of this Province spends on entertainment, for the tens of thousands of dollars he spends on chartered and fixed-wing aircraft to travel around this country, for the money that is being paid to the book writers of this world, Mr. Chairman, for advice. Those are the questions that need to be asked and answered in this Legislature. What is the Minister of Finance up to and what is he going to do with the money?

The Premier of this Province is costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in travel and entertainment expenses, for gardeners -

AN HON. MEMBER: He paid for that book, too.

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

MR. R. AYLWARD: He paid for that book.

MR. TOBIN: No, I don't think he paid for that book.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes he did. He paid (inaudible) while she was on his staff.

MR. TOBIN: She had lots of time to write it, she wasn't always busy.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It took her nine months to write that book.

MR. TOBIN: But what is happening? What about the cars for the ministers, the $8,000 a year car allowance that they get to drive to work and then rent cars to drive around this Province, and helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, charters going everywhere? You would almost think you are watching MASH when you see the helicopters in the summertime. That is what is taking place in this Province.

What about the pensioners? What about the ministers who are collecting pensions and salaries? They need cars to go to the post office to pick up their pension cheques. That is what the Minister of Finance needs his government car for. He does nothing else, except a scattered trip down to New York on a holiday to talk to some of the credit people who give us our credit rating. That is what is taking place.

The President of Treasury Board spent the whole day - and it is too bad the people of this Province could not see him - in this Legislature reading an old book. That is what he spent his time at, reading an old book. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, what the book is. I didn't see it until today. I don't know who wrote it. I heard someone say Trudeau wrote it, but I don't believe that. I don't believe Trudeau had time to write a book. He is too busy doing other things.

So I want the Minister of Finance to tell this Legislature how much money it is costing the taxpayers for the gardeners from Pippy Park to go down and mow the Premier's lawn? How much is it costing for the gardeners to go down and set roses and flowers for the Premier of this Province? How much money the Premier is spending on travel, you know, the Belgium chocolates and the jaunts around the world, that is what I want to have answered as it relates to - this government is borrowing money like drunken sailors, that is what is taking place.

The Minister of Finance is incompetent, is intolerable and he does not know what direction and what course this Province is going in and it is time that they spend their money wisely and it is time for the Minister of Finance to tell us - and the Minister of Mines and Energy of the situation in Come By Chance and if this government is going to put any money in Come By Chance to save the 600 jobs for the people. It is time for the Minister of Finance to tell us what he is going to do for the Marystown Shipyard of which he is listed as a shareholder; and it is time for the Minister of Finance to tell us how much money is going into the Economic Recovery Commission to pay salaries and to pay for computers bought down in the States some place, not in Canada. That is the type of information we want to know about this money that has been borrowed because what is happening here is all trying to be covered up.

9:20 on a Wednesday night, the Minister of Finance stands up and talks about borrowing money, Mr. Chairman, but it is time for the Economic Recovery Commission - how much of this money by the way, is going to pay for your buddies to build these - what do you call them, nursing homes - the health care centres in this Province without public tender? The first time in seventeen years that we have seen public tender being abolished, thrown out through the window and the bag man of the Liberal party being looked after; that is what we want to know what is going on with this money -

MR. MATTHEWS: Did you say the bad man or the bag man?

MR. TOBIN: The bag man. That is what we want to know what is going on with this money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude my remarks, but not because of the note I received from the Member for Placentia, and I've got a good mind to table it. I am not sure the Member for Placentia would be -

MR. MATTHEWS: Unparliamentary, is it?

MR. TOBIN: It is very unparliamentary, but I can tell you one thing, it is the best description of the Minister of Finance that I have ever read or have ever heard.

That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the Province the sum of $365,000,000 and the additional sum or sums of money that may be required to retire, repay, renew or refund securities issued under an Act of the Province or that may be paid into the Newfoundland Government Sinking Fund.

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, Clauses 1 to 5, carried.

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

MR. BAKER: Bill 37, Mr. Chairman.

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

DR. KITCHEN: We were trying to amend the Tobacco Tax Act retroactively to June 7, 1989 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Well I mean it depends on you guys too, you know. I cannot do it myself.

We are proposing to amend the Act, making it retroactive to June 1989. What happened was an oversight at that time and we want to correct the anomaly. It will not affect the taxes that are collected because they are collected and have been collected as if this amendment had gone through. So this is really what we are about, amending the Tobacco Tax Act retroactively so that the practise that has been ongoing can continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. BAKER: Order 3, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 3.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act, 1973." (Bill No. 7).

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

MR. BAKER: By leave, (Inaudible) Bill No. 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 5.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, 1973." (Bill No. 9).

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

MR. BAKER: By leave, Bill No. 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 6.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjustors, Agents and Brokers Act." (Bill No. 11).

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

MR. BAKER: Bill No. 12.

On motion, clauses 1 through 17 inclusive, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 18 carry?

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. BAKER: There is an amendment to Clause 18. It is 18(2) of the Bill. It is amended by inserting immediately after the word "employed" wherever it occurs the word "permanently."

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, Clause 18 as amended, carried.

On motion, Clause 19, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 20 carry?

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to Clause 20(1). It is amended by deleting paragraph (b) and by renumbering paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) as paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), respectively, and by deleting the number "5" and substituting the number "7." That is the first amendment to Clause 20, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I had some questions this afternoon that I asked of the Minister of Social Services, and under instructions I guess from the acting House Leader at the time, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Social Services suggested that he would respond to the questions at this point in time. Unfortunately, the Minister of Social Services is not here. So I would just like to briefly touch on some of these questions. I would hope that either the Minister of Health or the President of Treasury Board will provide me with these answers.

In terms of the registration of social workers and what this deals with, what I am wondering is: what will happen to the social workers, who have been given seven years to register, after the seven years is up, if they have not retrained? I would also like to know if there is a retraining package that will be offered by government to these social workers to upgrade. If there will be a training package, what will it be? An assistance package.

I would also like to ask the minister, or whoever is going to respond to this: the minister confirmed this afternoon in the debate, when he introduced second reading, that social workers who are now acting in permanent positions - temporary social workers in permanent positions - can be bumped out or replaced by BSW graduates as they become available. So my question is: What will happen to the social workers, some of whom have been there for six, seven or eight - well up to seven years now - what will happen to these social workers when they are bumped out? Will they go back to the positions they had? I guess that is an option that is there; but some of them have been extremely professional, probably all of them. They have done a good job. They have served the department and the people with whom they have been involved extremely well. I am just wondering what will happen to them.

I guess my big question at this point in time that I want answered is: What will happen when the seven years is up, to the social workers, if they are not upgraded and have not received their BSW?

I would also like the minister to respond to - the registration of social workers is now going to be done, as I understand it, and this is why I ask - will the social workers who are in temporary positions, with these amendments that are coming in, now become RSW's, even though they are only temporary and not permanent?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to at least one of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes, I would like to also.

I would like to respond to at least one of the issues raised by the hon. member. The amendment changes the five to seven. In this bill they were given only five years. Now we are saying seven years. The question asked was, what happens after the seven years?

I do not know, at this point in time, for sure what happens. Obviously, the intent was to get all social workers with professional degrees. That was the intent of the legislation. Seven years allows more time, and hopefully more of the individuals who are there now but do not have their degrees and their professional training, will get it. Seven years will be enough time for them; but undoubtedly there will be some, at the end of that seven years, who do not have it. Maybe the hon. member opposite knows; I do not know the number involved here. I do not know how many there are right now. Maybe he does.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes, but anyway, undoubtedly there may be some at the end of seven years.

I would say to the hon. member that at that point in time, obviously these people have been there a long time doing a job, and during the course of the seven years we will work with them to encourage them to do the courses, to provide opportunities for them to do the courses, through The Public Service Commission, through all the avenues open through The Public Service Commission and so on.

If they cannot be done, what I am saying is that The Public Service Commission will work with these people to examine their career choices at that point in time, and surely something has to be found for these people who have been around doing the job of social worker for so long at that point in time.

I do know that the intent is to have The Public Service Commission work with these people for that seven years to try to get through that period, and to look at alternate positions or whatever, at the end of the period if they cannot do it.

The other main point that the member was talking about, I do not know the answer. I simply do not know the answer. I do not know if the Minister of Health knows the answer. There is some indication from the Member for Burin - Placentia West that maybe the Minister of Health would know the answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Oh, he was using the hobnail boots?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Okay, that was the time when I was out, and he was using hobnail boots. I do not know the answer to the other questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall amendment 21 carry?

MR. BAKER: It is the second amendment to Clause 20, and that is that subclause 20(2). The first amendment related to 20(1). Subclause 20(2) is amended by deleting the number five and substituting the number seven again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall amendment 22 carry?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, Clause 20, as amended, carried.

On motion, Clauses 21 through to 58, carried.

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

MR. TOBIN: Just very briefly. I find it difficult to understand. The President of Treasury Board has stated that I cannot be given the answers to the questions which I asked. Now we are being asked to vote on a piece of legislation which we cannot be provided with the answers. So I would just like to note that for the record.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Association Of Social Workers." (Bill No. 12).

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

MR. BAKER: By leave, Order 23.

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

There is a lot of conversation. I am having difficulty hearing.

MR. BAKER: The Committee stage, by leave of the House, Mr. Chairman, of Bill 23.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 23

Shall Clause 1 carry?

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman, in Bill 23 the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, on behalf of the Minister of Environment and Lands, introduced the Bill. I have some concerns with this Bill. I think it is a good bill. I think it is a very progressive piece of legislation. I am also quite concerned about it.

Section 8.1(1) says: "Notwithstanding section 8...," and it goes on to say that, "... the minister may issue leases or licences of occupation to parts of provincial parks for commercial purposes."

The word "commercial" is a pretty big term. What does it mean? Can someone set up a hair styling place in a provincial park? I think the minister should be specific as to the types of activities. It has to be service oriented for tourists or whatever. You cannot go about just giving a blanket policy as in this one. In addition to that, the proposal as the minister put it forward, there is no provision of how long a lease would be for. Does the Province accrue any revenues from the lease? None of these things are in the Bill.

Specifically I wonder why that if we designated certain parks to have commercial activities, and we identified the type - for example, the one that I am quite familiar with in the Lumsden area in my district, in Windmill Bight. If we determine that an activity that would be quite desirable there would be rental of boats - canoes and paddle boats and that kind of thing - the question is: why wouldn't it be a public tendering process where we would invite bids for people to supply that facility to the park? Instead of just throwing it out. As the minister said, whoever puts in a proposal will get it. I think it needs to be more coordinated than that.

We cannot do the kind of thing. I do not want to see our provincial parks look like old Orchard Beach down in Maine, where you have all kinds of weird and wonderful concessions that have no place in a provincial park. Absolutely no role. I would be quite concerned that we would spoil the inherent natural beauty of some of these parks by becoming too commercial with them. There is nothing in this that prevents this kind of thing from occurring. I think before this Bill needs to be looked at we need to designate the type of commercial activities that we are going to carry out.

I think and feel strongly it should be public tendering. I think it is wrong. It opens the situation up for too much abuse. For an individual to confer with a number of people and say: I am going to put this particular activity in and get a monopoly on it. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It should go through a public tendering process. The Province should look at leases and for certain amounts of money. We should be very specific in the types of concessions that we put in.

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Fogo just really reiterated a case made by the hon. Member for Grand Bank and the other hon. member. We are talking about concessions that make the parks more attractive to the people, that will draw people in, bumper boat concessions, convenience stores, laundromats, sale of baked goods, that kind of thing. We are not talking about putting in oil refineries. We are not going to put machine shops in parks. As far as the concession is concerned as compared to tender, no. What we are doing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. FLIGHT: We are not going to put in oil refineries. What we are doing, Mr. Chairman, is setting up a process where anyone can make an application to provide a service in the park. Whether it is a convenience store, a bumper boat concession, or whatever. A committee of civil servants will take the applications, process them, and make recommendations to government. That's the way it is.

I might also say that there are already concessions operating in certain parks in Newfoundland. They weren't done by public tendering, they were done by receiving applications. That may well happen. You can call a proposal call and then everybody comes in and the best proposal is judged, but it is not on a tendering basis.

So, Mr. Chairman, we are doing it the way it should be done. There is nothing political about this. The civil servants will decide and recommend to the minister the projects that should be approved. The hon. member should be supporting this legislation.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Just a final comment on it, Mr. Chairman. We have been basically supportive of what the minister is attempting to do here, but we do have some legitimate concerns that I think the minister should take into consideration. He should address them with the team of officials, whoever is going to make the decisions. Because even though we want to make our parks more attractive to get more people into the parks, to offer them services and whatever, we have to be careful that we protect, I guess, what environmentalists and parks people would say, that you look to protect the integrity of the park, you don't interfere with natural settings, and so on and so forth, as these people can best describe it.

So even though we want to provide for commercial outlets or concessions that park users may want to avail of -

AN HON. MEMBER: A great idea.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

- we have to protect the integrity and don't take away from parks. We are very fortunate in the parks that we have in the Province. They are not used I think as much as most of us would like to see them used. That is why, I am sure, the minister is undertaking some of these initiatives. But having said that, we don't want to do it at the cost of losing, I guess, the natural beauty, and so on, and some of the characteristics of the provincial parks. I guess that is where we are coming from, and we ask the minister to consider that.

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the comments made by both hon. members, I will see to it that their concerns are relayed to the people who make judgements on these kinds of concessions, or the kinds of things that go into parks. He is right in our desire to protect the integrity of the parks. So we have no problem with the kinds of comments made and the kinds of considerations asked for by both hon. members. I will see to it that their opinions are relayed to the people who make the decisions on the types of concessions that are undertaken, that we allow to locate in the parks.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the following bills without amendment, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act." (Bill No. 23).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation (Newfoundland) Act." (Bill No. 24).

A bill, "An Act To Abolish School Tax Authorities And To Provide For The Collection Of Unpaid School Tax." (Bill No. 28).

A bill, "An Act To Amend Certain Taxation Statutes In Relation To The Payment Or Imposition Of Interest." (Bill No. 29).

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Application And Effect Of Certain Acts Passed In The Present Session Of The Legislature Upon The Revised Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1990." (Bill No. 27).

MR. BAKER: Committee stage, by leave, Mr. Chairman, of Bill 32.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 32, Order 20.

Shall clauses 1 through 32 carry?

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Everything that is going on between the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I am picking it up on this here. I just wanted to -

MR. MATTHEWS: Your mike's left open, see, 'Wins'.

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

MR. MATTHEWS: We don't want to know about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A good point of order.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier today, I asked the minister about some concerns I have about an employee who has been basically asked to work on essentially what has been declared as a public holiday.

The reason I asked the minister - and the minister's answer was not at all suitable today - is last year, during the emergency make-work programs that the minister put in place, the Department of Social Services had some projects that were already ongoing. An individual, I think it might have been November 11, or maybe even Boxing Day, I am not sure of the day, I know it happened during a weekend on which you couldn't get access to anybody, one individual had to work. Another individual doing a similar type of job was told that he could stay home. Now, we can't have that dichotomy. If people working for the Department of Social Services can have the day off, and people working for the Department of Forestry on basically the same type of programs, have to go to work, then that doesn't make sense.

The minister, in this legislation, had an opportunity to designate a regulation that if an individual goes to work on these programs and it is a statutory holiday - then they fall into that day.

I think the Department of Social Services, in fact -

MR. HOGAN: Don't be so silly, boy, that's taken care of in normal management.

MR. WINSOR: No, it is not taken care of! The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs doesn't know.

MR. HOGAN: It is!

MR. WINSOR: It is not taken care of at all.

MR. BAKER: Don't get him riled up, now, (inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: It is not taken care of at all. It hasn't been taken care of. The Minister of Labour today said it is not taken care of. In fact, the Minister of Labour's response today when it was raised was that: we would ask these people to work. If they choose to appeal it, then they would have no choice but to pay them.

MR. HOGAN: He's wrong.

MR. WINSOR: Now, the Minister of Municipal Affairs says, 'He's wrong.' Mr. Chairman, it is certainly a confusion on government's side as to what this regulation is. It is an holiday or it is not an holiday. The way the Department of Social Services operates, I think - or they did - is that you had to have worked, I think, for at least fifteen days prior to that holiday and then you would have the day off with pay. If you had only worked ten days, you couldn't.

Now, it has to be uniform throughout the Province. The minister has a chance here in this piece of legislation to address it, to make sure that when it occurs the next time, as the minister, as sure as the sun is going to come up tomorrow, there is going to be an emergency make-work program this summer. Because if he doesn't then the Minister of Social Services had better have something here looking for more money.

So he is going to have it. Members are going to have to address it. On Friday afternoon, when you cannot get hold of anyone in the Department of Labour, the local sponsor says: No, they have to go to work. The employees say: No, I'm not going to work. Members are forced to try to find someone to give them an answer. He has an opportunity to do it here. So it is time for the minister to define what is a paid holiday and how one qualifies for it.

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just for the purpose of clarification. Because after addressing that issue this afternoon during the second reading, I did check again with officials in the department, particularly the labour standards people, as well as the people in charge of the Emergency Employment Response Program last fall, and the indication was clear that when any of the line government departments were employing people on the job creation program, it was part of the package that every worker had to be guaranteed their entitlement under the Labour Standards Act as part of their job, so that if, in fact, they were entitled, if they were asked - because under Labour Standards you can be required to work on a statutory holiday, but if required to work, then you are entitled to the pay laid out in the Labour Standards Act.

The other choice is to give the person the holiday. It is a paid holiday. If they are required to work they get extra pay and that is the provision that I was guaranteed that the government departments, all of them, are instructed to follow the provisions of the Labour Standards Act with respect to the holiday issue during the period of employment on these job creation programs. It was pointed out that it is possible that some of the sponsoring agents and the sponsoring agencies, not one of the line departments, may have done it a little differently and any worker who felt aggrieved could have had the case resolved and always it would have been resolved in line with the Labour Standards Act. I hope that clarifies it for the member.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the following bills without amendment, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act", (Bill No. 32).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, 1973 and The Liquor Corporation Act, 1973". (Bill No.34).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Election Act Respecting The Holding Of A Plebiscite In The Province", (Bill No. 36).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act", (Bill No. 39).

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

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

I wonder if hon. members would agree, since we have a lot of bills of different types - we have bills with amendments, bills without amendments and bills with resolutions - if hon. members would permit us to divide them that way and that the Chairman would read them three times. I think in that way it would be simpler.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill Nos. 7, 9, 11, 23, 24, 28, 29, 27, 32, 34, 36, and 39 without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill Nos. 7, 9, 11, 23, 24, 28, 29, 27, 32, 34, 36, and 39 ordered read a third time presently by leave.

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

A bill, "An Act Respecting Elections, Controverted Elections And Election Financing." (Bill No. 1)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act, 1973." (Bill No. 7)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, 1973." (Bill No. 9)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act." (Bill No. 11)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act." (Bill No. 23)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation (Newfoundland) Act." (Bill No. 24)

A bill, "An Act To Abolish School Tax Authorities And To Provide For The Collection Of Unpaid School Tax." (Bill No. 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend Certain Taxation Statutes In Relation To The Payment Or Imposition Of Interest." (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Application And Effect Of Certain Acts Passed In The Present Session Of The Legislature Upon The Revised Statutes of Newfoundland, 1990." (Bill No. 27)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill No. 32)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, 1973 And The Liquor Corporation Act." (Bill No. 34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Election Act Respecting The Holding Of A Plebiscite In The Province." (Bill No. 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act." (Bill No. 39)

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill No. 12 with some amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, amendments to Bill No. 12 read a first and second time,

bill ordered read a third time presently by leave.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland Association of Social Workers," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that it has adopted certain resolutions and recommends that Bill Nos. 31 and 37 be introduced to give effect to same.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: We are going to stop the clock.

That is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the Province the sum of $365,000,000 and the additional sum or sums of money that may be required to retire, repay, renew or refund securities issued under an Act of the Province or that may be paid into the Newfoundland Government Sinking Fund.

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

That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

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

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

A bill "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province" (Bill No. 31).

A bill "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act" (Bill No. 37).

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Elections, Controverted Elections And Election Financing" read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 1).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we go through our brief adjournment and take some time to do other things, I would like to first of all thank the members of the Opposition for the help that we have had in the last while, and the consideration of the bills.

It has been a difficult time, and there have been some points of contention that have shown differences that we have in the House and outside. In spite of the points of contention, we got through an orderly process. We have gone through the business of the Province. We have passed the Budget and have gone through some related bills, and bills that needed to be passed before the summer recess, and it could not have been done without the sensible opposition of members opposite, especially the last while. I would like to simply point that out.

I would like to thank the people at the Table for the help they have given us in the last few months, and the security people, the Commissionaires, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Pages, who help make this place run smoothly, and obviously, all members who are behind me here, and to my side, who sometimes cause me a little bit of concern, but most times co-operate fully, and I really appreciate it. Finally, I would like to thank the press gallery. There are always a couple in the press gallery. We would like to see a little more coverage, I think I should point out, of the work of some of the committees of the House, and so on. The press gallery is always there and they report what they see going on in the House. We appreciate their presence. Sometimes we may look like we are speaking to them, and they will take note of that.

Finally, Your Honour, I would like to thank you for putting up with some of the things that have gone on here in the last few months and wish you a very pleasant break, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. DOYLE: Don't forget the Hansard staff.

MR. MATTHEWS: I just want to echo most of the remarks of my good friend the Government House Leader. Yes, the Hansard staff and all those others he has mentioned, we would like to thank them, as well. It seems like a long time ago that we started this. Most of us are, I think, a little bit tired and weary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Old.

MR. MATTHEWS: A little bit older, hopefully wiser. When the now Leader of the Opposition became leader and I became House Leader, we said at the time that we would try to co-operate where co-operation was necessary, and we said that we would criticize where we thought it was necessary to show to the people of the Province the concerns we had about certain government policies, certain legislation, just things they should be aware of. We tried to do that as best we could with the help of the press and other people.

Having said that, I have enjoyed tremendously working with the Government House Leader. We have established a very good rapport for those of you who haven't noticed. We got things done in our own way. I think the Order Paper that we have just dealt with pretty much tells the story.

I want to thank my own colleagues for their support. At times it has been frustrating and so on. I want to thank members opposite. I want to say to the Government House Leader that when he mentioned about the people behind him. I can understand why he would be very, very concerned when he is facing me with the group that he has behind him over there. Of course, tonight I don't have too much to worry about, because I only have my good friend, the Member for Fogo behind me, so I feel pretty safe.

I want to thank Your Honour for your assistance and your indulgence at times. Your job, I must say, Your Honour -

MR. DECKER: He is just passing through, the Member for Fogo.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, we will see all about that, I say to the Minister of Health, about who is passing through now once the people of his district finish dealing with him after the Roddickton issue. We will see who is passing through.

Your Honour, what I was going to say is that there are times that your job has to be a most difficult one because we are all guilty at times of being a bit boisterous, noisy and other things, and quite often we don't come to order as fast as we should. So I fully appreciate that position.

MR. HOGAN: Apologizing.

MR. MATTHEWS: And the Minister of Municipal Affairs continues.

I want to thank the Pages, the people at the Table, and members opposite for - and the press. I thank the press twice. The other thing we have to remember, as some members mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that this could very well be the last time for some of us here. It could very well be.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are right.

MR. MATTHEWS: So I guess we should leave on that note, and take notice that some members opposite have been in and out the common room more frequently tonight than most times. I don't know what that means, but it could very well be that this could be the last time we will be here together, some of us. So I want to leave with that feeling, as well. The Premier may have the nerve to call the election in the fall before we come back, and if that is the case, of course, I am sure we all won't return.

MR. BAKER: No, we will be back.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am very, very sure of one thing, that most members opposite will not return.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as a final show of the unanimity that we have seen around here tonight, I would like to point out there is something that was overlooked. I am told that we really have to do this by consent of the House, to simply say that the Select Committee, with respect to examination of changing the name of the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, be established - it was never formally done, although we had done it publicly here - and that the following members comprise the Committee: Chairperson, the Member for Eagle River, Vice-Chairperson, the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Members of Menihek, Carbonear, Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, Burin - Placentia West and St. John's South. This is what we agreed to some time ago, but it was never formally done. Could we have unanimous consent to cite that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until the call of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Before putting the motion, the Chair would like, on behalf of the Table officers, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Commissionaires and the Pages to thank hon. members for their kind remarks, and for their past co-operation and we look forward to their future co-operation.

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