The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding with the routine business of the day, on behalf of hon. members, I welcome to the galleries today, a delegation from the Town Council of Gambo, in the persons of Mayor Peter Lush and Town Manager, Scott Pritchett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, I welcome to the Speaker's Gallery, Mrs. Grace Sparkes, a member of the Provincial Constitutional Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I extend a warm welcome to thirty-seven Grade XI Democracy students from Queen Elizabeth Regional High School, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Sparkes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I welcome seven students from the School for the Deaf, accompanied by their teacher, John Reade, the National Director of the Association of Canadian Education of the Hearing Impaired, and Jack Jardine, Guidance Counsellor of the School for the Deaf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly concentrated on the agenda today and made sure that I did not miss my turn.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. members of this House of Assembly of changes which will be taking place, effective January 1, 1992, in the Management of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Group of Companies.

As my colleagues are aware, the current Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hydro, Mr. Cyril Abery, is retiring at the end of December. Mr. Abery is a very able individual who occupied various executive positions in the Newfoundland Public Service during the past twenty-five years. I am sure that all hon. members will wish to join me in thanking Mr. Abery for his diligent and dedicated service and wish him well in his retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, in light of the changing priorities of the Hydro Group, and after a review of the existing senior management structure, Government has decided to change the current structure at this time. We have decided to appoint a President and Chief Executive Officer as the senior operating officer of the Hydro Group of Companies, and we have decided to appoint a non-management external Chairman of the Board who will be a member of the Boards of Directors but will not be a full-time employee of the Hydro Group.

In doing this, Government accepted a unanimous recommendation of the Board of Directors of Hydro which reviewed this matter for me in the past months, since Mr. Abery announced his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. members of this House that Mr. David Mercer, who is currently President of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, has agreed to assume additional responsibility as President and Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its subsidiaries, the Lower Churchill Development Corporation and Gull Island Power Company, as well as Chief Executive Officer of Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation. Mr. Leo Cole, who has been President of Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation since 1989, will continue in that position, reporting to Mr. Mercer as the CEO.

Mr. Mercer is a native Newfoundlander who received his early education at Bishop Field College. He subsequently received a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) Degree in Economics from Memorial University of Newfoundland and a Master of Arts Degree, also specializing in Economics, from Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. Mr. Mercer held a number of executive positions in the Newfoundland Public Service between 1966 and 1975 when he agreed to join the newly created Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro organization to become its first Vice-President of Corporate Planning. Since joining Hydro, Mr. Mercer, has held a number of senior executive positions, and is presently a member of the various Boards of Directors of the Hydro Group of Companies.

I am sure that the hon. members of this House will join me in wishing Mr. Mercer continued success in fulfilling his new duties with the Hydro Group of Companies.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the position of Chairman, I propose to make a further statement within the next few weeks, after we have made a decision on a person to fill this very important position.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: I thank the minister for giving me a copy of his statement in advance. I, too, would like to express my very best wishes to Mr. Abery, whom I knew when I worked in the Premier's Office and when he was in Intergovernmental Affairs. He is a person who has given many years of his life to the Public Service of the Province. As for the new appointment of Mr. David Mercer, and, likewise, Mr. Leo Cole, I have had occasion to meet and have dealings with both of these individuals. I have no doubt as to their competence and I fully endorse their appointments, as listed. I wish them well in the task ahead.

With regard to the policy change of no longer having the Chairman as the Chief Executive Officer, I guess only time will tell as to whether or not that will be a preferable situation. One hopes, however, that this administration will seek a reputable chairman as someone of national or international stature in matters of hydroelectricity and in negotiating hydroelectric contracts etc., that a Liberal hack is not appointed, another patronage appointment and another person to back up the minister on the ongoing litany of statements about the wonderful negotiations we are having with Quebec. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, this will go down in history as a day of great significance. I am pleased to announce that the Government has given approval for the submission of a bill to the House, for the designation of the Atlantic puffin as our Newfoundland Provincial Bird.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in 1987, a national celebration known - Mr. Speaker, would you protect me from the Leader of the Opposition?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in 1987, a national celebration known as Wildlife '87, commemorated 100 years of Wildlife conservation in Canada. As part of the celebrations, The Natural Historic Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, undertook a survey of provincial residents to determine the favoured species for designation as a provincial bird. The survey, which was performed with the assistance of local newspapers, presented a short list of birds that were suitably symbolic and representative of this Province. The list included the common loon, the thick-billed murr, locally known as a turr, the osprey, the eider, the willow ptarmigan locally known, Mr. Speaker, in Fogo, as a partridge, and the Atlantic puffin.

In the voting, the top three finishers were the puffin, the loon and the osprey, in that order, with the puffin having the majority of votes by far.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who voted on that?

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members opposite voted, I am sure their bird would have been the turkey!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, subsequent to the survey the Society requested that the puffin be declared as the Provincial bird but the request was not acted on at the time. The Society recently renewed the request.

The Atlantic puffin is considered to be ideal for declaration as our Provincial bird for a number of reasons:

about 95 per cent of all North America's puffins breed in colonies around the Newfoundland and Labrador coasts;

the puffin nests and winters in waters adjacent to both the Newfoundland and Labrador coasts;

the bird is readily recognizable and well known, and will serve well to promote conservation as well as provide a unique image in tourist promotion;

as people with a strong marine heritage, it is appropriate for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to have a marine bird as our symbol;

since puffin colonies are rare and sensitive to major environmental disruption, they well represent the vulnerability of wildlife and ecosystems.

I want to commend the Natural History Society for their work in advocating the adoption of a Provincial bird. Through their efforts the Atlantic puffin will join the black spruce, our Provincial tree; the pitcher plant, the Provincial flower; and labradorite, the Provincial Mineral, all suitable and appropriate symbols of our great Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to commemorate this historic occasion I will ask the Page to deliver to Yourself, Sir, and to all hon. Members, a puffin lapel pin to be worn with dignity and pride. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, may I take this occasion to wish you, Sir, the staff, the press and all hon. Members a very Merry Christmas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After that earth-shattering statement I am devastated. The only thing I can say to the minister at the outset is that he certainly picked a day that the Premier was not here to deliver this statement. Because I am sure it would not have gone out otherwise.

I have had lots of advice as the minister was delivering his statement. In fact, someone suggested that perhaps he should have nominated the fellow whom we call "Big Bird" who sits in the Government benches as the bird. But what a waste of time, Mr. Speaker, what a waste of time! If the Minister couldn't do anymore than that, after three years, but get up and announce in the House that he was going to have the puffin as the provincial bird, it would be better for the minister to be using his time -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINSOR: The puffin is in full flight there now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the minister couldn't make more constructive use of his time, than waste the time of the House of Assembly in making this statement, 'The bird was a national symbol, a national bird,' then there is nothing to say to it. We welcome the minister's announcement but we wonder why he took five minutes of the House's time to say nothing.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Is the Minister aware that Noranda Mines is scheduled to close its office in Grand Falls/Windsor within the next six months and that all ten positions in that office will leave the town?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have been made aware that Noranda is apparently planning to move its office from Grand Falls/Windsor to Corner Brook.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Noranda just recently - I see the Minister of Forestry's complete amazement at this, the Minister perhaps should have told his colleague - gave a very glowing and positive report about all of its activities in the Central Region, and particularly most of its activities are related up in the Duck Pond/Tally Pond area, can the Minister possibly tell us why the company would ever consider leaving the area in which it has most of its activity, and does he know why?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am as amazed as the hon. the Member for Grand Falls that a decision was made, frankly, because most of the properties that the company is working on are located in the Central area. If they do move to Corner Brook, as the company seems to be indicating, they will still have to travel back to the central area to do their work. So, I am as amazed as you are.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear the Minister is amazed. Now, what is he doing to try to convince them otherwise, number one. Secondly - my first question still stands - can he tell us why they are moving?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot direct a company where to locate anywhere in the Province. That is a corporate decision that they have to make and they have made the corporate decision to move. But as I said, I am as amazed as you are that they have made that decision, because from where I sit their interests still are primarily in central.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I repeat, I ask the minister, has he had discussions with the company and if so can he tell the House why the company is moving?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any personal discussions on the matter. My staff members have. They have indicated to me some possible reasons but I would not want to repeat them right here.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister confirm that one of the reasons may be because of a local preference of a new manager? Is he aware of that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that it is a preference of the new manager that is moving into the Province.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I want to ask the Minister: is it a fact that the grant for the roads component in the municipal grant system - last year, I believe, or this year, it was $1,961 per kilometre - is to be reduced to $899 per kilometre for all municipalities this year?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this question is similar to one that was directed to me several weeks ago. The roads component is being reduced. I am not sure if those figures are accurate as quoted by the Member. I can check that.

But the roads component is being reduced. The reason is that the monies paid out under the other two components, the main components of the grants programme - equalization and incentive - those two portions of the grants program have been increased dramatically, as a result of the formulas that are in place. There is only a given amount of money in the entire grants program. Because of that the final component, the roads component, had to be reduced. But the other components, the two main components, are increased dramatically.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the roads component when we were there a couple of years ago was about $2,000 a kilometre, I believe. Because of amalgamation - what the City of St. John's has to take in in this area now, extra roads in the Goulds in particular; and with their road component grant being reduced from $2,000 a couple of years ago to less than $900 now - does the minister foresee the City of St. John's having to increase its taxes? Because it will not benefit from the other components. They are one of the affluent municipalities. Does he see that the City of St. John's will have to increase its taxes to cover the extra money for these new roads, plus what they lose on their own roads? If so, how much does he foresee they will have to increase their taxes?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, all roads that are deemed as Provincial roads will continue to be maintained and serviced by the Province for a period of five years if they are involved in an amalgamation scenario. There may be some roads in the Goulds area in that context.

Other than that I would have to check the formulas as far as the Goulds being added to St. John's is concerned, the roads component and the households component, which is the other one. There are four components in all. The hon. Member may be right in the fact that equalization and incentive, the first two components, may not show on the plus side for St. John's. I do not know as far as the Goulds is concerned. I would have to check those as well.

But certainly I would expect that they would be increased on the household side, because they are adding households from Wedgewood Park, the Goulds and Metro lands. But again I would have to have those calculations done and report back to the House. I do not know the impact of the roads component per se as far as the Goulds is concerned being added to the City of St. John's. It is something that would have to be calculated.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, there is one road in the Goulds that Highways will continue, that is the main Bay Bulls highway there. Many other roads the City will have to take over.

The Minister today showed some flexibility on the drastic deficit of the Aquarena. He expected at one time it was a couple of hundred thousand dollars, now it looks like it is $1 million. The Minister said that because this showed such a difference he might give the City some money to try to rectify it. If the figures that the minister checks out show that the roads component will - and other grant systems will affect the City drastically by taking in the Goulds will he consider having some money put into the City coffers to try to equalize what the cost will be to the City to help them out over the next four or five years, the road's component and the grant's component?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this particular item has not been addressed as far as the City of St. John's is concerned through the transition process that is in place, my staff and theirs. Certainly, I will check out the impact of the road's component on the City of St. John's by way of the addition of the Goulds roads and see what impact is involved. I have said consistently all along, Mr. Speaker, that if there is an unfairness that can be shown and proven in the amalgamation, in this case the annexation of the Goulds and Wedgewood Park, I would address the unfairness and make recommendations to Government. If that happens to be the case here I will do the same.

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

MR. TOBIN: As this Government continues to push, bully, and force amalgamation upon the people of this Province who do not want it in various communities, can I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs what is the status of the proposed amalgamation, and indeed the recommendations of his Assistant Deputy Minister, and one other person, as it relates to the Burin, Lewin's Cove, Port au Bras, Mortier, Fox Cove proposal?

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

MR. GULLAGE: The first part of this question, Mr. Speaker, is totally false. Amalgamation is being well received throughout the Province. Three groupings of communities are coming together today. Just today elections are being held in three groupings. Some nine communities are being amalgamated to form three new towns. We have had great success and, of course, the Opposition is not happy with that, needless to say. As far as the area the member mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we have some twelve to fourteen groupings of communities that I have recommendations now prepared for Government and I would expect that decisions will be made over the next few weeks as to whether or not amalgamations will proceed. One of those groupings is the grouping he mentioned.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are aware that amalgamation is being accepted. Every time we turn on the radio we hear Mount Pearl, the Goulds, and Wedgewood Park singing the praises of the minister on his proposals. Also Mount Moriah and the rest of them. In a letter the Premier wrote to the Mayor of Lewin's Cove he said: I assure you that if the majority of the residents of Lewin's Cove are opposed to being amalgamated with any surrounding municipality then the issue will not be forced.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister will the residents of Lewin's Cove make the decision as to whether or not Lewin's Cove will be amalgamated? Will the Premier's comments, Mr. Speaker, be his word or will they be just negated like everything else he has done?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, that is a decision that has to be made by Government at the end of the day. I can only make recommendations as a minister to Government and Government ultimately will decide. We have said consistently now, the Premier and I, whenever we have spoken on amalgamation, that if there is a community that dissents given amalgamation scenario, whether it be one, two, or more communities, depending on the size of the grouping, that we would have a debate in the House of Assembly. We would not make a decision in isolation to the House. We have followed that statement throughout the amalgamation recommendations and decisions so far. I cannot say to you what the outcome will be as far as Lewin's Cove is concerned. That will depend on a decision that has to be taken by Government.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister. It is not what the minister is saying, it is what the Premier and the Leader of the Government have said to the people of Lewin's Cove, and that is: I assure you that if the majority of residents of Lewin's Cove are opposed to being amalgamated with any surrounding municipality then the issue will not be forced. Let me ask the Minister, does he not recognize the petition that has been presented, signed by 99 per cent of the people of Lewin's Cove opposing amalgamation? Is that what the Premier is referring to when he says, if the people of Lewin's Cove are opposed? Or are the people of Lewin's Cove and the council wrong in assuming that they will not be amalgamated because they have accepted the word of the Premier as honourable?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the feasibility process that we have been through with some forty-two groupings in all, in the Province, 110 communities, is to find out how the people feel, how the communities feel, how the councils feel about the amalgamation proposed in every given scenario. We have also had, on top of that process the hearings and the consultations, the dialogue and so on, we have also had public meetings, we have had petitions and whatever.

Mr. Speaker, under the Municipalities Act, the feasibility process does not recognize petitions per se, because they do not speak for the elected people in the area. A petition could literally be signed I would suggest - people will sign almost anything if you go to their door. They do not always look at the content, they do not often even hear what is being said - yes, I will sign it and they are gone - so, Mr. Speaker, the process is one of following the feasibility study. At the end of the day, if the feasibility study results in the commissioner's recommending amalgamation as the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker, then a decision has to be made by the Government.

Now, whether or not we will look at a petition as opposed to the results of a feasibility study is a question that the Government has to address. I can only make recommendations as the minister, and my recommendations, Mr. Speaker, based on a feasibility process and recommendations by commissioners and then eventually, Mr. Speaker, recommendations from the minister, and the Government then has to make a decision.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I gave the Minister of Health a little bit of notice on this question as a matter of fact, in the interest of getting some accurate information. Now, the minister is aware that at least one case of bacterial meningitis has been reported in the local media over the last number of days, and in the interest of getting some information out on this very important matter to the general public, I wonder if the minister could indicate if this is the first case of its type this fall?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of sickness and disease and illness is a very delicate, sensitive issue and Government has to be very careful when we get directly involved, and we have a professional group of people out there who are administering the health care system and who have a protocol which they follow, so therefore I will answer the question in very general terms, and confirm for the hon. member that indeed there has been a case of meningococcus disease in the Province this fall.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main, on a supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: I thank the minister for his answer. Last year, when the problem occurred, the department sent its medical officers, I believe, out around the Province to conduct an education program, informing parents and students of that disease. Is such a program taking place now to inform people of the symptoms of the disease and if not, will there be such a program so that people will get faster medical diagnosis?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not quite right, and I am not trying to say his information is wrong, but it is a little bit off, though. There is a protocol which public health officials follow when a case of meningococcus disease is diagnosed - that disease is one of those which is immediately reported to the public health officials, and then they meet with the relatives or the friends of the person and they immediately administer a prophylaxis, and in some cases where the population will ask for information.

Now, I think the hon. member is referring to Mount Pearl school last year, somewhere on the West Coast where the public health doctor went out and explained to the people what the disease was all about and what the Public Health Department does, they will target certain groups and where the need is perceived or real, they will go in and explain to the people just what kind of a disease they are dealing with and they will explain the various treatments for such a disease. That service is available 365 days a year to people who ask for it and in certain cases last year, for some reason this issue had a lot of media attention and I believe some people in the Province, in certain places were scared. They were probably unnecessarily scared, in some cases, but where the need arises, targeted groups are given information if they want it. This is available whenever people want it, but there is no education program per se where we go out and educate about this disease.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. At the recent Fishermen's Union Convention, the federal Minister of Fisheries announced the creation of a task force to study, and I quote: 'What should be done with respect to catch failures, and how we can get a better system to deal with them, and to deal with fishermen's income than the present fishermen's UI system alone.

I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries could advise the House whether he has been informed of this initiative, and what involvement his department and the Province will have in this task force?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I have not been officially notified of that initiative that the federal minister announced at the convention, but I can tell the House that considerable work is being done now by officials of the Provincial Government with respect to a proposed plan. In fact, we had a meeting on it one day last week and discussed the matter. That group will be making contact with Mr. Crosbie, and hopefully, can work with his committee, if and when it is structured. I guess that is about all I can say on it at this point in time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could the Minister of Fisheries tell the House whether or not his department, or other departments of Government, have commissioned any studies with respect to this, and , in fact, other than discuss the nature of management boards, whether they have developed any concrete proposals or propositions with respect to income support for fishermen?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the group that I referred to a moment ago are now putting together some positions for the provinces to consider with respect to some kind of a guaranteed income for fishermen, especially. I expect when that is ready for presentation it will be announced in the House.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy. There is a piece of legislation before our House today that indicates that the Hydro Corporation can defer certain costs had in 1991 onto the years following - 1992, etc. - in the calculations it needs to make, I guess, to make presentations before the Public Utilities Board. Would the minister care to indicate the nature of these costs that are being allowed to be deferred?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, 1991 is the final year of the phaseout of the PDD subsidy that used to be paid for Government, and the amount that is left there is the final amount in the phaseout.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, on a supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the minister is still indicating that even though we might have a deferral, in due course, people of the Province will have to pay the piper the full tune for the cost of that phaseout of that particular subsidy, be it 1992, 1993, or whenever. Is that the case?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: From now onwards, Mr. Speaker, the electrical rate payers of the Province will be paying for the full cost of electricity, including the former subsidy which is now discontinued. It will not continue beyond 1991.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Over the last two or three months, the minister has made a number of announcements with regard to regional recreational facilities in this Province. The only one that was excluded, which had a feasibility study done that had previously been approved, was one for Fogo Island. I met the minister on two occasions to discuss it. The minister had promised to report on the feasibility study. Can the minister indicate when he is going to have a report done on the feasibility study for Fogo Island's recreational complex?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member refers to a report that I said I would get for him explaining why Fogo Island was not approved, and I will see that that report is made available to the member.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the minister, it was three weeks ago that we met, and two weeks ago you said you would have the report. Let me ask the minister this, then: Is he prepared to go to Fogo Island to discuss the contents of the report with the Regional Stadium Committee in place there, and tell them why the minister denied them funding, the only one in the Province that had a feasibility study done that was approved prior to this Administration taking power, and theirs was the only one that was rejected? Is the minister prepared to go to the island and discuss it with them?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, that may have been the only one, at the time that we took Government, to have a feasibility report done, but I am not sure of that. Certainly, all of the applicants - and there were some twelve or thirteen applicants for regional recreation facilities - substantially all of them, had feasibility studies done at the time of decisions being made.

Certainly, I will meet with the councils on Fogo Island, whatever it takes. I do not know whether it is necessary to go down there or not. If that is necessary, I will do that, as well. But I am certainly more than willing to meet with them or meet with the recreation commission, whoever is responsible.

I might remind the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that I have already had discussions with a lot of those councils. The Town of Fogo was in just this morning, as a matter of fact.

MR. FLIGHT: They did not tell the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you there, Sam?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: It is not as if I am unwilling to meet with the councils, Mr. Speaker. I am more than willing to meet with those councils at any time to discuss this topic or any other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the operation that was proposed for Fogo Island was done by a Stadium Committee made up of representatives of all people on the island, and one council does not speak for the entire island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Let me ask the minister then: Is the minister saying that he is prepared to go to Fogo Island, to sit down with the Stadium Committee to discuss the relevant issues in this matter and, if so, when is he prepared to go?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the member, in case he has forgotten, that we have in this Province some 550 municipalities. If, every time I was requested by a member, I were to go and visit a community, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly never ever be in this House, and I would never be in my office.

So, my answer, Mr. Speaker, is: If it is necessary to go to Fogo Island, I will go. In the meantime, I will discuss the matter with all of the communities at any time, as I did this morning and as I will do with the other communities, if they so request. If it is necessary to travel down there, I will do that, as well.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education. Now that the House has rammed Bill 38 through and has swallowed up the Marine Institute, I wonder if the minister will tell us if the tuition fees for the next educational year for students who attend Marine Institute and Memorial University will be the same, now that the institute is really a part of the university, or will there be two different fee structures?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the fees will not be the same. It is my understanding that there may be some increase in fees that would normally occur, but the fees will be individual to the programs that are designed by the institute, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister will tell us: Will there now be two -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: I wonder if the minister will tell us, Mr. Speaker, if there will now be two student councils, one representing the Marine Institute Division and one representing Memorial University, or will there be just one student council representing all the students?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of knowledge of the educational system, but these are the kinds of things that must be worked out by students and by the institutions.

Mr. Speaker, this action by the Government was a very positive action. This was a very positive step forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would like to have done some of these things when he was the minister or when his colleagues were in Government, but they did not do it. They know it is the right decision. We are going to do it right and we are going to work out the details over the next two or three years of these kinds of initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to make sure that the identity of the Marine Institute remains, that its programs will be enhanced, that students will be protected, and I assure you, it is going to be good for this Province and for the students.

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

MR. HEARN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to the minister, what we are worried about is that they do what the Premier and himself promised the students they would do. We see him waffling on that right now.

Let me ask the minister, then: will there be a separate board of directors for the Marine Institute Division or will there be just one board of directors that (inaudible) responsible to, or dealing with the Senate - the Board of Regents, I should say.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, yes, I do know. The legislation provides for an advisory board specific to the industry. In addition to that, we have added to the Board of Regents, two well-known persons who represent various aspects of the fishing industry. All members of the Board of Regents are knowledgeable about one of the main industries in this Province.

But this year when we replaced the Board of Regents, we added two persons to bring to that body - in addition to the advisory board to the president on marine and fisheries matters - Dr. Ches Blackwood, with a distinguished career in marine and fisheries in this Province, and Mr. Earl McCurdy. We think these are two excellent appointments to the Board of Regents of Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Would the minister indicate that the Government will not be forcing the amalgamation of Corner Brook with Massey Drive and Mount Moriah during 1991 or 1992, either because the Government will abandon the proposal altogether or because the Government will defer it beyond the end of 1992?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, discussions are ongoing with Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah as they are with the other groupings that remain for decisions to be taken. As to whether we will have an amalgamation take place, in the near future or in the long term, is difficult to determine. The discussions are going very well and if it is decided that amalgamation is in the best interest of the people of the area, we will proceed. If it is not in the best interest of the people of the area, we will not proceed. But those decisions have yet to be taken.

I have a recommendation in the process which will not be forwarded to Government. I will not bring it to Government until I am satisfied that the decision is the right one. I do have discussions coming up with those three towns very shortly, within the next week or so. We are getting very close to a decision but one is not made as yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS the lack of representation by women in the House of Assembly, reflects the inequality of women in society and political parties have to date been unable to provide a means or mechanism to resolve the gross inequality of representation; AND

WHEREAS gender balance achieved by having an equal number of men and women would provide greater democracy and lead to policies and laws which would remove barriers to equality of men and women in society; AND

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has experienced representation by more than one member per district as part of its political history which form of representation can be adapted to achieve gender equality.

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly support the principle of representation by two members per district, one man and one woman, without increasing the number of Legislative seats; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a Committee of the House be established to report to the House on the methods and time-table to be adopted to implement the new form of representation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Ferryland asked a couple of questions to my colleague, the Minister of Development, concerning the Offshore Development Fund, and since my colleague is absent today, and I am the minister responsible for that fund, I would like to reply.

First, he asked for a financial review of the fund and I would like to state that the total allocation in the fund to date, the total projects approved to date is $252.4 million out of the $300 million fund, that leaves noncommitted $47.6 million. The expenditures or cash flow to date, of the $252.4 million committed is $124 million, that is the total cash flow to date.

The second question related to job creation issues. The objective of this fund was not to create jobs, permanent jobs directly from the expenditures made, but instead to establish the educational, research, industrial and social infrastructure which would place the Province and its residents in a better position to capture future economic benefits of offshore development. As such, Offshore Development Fund expenditures were not monitored specifically for employment creation statistics. As well, in practical terms it would be extremely difficult to determine the true extent of jobs created from the Offshore Development Fund Investments due to the fact that in almost all cases, the fund provided only a contribution towards total project cost, that is, it would be all but impossible to track the exact number of jobs created in relation to development of the Hibernia project, for example, with Government contributing $95 million from the fund out of, about a $400 million expenditure.

Having said this however, it is safe to assume that expenditures made under the fund have created or maintained many jobs for local companies supplying the goods and services required to complete the twenty-one projects already approved. Thank you.

MR. BAKER: Order 25, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: "An Act To Establish An Advisory Council On The Economy". Is this an adjourned debate or is the hon. minister introducing it? It is second reading.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Establish An Advisory Council On The Economy" (Bill No. 61)

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill to put together two bodies, two advisory bodies that existed previously last year. The first was the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador that has been in existence for quite some time, the second body is the Economic Recovery Commission Advisory Council, and over the last year and a half, it has been discovered that perhaps much more efficiency can be achieved and valuable work done if both bodies were put together into one unit, so, Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is, really to replace The Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Economic Recovery Commission Advisory Board by one body called, An Advisory Council on the Economy, and this very brief bill simply does that. This, has in fact in reality in the working of these two boards, this has already been done and it was done with the agreement of both boards and the membership was taken some from one board, some from the other so that the total membership now is only half of what both boards together once were. Mr. Speaker, it is simply to put into law something that in fact has happened voluntarily by these two boards.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few brief words on the legislation. As the President of the Council points out, of course, the act will come into force, retroactive to May 10, so the reality is that this situation that is alluded to in the bill has already been in place for six, seven, or eight months now, or whatever it has been. We have no real difficulty with it.

I presume the minister can tell us, when he closes debate, that the new Advisory Council on the Economy is working productively. I do not know if he knows the cost saving. I am not sure what it cost to operate the Economic Council of Newfoundland nor the Economic Recovery Commission Advisory Council. I do not know what the costs were. I cannot remember now, but presumably one of the arguments in eliminating those two bodies, in creating this new creature, was not only for efficiency, but presumably would also show some cost savings. I do not know if the minister knows the answer to those questions, but if he does he can perhaps give us a ball park figure. I am not looking for the exact amount, or anything of that nature.

The only other thing I will say is that I suppose the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador - I have a soft spot in my heart for that particular body because when it was created it was created to try to give Newfoundland and Labrador some more presence, additional presence to what it was receiving from time to time when economic councils from outside of Newfoundland and Labrador periodically gave their quarterly reports. I refer to APEC, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, which periodically gives a report on the economies of Atlantic Canada. They would have included Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Conference Board of Canada. I think, originally when we established, that is the previous administration, established the Economic Council, one of the reasons was we wanted to have our own body advising the Government on economic matters, and we wanted to give it a bit of a presence, try to put it in the same ball park, if you want, with other bodies like APEC, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. And why not?

I remember that that council, when it was functioning, provided some good advice to the Government, some very good advice. In fact, we frequently as a Cabinet, I remember, met with the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we frequently took their advice. In fact, we frequently included in our budgetary decisions and announcements some of the recommendations made by the Economic Council, some of which, by the way, this administration have turned around and changed because they were not working as well as we had hoped they would, nor as well as the Econonic Council had recommended to us that they would.

What is rather ironic about it all, of course, is that the Chairman of the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador that used to exist, is the same Chairman now of this new Advisory Council on the economy, I believe. Who is Chairman of this new Advisory Council? Is it Harold?

AN HON. MEMBER: Harold.

MR. SIMMS: Who was Chairman of the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador when it was initiated.

MR. BAKER: That goes back some time.

MR. SIMMS: When it was started, is what I am saying. The same person who chaired the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador was Harold Lundrigan, you see, for the first several years of its existence. The same person who chaired that now chairs this, a man of impeccable integrity, great character and good knowledge, a business person whom I have a lot of respect for.

MR. DECKER: Otherwise he would not have come through (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, you see, we had appointed him and so you knew how good he was. I have no idea what his political leanings are and it is totally irrelevant to the new Government, I know, because they don't practice any partisanship any longer. They make no patronage appointments or no political partisanship.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about contracts?

MR. SIMMS: No, they are not partisan in their dealings with contracts. They do not appoint former members of the Legislature, defeated Liberals, to public service positions. They don't do any of that stuff. A non-patronage, non-partisan, non-political Government is what we have over there, Mr. Speaker, on that side, and this Advisory Council on the Economy is a perfect example of the way that they operate. They appointed, as Chairman of this Council, the same person that we, the Progressive Conservatives, appointed as Chairman of the Economic Council.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, there is not much more you can say about it, it is already in effect since last May. So, there is not much point in standing here and wasting the time of the House. We will see in due course and over a period of time how well this new Advisory Council performs, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to address this bill with some brief remarks. I have no difficulty, in general, with the principle of the bill. I know that the Government does need economic advice as well as it needs all sorts of other advice. It does not particularly bother this party, Mr. Speaker, whether it is called the Advisory Council on the Economy or the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador. It certainly is integrated with the other initiatives of the Government in terms of its activities, and I have no difficulty with that.

What I do say, Mr. Speaker, is that missing from the Government's initiatives in this area is some leadership in terms of the economy. We have seen, even today, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries, in terms of the economic problems of the fishermen - this Government, even though it has been in for two-and-a-half years is still getting together, perhaps, some ideas, that they will propose to the Federal Government about catch failure programs and income support programs for fishermen. They even left it, Mr. Speaker, to the Member for Eagle River to come to this House with a resolution on guaranteed annual income or some form of income support for fishermen, rather than having a government initiative in that area.

We don't see, Mr. Speaker, the kind of initiative one would expect from the Government of Newfoundland in these tough economic times, initiatives that would insist, Mr. Speaker, that the kind of Confederation that we have, the kind of economic policies being pursued by the Federal Government, would be under very, very strong attack, I would expect, Mr. Speaker, if this Government was serious about providing economic leadership to the people of this Province. We have seen them react with their budgets by cutting back on expenditures in areas that Newfoundlanders need to have increases in expenditures in order to be able to participate more fully in the Canadian economy, both as individuals and as a Province. We have seen also massive layoffs in the public service, again, where the public services in this Province are significantly less than they are in other Provinces.

Instead of tackling those problems by means of a critique of the Canadian economy, a critique of the transfer payments, even recently we have had the Provincial Government through the First Ministers of the Atlantic Provinces decline to critique the Federal decrease in transfer payments, and rather chose to do very little about that issue.

When of course we recognize, in this Party, that one of the principle problems that Newfoundland faces as a Province, as a Government and as a Provincial economy, is the inability of its economy, under current economic policies and circumstances, to be able to achieve for its residents the standard of living that Canadians enjoy in other parts of the country. We still have a standard of income which is considerably less than 70 per cent of the national average, when one looks at economic factors, and we do not see any progress in achieving national averages for per capita incomes and these types of economic indicators.

So what we really need from this Government is not another board to give it advice. What we need is the Government to start looking at the kind of policies that it has and looking at the kind of leadership that it is taking. Not only in economic issues, but when we now have the opportunity, through the constitutional debate, to provide some very strong statements to be made by the Premier and by the leaders of the Government on issues involving the protection and the guarantee of having for this Province the ability to deliver on areas such as health, education, other social programs, that would not only guarantee that Newfoundlanders would have the same rights and abilities to have access to the level of health care and education that other Canadians enjoy, but also that - particularly in education - the opportunities that people have to participate more fully in the economic life of the nation, in their own development as individuals to be able to contribute to society, that those opportunities would be maximized.

While that was being done the kind of income support and money that would be required or would be made available to this Government to allow that to happen, that itself would engender a significant economic growth and provide job opportunities for those delivering the programs as well.

So in addition to having an economic council that gives advice what we really need is leadership by this Government. We have seen opportunities pass where the Premier has had a chance to influence the national debate about matters of the Constitution. What we have had instead of some passion about the needs of the people of Newfoundland, we have heard dry legal logic and legal arguments about the nature of the structure of the Senate, or the nature of the structure of the various elements of our society. Ones that have led to a constitutional impasse in the past, instead of dramatic leadership by this Province, showing the rest of Canada what kind of country we need and what kind of interest Newfoundland has in this particular debate.

So I make those remarks to take this opportunity in discussing this bill, to make those remarks and put on the record my extreme dissatisfaction with the Government's lack of leadership in the area of economic issues. Having said that, the bill itself does not do very much other than put the shoe on the other foot and allow the same sort of thing to go on. The Government needs advice as I said, it needs all the advice that it can get. One hopes that they should listen to it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board if he speaks now will close the debate.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all let me briefly deal with the comments from the Member for St. John's East. I find it rather ironic that he is speaking about economic advice and so on, and the Government's need for economic advice, and I would remind this hon. House that his solution to our problems is simply to go out and borrow another couple of hundred million dollars. We can do that, he says, go out and borrow another couple of hundred million dollars and spend it. Let us throw it around and spend it and then that will be the solution to our problems. That is his solution to our economic problems. The Member for St. John's East forgets the fact that even a most responsible Government of this Province could never, ever borrow that much money on current account, to go out and blow around anyway. It is absolutely impossible, number one. Number two it would put our credit rating down below the third world countries. We would never be able to go to the market and get it anyway, and the few pennies we would manage to get on the world market would cost us so much that it would bankrupt the Province. He is talking about bankruptcy, bankrupting the Province as his solution to our economic woes. I do not really listen to his comments on the economy beyond that. I dismiss him as having no understanding of what is happening in this Province or this country in terms of the economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments concerning the hon. Leader of the Opposition and what he said about the bill. He gave a pretty good breakdown of the events leading up to the formation of this particular group. He mentioned that at one point in time the Province relied upon figures from the Conference Board of Canada and from APEC and that his Government thought that perhaps we should have our own local group providing figures for our Government. That was a marvellous decision. That was a very wise decision that the previous Government made. I think he was a little bit kind because one of the reasons why they made that decision was because the research and the information coming from APEC was not of a standard high enough for the Government to accept comfortably.

In the interim, Mr. Speaker, APEC has developed into a first class organization providing a top- notch service to this Province, so we have now used APEC more in the last couple of years, increasingly more, for our economic information, which has proven to be very solid. Right now in terms of APEC there is no need for our own group alone so we are now a more active participant in the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. Mr. Speaker, the expertise and the good idea that members opposite had when they were in Government, and the expertise that was there, is now being used. In the putting together of the Economic Council and the Advisory Board we have retained the expertise, and we have retained the research facilities and so on, and this group is still doing a superb job for the people of the Province. The member asked whether there were any cost savings, and suspected there might be, and he is right there again. This Government is always looking for cost savings wherever they can find them. Mr. Speaker, we have to. In this instance the amalgamation of the two boards saved us in the vicinity of $125,000.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish An Advisory Council On The Economy," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill No. 61)

MR. BAKER: Order 20, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 20, second reading -

MR. BAKER: Could we stop for one second, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, to Order No. 22.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Electrical Power Control Act." (Bill No. 57).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we started the phaseout of the PDD subsidy a little over two years ago, we had to make some amendments to The Electrical Power Control Act back in December, 1989. In making those amendments we had to give the board, the PUB, the right to allow Hydro to defer expenses, during the period of the phaseout, to allow it to have regular adjustment to the rates rather than big, irregular adjustment to the rates. Also, at that time, because we were going to have the regular rate payers pay the subsidy, we had to give Hydro the right to cross-subsidize across other rate payers. At the time the cross-subsidy was expanded to include the Island grid plus industrial customers.

Deferring expenses is not normally allowed in public utility practice, and therefore, it required the amendment. Now, since the PDD subsidy has been phased out, we can go back to the normal practice. Also, since the Labrador grid was excluded in terms of a cross subsidy two years ago, we are also proposing to change the cross-subsidy rules.

Primarily, the amendments being made today to The Electrical Power Control Act will remove the exclusion for Labrador into connected customers regarding the sharing in these rural losses in cross-subsidizing, and secondly, it is going to remove Hydro's right to defer expenses - for costs after 1991.

I can refer specifically to the bill. It is not a long bill. Clause 1 would amend section 2(i) by redefining the definition of rural customers to include new customers who were not previously served by the Power Distribution District. These are new people who have come onto the grid in these rural areas since January 1, 1990.

Clause 2(1) would amend subparagraph 3(c)(ii), by replacing the phrase "cost of service" with the phrase "forecast cost". This change is necessary to reflect the change in the language of the power policy as contained in the 1989 amendment to the Act. This change would make paragraphs 3(b) and (c) consistent with the new provisions, subsection 3(2) and sections 4.1 and 4.2, as contained in this bill.

Clause 2(2) would add a new subsection to clarify the power policy in the case of the Hydro Corporation for the purpose of forecasting costs in relation to electrical rate cross-subsidization.

Clause 3 would repeal and replace the current sections 4.1 and 4.3 so that the Hydro Corporation's right to allocate to other customers the losses it incurs in serving rural customers is maintained, and the Hydro Corporation's right to defer expenses is limited to 1991 - no deferral beyond 1991.

In setting the rates to be charged retailers under the Act, this amendment would also direct the Public Utilities Board to look at the Hydro Corporation's forecast cost and deferred cost under the amendments proposed in clause 1, and the new section 4.1. Section 4.2 of the existing Act is now spent, because the subsidy has been phased out completely.

The final clause of this new bill, clause 4, would repeal section 20 of The Electrical Power Control Act. This section 20 was a transitional provision relating to contracts with retail customers which have now expired. Specifically, this refers to a contract between Hydro and Newfoundland Light and Power which expired more than a year ago.

That is all I have to say at this time, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few brief comments. I have said much over the last year or so with regard to the record of this particular administration and its treatment of hydroelectric rates. Needless to say, its position in Opposition and its position in Government have varied greatly, and electrical rates have increased probably 25 per cent or better since this particular administration came to power.

This piece of legislation we are doing here today is essentially a cleaning up, facilitating piece of legislation, that allowed the Government to pass over a $30 million subsidy that it used to pay to Hydro to pass on to the ordinary ratepayers of the Province. It gives Labradorians the joy of sharing in cross-subsidization which I am sure they really wanted to get in on insofar as it costs them extra money.

But, all in all, we have a Government here that, in terms of electrical rates, have imposed guarantee fees on Newfoundland Hydro's borrowings, payroll tax on both public utilities in the Province; has established a rate stabilization fund which it dips into at will, which has, itself, caused a number of rate increases over the last few years; and more importantly, I think, than anything else, and not directly touched on in this bill, has created the position of a consumer representative, which I think leaves the consumer of electricity at a disadvantage in fighting these kinds of bills that this particular administration brings before this House.

I have said much on this over the last year or so, and, of course, I will be saying more at the next rate hearing Newfoundland Hydro has. I today officially gave my notice as an intervenor against that particular rate increase. That is all I have to say at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, if he speaks now, will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say except that the rate increases that Hydro has received since we started this subsidy phaseout is only 4 per cent at the retail level as a result of its last hearing. That is the only increase and this is the second time it has been back to the Board. Otherwise, I am pleased to move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Electrical Power Control Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 57).

MR. BAKER: Order 23, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act". (Bill No. 58).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill that has been a little while in presentation, related to larger contracts, and has to do with the application of The Mechanics' Lien Act to these larger contracts. It makes special provisions for contracts over $20 million. This is something that, at this point in time, is needed in relation to further Hibernia development, so I am very pleased to introduce this bill.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to address this bill. I wish the Minister of Justice were in his seat because this bill gives rise to a situation that is becoming very common in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I say to the President of Treasury Board, I appreciate that this deals with the larger contract, which is a serious problem; I wish it was expanded to deal with smaller contracts, as well. I am finding many cases today where contracts - and it is all relative. You are talking a $20 million contractor, therefore you are talking a large contractor. So the contractor's ability to finance the amount of holdback that may be involved in a contract of that nature is greater. Nevertheless, the injustice is still there.

Quite often, an owner will hold back 10 per cent of the contract. In that case, it is a $2 million holdback which may be held back because there $100,000 or $150,000 in deficiencies. What I like about this Act, if I read it correctly, is that it provides a sliding scale, where if the deficiency is $150,000 the court may accept those liens, give notice thereof, and provide that some security or cash deposit plus a deposit on cost would be made to secure the lien holder. But it does not tie up $2 million for a year or two years, or in the case of litigation in the courts, even longer.

The reason I wanted to speak to this is because I had a case this summer of a friend of mine who was a contractor, who had a contract probably just over $1 million. For his little company that was the largest contract he had even undertaken. The contact went very well but there was a dispute with the owner and the owner has launched a legal action amounting to just under $1 million which was totally spurious, which anybody who looked at it with any knowledge of construction at all would say, there is not a hope that this particular claim would be upheld by the courts. Even worse, Mr. Speaker, there is no responsibility on that person making the claim to ask the courts for a hearing date. Perhaps my friend for St. John's East, if he is listening, might want to speak to it. The onus is on the complainant to ask for a court date and the defendant in this case was not able to arrange that the matter be brought before court, so here was a holdback of $1 million after the job had been done. And for this little company it almost, literally, put that company into bankruptcy. The owner almost lost all of his equipment and his own home because it came to a point where in order to finance this large project he had to take financing on his own home. He took that risk for the first time in his construction career and he almost lost it all. Mr. Speaker, there has to be an injustice here. In the final agreement it never did get to court. It finally got to the point where the contractor's lawyers advised him, 'Look, this could take so long that you are better off making a settlement.' And I think there was a settlement of $80,000 or $90.000 which was totally unwarranted, but it was better to pay the $80,000 or $90,000 than to leave that $1 million tied up for a year or two, or God knows how long, the end result being that the owner, I think very deliberately and, calculatedly, picked up $90,000 that he or she was not entitled to, simply because the contractor was in a catch-22 situation, there was no way out.

The weakness I see, therefore in this legislation, and obviously the Mechanics' Lien Act is to protect the owner, or to protect sub-contractors who are not happy, so anyone can place a lien. but I am not aware that there is any mechanism in there that if a false lien is placed there are penalties. What onus is there on the person who is applying a lien against the contractor for costs in case this lien is proven to be spurious? Here was a case where $1 million was held up for no valid reason. There may have been some slight argument but certainly it was not $1 million worth. Maybe it was a $20,000, $30,000, or even a $50,000 disagreement on whether or not the work was completed totally in accordance with the contract. Certainly, it was not a million dollar problem but that owner was able to lodge a $1 million action and basically force the contractor to reach a settlement which was totally unjust, totally unreasonable, and totally unwarranted. The contractor said, I either give him $70,000 or $80,000 or I go bankrupt. Now, that is not just to me, Mr. Speaker, and I think the law needs to be looked at very carefully. I wish the Minister of Justice were here to hear what I said. I will refer a Hansard to him and write him on it tomorrow when I get a copy of the Hansard of today because I think it is an issue that needs to be looked at and I am aware that it is happening more and more often. It is not only contracts of $20 million more. The case I related is not specifically relative to this legislation, but it is a similar problem, and I am aware of even some of the larger contractors who are doing $2 million, $3 million contracts that have a 10 per cent holdback, tied up for a long period of time simply because a sub-contractor fails to complete the landscaping or leaves a piece of eaves troughing off a building or something of that nature, and if you have to take action against a subcontractor to get him to complete his part of the work, other than do it yourself, in which case you may be prejudicing your legal case, I do not know, but you may well. But there are cases where contractors are having the same sort of difficulty, in that large amounts of money are tied up for a long period of time.

So, as I read this legislation, I think this is a step forward, but it only relates to the $20 million contract, where that contractor can probably better deal with these problems than the contractor whose million dollar contract is the biggest contract he has ever undertaken and is not in the financial position, does not have depth to handle these types of difficulties. So, in supporting this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Government to look further and to see if, indeed, our legislation does not need to be corrected to solve those inefficiencies and to perhaps come back with another bill in the spring session, which we could put through just as quickly as this one will go through. Because I think it is a good move forward, Mr. Speaker, and I support this particular piece of legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to rise to support the legislation and also to make some remarks on the Mechanic's Lien Act, in general, following on the comments of the Member for Mount Pearl.

First of all, let me say that I support this legislation, because I understand this legislation is designed to facilitate the smoother operation of the Hibernia project, and I would like to commend the Government on making changes in the legislation to allow this project to operate in a smoother way. But, in saying so, Mr. Speaker, I wish to add that it seems that the Government is prepared to respond very quickly in legislative ways to problems that have been identified in areas where the amounts, the people, the players are big and able to make a good case to the Government, and they very quickly get a response to the Mechanic's Lien Act.

I too, would ask that the Government have a look at the most recent study done by the Law Reform Commission of Newfoundland on the Mechanic's Lien Act. It is a very technical piece of legislation, mostly very complex and dealing with the achieving of some balance between contractors, owners and suppliers and working people, who rely on the Mechanic's Lien Act, sometimes as their last resort because the person for whom they worked, went bankrupt or went out of business or they cannot find them and they cannot get paid, so Mechanic's Liens are very important protection for workers and suppliers, Mr. Speaker, in the event of business bankruptcies and that is fairly common in the construction industry.

We have a lot of players, many of whom are not well-established, and it is a pretty risky business to be in, as the Member for Mount Pearl has pointed out. But the Law Reform Commission has done a very extensive study of the Mechanic's Lien Act, and has come up with a number of technical problems that have been identified and that need to be addressed. And I hope that the Minister of Justice will commit his department to a speedy review of the report of the Law Reform Commission and bring forward amendments to prevent the kinds of abuses that can go on; the Member for Mount Pearl has pointed out one where, through legal manoeuvring, a lawyer is able to advise one party that by playing the game a certain way, by playing hard ball on a contract, you can force a settlement where one is not justified.

There ought to be, Mr. Speaker, some flexibility there where, if there is evidence that that is going on, someone can go in the court and make the case to the judge and have a power to discharge the requirements of a holdback or set it at a certain amount to cover the particular claim, or provide other security by way of a bond or otherwise to replace the holdback. Because, as the member has said, there are many contractors, many small businesses in this Province who would be reluctant to get involved in a contract where the financial requirements were so onerous as to cut into the profits to the point where it is not worth competing. If this Government has decided, Mr. Speaker, to open up the bidding to all over the Atlantic provinces for projects over $25,000, then we are going to have, perhaps, all the more reason why businesses in this Province ought to be able to have more flexibility in dealing with the technical requirements of contracting in order to be able to be in the business altogether.

So, we do have to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that while we support, in this case, a measure that would assist the larger contractors on large projects such as Hibernia, to be able to have a more efficient means of dealing with holdbacks, I would like to see, for the support of small businesses in this Province, a more flexible obligation in the area of mechanics' liens. If the Minister is prepared to commit himself to a speedy review and bring some measures back into this House in the spring session, that will assist them.

So, Mr. Speaker, because this bill will facilitate the operation of the Hibernia project, which this party supports the implementation of in a proper and sensible manner, then I would support the principle of this bill and be happy to see it given second reading today.

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

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the excellent suggestions that have been offered by members opposite, and I will certainly be taking the matter up with the Minister of Justice and ask him to have a look at Hansard, as well. So, hon. members can also write him to remind him, and perhaps some extra good can come of this.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 58)

MR. BAKER: Order 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 20.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, 1977 (No. 3)." (Bill No. 47)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take some time to introduce Bill 47, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act." I will try not to belabour the point, but I do believe it is fairly significant because of the long history attached to a number of the issues that are contained in this bill. There has been a troubled past relating to certain aspects of labour relations as it relates to the construction industry and the whole issue of double-breasting which is dealt with in this bill. It has been a bit of a difficult area that has been under review for some time. So, I would like to take a few minutes to mention some of the details of the bill to the House and to read it into the record.

Last year, in the spring sitting of the House, Mr. Speaker, a similar bill was here under the title and numbered as Bill 26. Bill 26, which addressed the same issues that are here in Bill 47, went before the Legislative Review Committee last winter, which was so capably chaired by the hon. Member for St. John's South. Because of the significance of the matters contained in the bill, Mr. Speaker, the Committee took this particular bill and the contents of it on the road, went into Labrador West, travelled the Island and provided more than adequate opportunity for all those who have a vested interest in this area to make their views known with respect to the changes that were proposed in the then Bill 26.

With the report of that Legislative Review Committee in hand, Mr. Speaker, I then commenced, beginning immediately upon my appointment to this particular portfolio in June, to have a series of meetings with the major players that had a specific interest in the revisions contained in the clauses of this bill. As a result of the recommendations from the Legislation Review Committee, all of which are incorporated in the changes in this bill, except for one - there is still one outstanding, and I fully expect that the Opposition critic and so on would have some remarks - but I fully expect, because of the extensive consultation that was undertaken and the extensive representations that were made to the Legislation Review Committee, that the Chairman of that Committee, the hon. Member for St. John's South, might also make a few comments on this bill.

Because each of the recommendations of that Committee which endorsed the changes that were being proposed in the bill are incorporated in the new Bill 47, and there is one outstanding recommendation. That Committee recognized in its travels that other than the specific items that we are trying to address in these revisions to The Labour Relations Act, in Bill 47 now, there are a number of other outstanding issues that have been under review for some time that still need to be addressed by the government of the day. The Review Committee's final recommendation was that there would be either a task force or a royal commission established to look at labour legislation generally in the Province, so that Government could take advantage of some expertise in the area to look at the basic principles and philosophy of its labour legislation, as to what it is intended to accomplish and whether or not the 1977 Act - which has been amended several times - now meets the intent of the basic policies, philosophies and principles that The Labour Relations Act was originally put together to address.

So we are still looking at under what kind of a guise or in what kind of a description that total review would take place at some later date. Whether that total review will be a task force, a royal commission, a one-person study group or something of that nature. But that is the only recommendation of the Review Committee that has not been dealt with directly to this date, Mr. Speaker.

In the consultation process we had meetings over the summer - more than one meeting with each of these groups - with the Newfoundland and Labrador Construction Association;, Newfoundland and Labrador Employers Council; the Newfoundland Construction Labour Relations Association; the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour; the local branch of the Canadian Federation of Labour; the Newfoundland and Labrador Non-Union Construction Association; the Building Trades Council; the individual unions that wanted to come in and point out particular items in the legislation that were of concern to them; the individual employers and representatives of businesses that had concerns that they wanted to express directly instead of going through their representative agency, whether it be the Employers Council or the Board of Trade and so on.

As a result of that consultation and looking at the recommendations of the Review Committee, there were enough changes agreed to by Government once I made a presentation to them that rather than bring in amendments in Committee stage to Bill 26, which was on the order paper, the changes and amendments were significant enough that we brought in a new bill which is the one that is before the House now, Bill 47.

Those changes are continuing, actually. I give notice now, and I will provide copies as well to the Opposition critic, that in Committee stage of this bill there are three other minor - wording changes, I guess. Nothing in terms of principle. But because the consultation is continuing even to this day - there was a meeting held yesterday with the affected and interested groups - that there are some minor wording changes that I will give you notice of. You can study to see that they think the words will flow better. Nothing changes in the principle or the idea or the intent in the Act. But some wording changes have been looked at even since we drafted Bill 47 some month or so ago in relation to the previous consultation.

Just to read into Hansard for the record the basic changes being contemplated, proposed and put forward for ratification in this Bill before the House, there are five major areas addressed in terms of changes to The Labour Relations Act at this time. The first one relates to the functioning of the Labour Relations Board. The appointment of the Chair is intended to change from the current two year appointment to a five year appointment. Some representations even suggested that the appointment should be for a period of up to ten years so that these people could be put into the positions and do the work without interruption and without undue pressure and so on, and to remove the uncertainty so that they could operate in the Chair - the most important, essential Chair of the Labour Relations Board - to deal with certification requests coming through on behalf of employee groups. So that will go from two years to five years.

There are also adjustments to the appointments of the members to the Labour Relations Board, again maintaining the balance of employee and employer representation, but removing some of the arbitrary specification of 'one of these' and 'one of those' types of things that is in the existing act. So it will just make for a smoother functioning of The Labour Relations Board and provide more continuity and security in the position of the chairperson and vice-chairperson of The Labour Relations Board.

With those changes incorporated, it is fully expected that the Labour Relations Board would be a much more smoothly functioning body than it is right now, even though they have done a good job in the past year or so of clearing up a backlog of matters that are before the board for adjudication, and are now, in the latest report, well on top of things. There are very few, if any, delays and even though people are expressing some trepidation that the changes contemplated in this act might cause for a rash of activity before the board, as people try to sort out the new arrangements and make requests to the board for their judgement, that there might be a flurry of activity as people adapt themselves to the new rules of the game as it were; if that is the case I have given assurances to all parties involved that under the act we would make hasty appointments of additional members, and additional vice-chairs to the board if required, to assure that there is no unnecessary or undue backlog as a result of changeover to the new rules and procedures that are contemplated in these changes, as outlined in Bill 47.

The second item dealt with is the appointment of a jurisdictional umpire. There are, from time to time, jurisdictional disputes in certain construction sites, and the bill gives rise to the appointment of a jurisdictional umpire who, that one person, would make a speedy resolution and determination as to which group, which certified bargaining group, should properly do the work that is being contested. We feel very strongly that the appointment of a jurisdictional umpire at this time will go a long ways toward alleviating some of the difficulties that are experienced from time to time at construction sites, as one union or the other has some disagreement over who actually should be doing which portions of the work.

There is also a stipulation which clears up the designation of special projects and is necessary, actually, because it makes a clarification so that the kind of arrangement that is currently proceeding at Bull Arm, in relation to the Hibernia project, would be given firmer Legislative approval, and would be put in place for other such special projects in future, particularly as it relates to the time line and the classifications.

A fourth major item contemplated in this act and proposed for ratification relates to the concept of multi-trade bargaining. We have discussed this fully with employer and employee representatives, particularly in the construction industry. Again, while there is some expression of uncertainty as to whether or not it will work in our environment, most people have expressed some degree of comfort due to the fact that in section 70.17 of the new act, it spells out clearly that the multi-trade bargaining will be done as a pilot project, as a trial run, as a test, and at the end of one round of such bargaining, the whole process will be fully reviewed by the minister, with input and consultation to determine whether or not it has been an improvement in terms of the current rules, whether it has shown no difference, or whether it has been actually detrimental in the construction industry. Then, based on that assessment, it will be determined whether or not this provision stays in the act and multi-trade bargaining continues on, or whether we will revert to the current bargaining of trade by trade bargaining.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Bill 47 deals with the whole notion of declaration of common employer. It point out, due to the consultation again, that a common employer can be declared and shall be declared by the Labour Relations Board upon application, provided that in the opinion of the board, as spelled out in section 88.1(4) that there has been some infringement of bargaining rights held by a trade union, in respect of the members that it represents, or that in fact the action taken by a company by having a non-union partner or a non-union other sister or brother company is, in fact, determined by the board to be in existence for the purpose of preventing an employer from, or allowing an employer to avoid the provisions of the act. So the board has to determine, when considering whether or not it will judge that a common employer status applies, that, in fact, moreso than just common ownership, board of directorship, common direction, and so on, the workers, the employees would have to be shown to have been deprived of some bargaining right or some proper right under this act, under the Labour Relations Act, that they should have had, and if that is the case then the board is then instructed that it can indeed find that there is a rule of common employer to be such and that the certification applying to the unionized branch of the company would extend then to the other branch of the company that have common ownership, common direction and so on.

We have had extremely intense, long lasting, and continuing ongoing consultation with the major players representing employers and employees. Bill 26 as it was before the House in the last session contemplated and proposed extending the common employer legislation to all sectors in the Province and as a result of the consultation we have agreed in Bill 47 to have it apply only to the construction industry at the request of the employers and the unions. We have indicated again in the consultation process that if it is designated that there is a need to extend the common employer provisions to other sectors we would certainly look at that by way of amendment in the future. There are some very significant changes here, Mr. Speaker, and as a result of a very long lasting and wide ranging consultation we are confident that at least the provisions being put forward in Bill 47 have every opportunity to work fairly for both the employers and the employees, which is the original intent of labour legislation in the Province to provide some kind of a level playing field so that both the employer and the employee would have some kind of equal opportunity to successfully move forward and meet their agendas.

I apologize for taking a little longer than normal, but because of the significance of the items addressed in Bill 47 I felt I needed to mention those five items in particular for the record because I am very much aware and very cognisant of the fact that the members of the House from time to time might tend to pull out a copy of Hansard and say this is what the minister or the member concerned said on such and such a date. I wanted to make sure that there would be no down playing of the significance of the five basic items that are contained in Bill 47.

I certainly, Mr. Speaker, look forward to hearing the other contributions to the debate and any questions or concerns that are raised I look forward to addressing when I rise to close debate in second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To hear the minister speak you would swear that he solved all the problems that exist between the trades and construction sectors of the Province, Mr. Speaker. That is far from the truth because while this bill is going to solve some of the problems there is an inherent situation out there that this bill does not address at all. This bill does nothing to stop companies who have already engaged in the practice of double-breasting for the last number of years, it has not done anything to solve that problem. On occasion I have talked to the minister. I have gone across the House to talk to him about that concern that the trade unions have expressed to me, that while it prevents new companies establishing themselves and setting up the situation known as double-breasting this bill does not prevent those who have done it for the last two, three, or four years, in fact someone who did it as of yesterday. Under this bill that will still be allowed to continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. WINSOR: Because the bill only applies to the date of, what we call, commencement, according to the clause in this one. That will not apply to existing companies, only companies that are setting up after this bill comes into effect. It does not do anything for companies that have already engaged in the practice. The minister has already indicated that will indeed occur.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with that, of course, because of the failure of the bill to address that problem, it creates certainly anything but a level playing field for companies that have to engage in contract bidding with non-unionized companies. It is a fact of life, that the non-unionized companies, for the most part, pay wages that are less than the unionized companies are forced to pay. It gives them an unfair advantage in winning contracts and, consequently, many of the trade unions are unable to find work for their employees, their union members actually, as a result of this process being in place. So, it does not create a level playing field. It is going to do it perhaps tomorrow and down the road, but for what happened in the past there is no measure in this bill to address it, and the unions would very much like to have seen this occur.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that occurs - I do not think the minister is really serious when he says that the Labour Relations Board is caught up on all matters or close to it. Mr. Speaker, that is not what my constituents tell me, who put cases before the Labour Relations Board. It is anything but the situation. It takes months, months and months to get a hearing, and the minister knows that that has occurred. Unless the minister is prepared now, today, tomorrow or next month, whenever this bill is passed, to get extra people in labour relations to deal with situations that arise in the future, then by the time a work site or a job has commenced and finished, then the Labour Relations Board will not even get a chance to hear the case.

The minister knows of a situation, for example, where the Teamsters Union, independent truck operators, have tried for months at certification. They have gone before the board and back and to the minister and back and, as of yesterday, for whatever reason, that Labour Relations Board has yet -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if that virus that we talked about today has struck that minister there again today or not, or a nasty pill. I do not know what he takes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, getting back to what I said. He tried to get me off my train of thought. The minister knows that the Labour Relations Board, that has not been effective in the past, we see no provision, only the minister's assurance - Mr. Speaker, frankly, many of the people who worked with him on the NTA will tell you that that man's assurance cannot go very far. Mr. Speaker, if that is the only legislative safeguard we have, the minister's assurance that he will do things to adequately deal with it, then I have reason to be concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that is kind of interesting -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a vicious and personal attack (inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Yes, there could be worse coming.

The minister has indicated that he has had wide-ranging consultations with unions. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many trade unions have actually seen a copy of this piece of legislation. How many? In fact, I know four of them yesterday did not even know the minister had prepared the bill. I spoke to the minister about it and, in fact, informed him that there was a concern among the trade union movement that they had not seen a copy, and the minister said that he gave one to an umbrella group and he expected them to circulate it. I think the minister could have gone a little bit further.

There was only a small list of people engaged in the trade union movement who would have wanted to have some input into what went on. This occurred, I think he said, last winter, the Committee headed by the Member for St. John's South made their recommendations. I wonder has the minister had consultations with the various unions since, because they are pretty concerned about some of the things in this double-breasting. In fact, one of them indicated yesterday that companies now use another technique to avoid double-breasting. They use, I think the term he used was a payroll company that they have now set up. While this legislation is going to prevent double-breasting, the employers already started some months ago and found another mechanism that they are now using to avoid having certified unions in the workplace. So, Mr. Speaker, perhaps -

MR. GRIMES: How are they (inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Well, the Minister of Labour is quite aware of the procedure that companies -

MR. GRIMES: But you're not.

MR. WINSOR: Oh, I will be perfectly honest with you, the first time I heard it was yesterday when I called some of the trade unions to inform them, and they told me that their greatest concern is not double-breasting at this point in time, it is payroll companies, a new thing they have started recently that avoids having unionized members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Another way around, and the minister indicates that he too has been made aware of it. Perhaps when he goes to the Committee stage he will have another amendment that will tighten up this loophole so it will not occur.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the actual things that are contained, the first section dealing with the appointment of people to the Labour Relations Board - not a whole lot in it. The appointment of a jurisdictional umpire: that is I think good news for the construction sector. After consultation with the different unions the Lieutenant-Governor in Council will make the appointment. I hope that it will be consultation, that it will not be the minister or the Premier appointing without a consultation, without them.

The other clause, the declaration of a special work site, as in Bull Arm, that has worked quite well. In our meeting out there a while ago with several of the unions they indicate that perhaps this has been one of the best construction work sites that they have ever worked on in this Province. There has been virtually no grievances - one or two grievances - since the thing has been in place, and is working quite well.

The area that they are concerned about as I indicated earlier is Clause 6 of the Bill which deals basically with the legislation that is known as double-breasting. The unions' main concern is that this bill does not adequately address the companies which have already engaged and started in the practice. Furthermore, there is a real fear out there, because of the slowness of the Labour Relations Board, that by the time they hear of a concern or a company that has set up a new company called double-breasting then the job site long have to be shut down and people will be long gone, the company will be non-existent, and that is a real fear out there that this will occur. The minister has already indicated earlier that he would appoint new people to that Board if the pressures or the demands - and we hope the Minister is true to his word.

Perhaps what the minister should do is set a time frame, that once someone applies for certification that within a number of days that that case will be heard and they will be certified or whatever. Because now it just seems to take months for that occur.

Mr. Speaker, any other thing that we have to say we will say it in Committee stage of this bill. Thank you.

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

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few short comments on this, what I would classify as an historic piece of legislation. There is more in this bill today for the construction trade union movement than in all the rhetoric from the hon. Member for St. John's East and all the other rhetoric that we have heard. There is more in here today on behalf -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY: He can say what he likes -

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. Member can make references to things that I have said -

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the hon., Member is getting up, listing out rhetoric which I suppose (Inaudible) - I have not even spoken on this bill, the bill is just before the House. I do not know how he can do that and still maintain any credibility in his speech, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

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

MR. MURPHY: The more things change the more they stay the same. More rhetoric. Anyway, we heard on the other bill just previously the hon. Member for St. John's East blasting the Government, blasting the Premier, and he even brought - one of the quietest members in the House got up, the President of Treasury Board, and his dander was even up. He even got the President of Treasury Board's dander up, with obviously, rhetoric. I will not change that word, and the hon. Member can jump up and down all he likes.

Now the Member for Fogo obviously - I understand. He talked about the minister and what people at NTA say about the minister. Now I would like to remind the hon. member that he is playing a lot of catch-up in this area. So I will forgive him for some of the things that he does not know, which is about 95 per cent of what the bill contains.

Mr. Speaker, for years and years and years the construction unions in this Province, for a lot of years, and I can take you back to Churchill Falls and Come By Chance and what have you, have suffered the consequences of what has been known as double-breasting and/or the void of a common employer. I will deal with that as the third part of my few comments.

First of all, for years historically, one of the real problems has been with The Buildings Trades Council is what they call the mark-up on the construction project itself. That is where one trade claims a certain amount of work, and there has always been a constant bickering and/or - not bickering as such - but meetings that have caused construction delays, and caused all kinds of problems. This legislation has put in place a jurisdictional umpire, and that jurisdictional umpire will be there full-time to handle these types of problems, so obviously the legislation is extremely positive from that point of view.

The first area really that the legislation deals with is The Labour Relations Board, and the move of lengthening the appointment of the chairperson. I think this is extremely important, because what we have seen over the years is people who come and go, and a lot of cases that are on the agenda and become aware to the chairperson or what have you, do not get before that person and a new person has to familiarize himself so that is, without question, a very positive move.

Now the area that may be of some concern is the area of multi-trade bargaining. Multi-trade bargaining has not had a great track record across this country. Nor has it had a great track record in other countries. You take eight or nine mechanical trades, six or seven civil trades, and sit them all down in a bargaining room together and try to work out an agreement for a mega project such as the one at Hibernia, or even down the road when hopefully we will see other production platforms, and the old agreements run out, it is going to be extremely difficult to say, put the labourers in with the millwrights and pound out a collective agreement. We had great discussion in Committee over this particular area.

There was great representation by the boiler makers and some of the other heavy trades, and rightfully so. My experience over the years in construction is that it is extremely difficult to take these types of trades, mix them up, and try and rationalize because, after all, one trade, if the labourers look at the benefit package which is obviously that much greater than some of the mechanical trades such as mechanical engineers and/or the millwrights or what have you, then they have a tendency to hang around and not sign the agreement, waiting to see who will be the first one. So multi-trade bargaining has been tried in BC; it has been tried in Alberta; it has been tried across the country, and the only place that it really has any significance of working to some degree is in the Cape Breton area of Nova Scotia. So I am hopeful that the multi-trade bargaining can go on in an uneventful way and that we will see one or the other, either it being a success, or we will be back in this House this time next year, or maybe three or four years down the road when this administration may have too many members to even bring it to fruitful opposition. Who knows? But we may need to change the multi-trade bargaining.

Now the common employer, and this brings me to a point that the hon. Member for Fogo got on with when he talked about the concerns of the trade union movement about companies who now are presently existing in what we call a double-breasting format. Now this is the very Government that sat by and listened to double-breasting year in and year out - and the hon. Member for Humber Valley nods his head because he knows what I am saying to be correct - and never gave any credence to the building trade movement and went on until they had some kind of a memo from Premier Peckford, which they lived on within the last year. That is certainly not satisfactory, but the Member for St. John's South who belonged to the trade union movement, I remind the Member for Burin - Placentia West who is not listening to me, and when he is up ranting and raving about what is going on in the Burin Peninsula, then surely heavens he is saying it because he is representing his people in his district and if I am not entitled to do that and the hon. member finds it uncomfortable, then if he wants me to, I will sit down -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: There is no need for the hon. member to be shouting at me, I have a lot of construction constituents and I think this is a solid piece of legislation and our friend from Fogo, who gets up and gets on with, I suppose a lot of foolishness for the want of another word, and tells the hon. minister that he has not informed the trade union movement, which is entirely incorrect, the building trades which is comprised of fourteen different trade unions have been totally informed on the double-breasting legislation, these are the kind of things he gets on about and then he talks about the large -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sam is saying that is not true.

MR. MURPHY: Well if it is not true, then I apologise, but I understood the hon. member to say that there was no consultation between the minister and the trade union movement and you asked how many trade unions had this particular piece of legislation?

AN HON. MEMBER: They have not seen the bill.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, those whom I know in the building trades, which are quite a few have seen the draft copy of this bill, I would inform the hon. member. I do not know with whom he is talking, maybe he is talking to the nurses' union or somebody, I do not know. He talks about companies going up the spout, it was only a couple of weeks you were down to McNamara-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - so we went to Committee, we listened to some tremendous briefs from both sides of the coin. And the Member for Kilbride, who was vice-chair of that Committee, will tell you we had briefs that were at least two feet high, and to wallow through them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) they were not very brief.

MR. MURPHY: That is right, they were not very brief and we took what we felt was a consensus and a fair consensus, and I think somebody has referred to this piece of legislation as being a very exceptionally fair piece of legislation that will help not only -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, the hon. member, I mean he can get up and speak. I know where he stood when he was in Committee, I am not going to speak for him now he might have changed his mind since then but I know where he was when the Committee met.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, that is right I suppose when you are as affluent as the hon. member, it is difficult to remember other things, that is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: So, Mr. Speaker, just those few short comments to say that this bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Why do you not get your mike turned on? I mean, one way or the other you want the attention - I am up speaking on a bill that I feel is extremely important, you do not. If you do not think this bill is important, I will tell you what. It is extremely important to the people who are going to work in Cow Head and the Marystown Shipyard, it is important and you are saying it is not important! Is that what you are saying? If the hon. member has anything to say, why does he not get up and say it instead of shooting little digs across at the House Leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Listen, every time that we stand up over here, you get excited, if we do not stand up, it is a gag order. Now, make up your mind. If we get up to speak on a piece of legislation, you get excited, if we do not get up, then it is something else! You are playing partisan politics, all I am saying, it is a good piece of legislation and why it is a good piece of legislation and I have to take needles from you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: You are a deputy, deputy whatever. I do not know what you are, deputy whatever. You should rescind it. Somebody should have a look at it, you are making deals, but anybody else can get up. The Member for St. John's East is up on every bill. Let him get up, that is what he is here for, to represent his constituents, whether I agree with him or not, and I applaud him for getting up and giving his opinion. I get up to speak for two or three minutes and the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West is hollering across the floor: 'No deal, Wins, we'll be here till Thursday.'

What kind of foolishness is that? When the hon. Member is up I do not say anything to him. Let him carry on. Don't open my mouth to him. Never, never. I sit here. A lot of the things the hon. Member says I agree with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now, now. I hear people throwing up shrimp boats and all that kind of stuff, I totally disagree with that. I think it is awful to be throwing up - just because the hon. Member gave the union some bad advice, why should they resurrect that? I do not think that is fair. I do not think it is fair at all. The hon. Member for Kilbride got up the other day and talked about me, and I fully agree with him. I do not have the funds to buy a house in St. John's. I am lucky to have a house in Tors Cove. Now the hon. Member for Kilbride of course, everybody knows, it is a toss-up between him and the Member for St. John's East who has the most.

Anyway, the Member for Burin - Placentia West can thank himself for what is going on here right now. All he had to do was let this hon. Member make his few comments about the bill and that was the end of it. No no, he has to be cracky over there, "Deputy Dawg," yes, cracky. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the day is not far away when the construction industry, the trade union movement, will thank this Government, as I said to the hon. Member for St. John's East. We have done more with this Bill for the construction trades than anything he has done to date since he has been in the House of Assembly. With those few comments, and the approval of the Member for Burin - Placentia West, I will sit down.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was not going to get involved in the debate but I felt that it was necessary after listening to the Member for St. John's South. Not because of what he had to say, because -

MR. R. AYLWARD: What did he say, anyway?

MR. TOBIN: I do not think anyone knows what he said. But he said enough to confuse most of us because we do not know if whether what the minister said is right or what the Member for St. John's South said is right regarding this bill. One thing is obvious: that there is one of them who does not know what they are talking about. It is either the minister who does not know what he is talking about when he introduced this bill, or the Member for St. John's South does not know what he is talking about. Because the two of them said exactly the opposite.

Now probably, Mr. Speaker, neither one of them knows what they are talking about. Maybe it is my colleague for Fogo who knows what he is talking about in this bill. But one thing is obvious - and I am eagerly awaiting for my colleague for St. John's East who is going to speak on this. I think he is going to have quite a few comments to say about it. But I would like to ask the minister when he stands up Thursday or Friday to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Thursday or Friday. Tomorrow is Private Member's Day, so it will be Thursday. After the way the Member for St. John's South got on this evening that is the way it will be. I would like for the minister when he gets up to tell us if what he said is right or what the Member for St. John's South said is right. Because we are totally confused on this piece of legislation.

I would suggest that what he probably should do is take the Member for St. John's South aside, or the Government House Leader should, and tell him that when he does not know what he is talking about he should not get into debate and confuse the issues. Because if this piece of legislation - I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if it had not been for the Member for St. John's South, this piece of legislation that he talks about as so good, would probably be made law today. But the Member for St. John's South has caused the delay because he has totally confused everyone by not knowing what he was saying.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill 47, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, 1977 (No.3)."

As the Minister of Labour quite rightly pointed out there are five separate areas dealt with in this piece of legislation. Some of these are appropriate changes to be made, and I can support them. The changes in the appointment of the Board and clearing up some of the difficulties with respect to the term of office of the Board I think it is a good idea to have a five year term. I think the Government was wise to reject the recommendations being made to make the chair of The Labour Relations Board a full-time position. It appears that such a position is not really necessary at this time. I suppose if the Government were to consolidate a number of the labour related boards into one board and have the same board deal with labour standards and perhaps certain kinds of workers compensation types of applications, you might be able to have a sort of a labour court type of operation, but the bill is not intended to do that, and I think to make a full-time chair for The Labour Relations Board would not be necessary at this time.

The idea of a jurisdictional umpire to help sort out some of the jurisdictional problems between the various trades is probably something that is a useful thing to be done. I will not deal with the technicalities of it, but certainly the principle is a very useful thing.

The area of multi-trade bargaining is one with which I have a great deal of difficulty. The experience of other provinces is that it has not been particularly helpful. I know the minister says that he wants to do this for a trial period, but I understand that the trial periods in other provinces have not proven very successful, and he has not really given any reason why this would work here, or why he thinks it would work here. My sense is that the imposition of multi-trade bargaining upon the construction sector will result in an unfortunate degree of rigidity in bargaining, and prevent bargains from being made where they otherwise could be. Mr. Speaker, the road is difficult enough for employees to attempt to reach collective agreements without creating further structures that would provide for more opportunities in most cases for employers to find loopholes and problems with the procedures by which certain things come about, in particular, collective agreements or bargaining structures, and serve to stall the process as well as impose rigidity upon bargaining units and bargaining agents where perhaps certain agreements cannot be reached with particular individuals for very good labour relations reasons. The existing circumstances have not proven all that disruptive. The courts have played a significant role in that field. While I am not always happy to see some of the solutions that the courts have imposed, particularly in the area of injunctions, it has created a certain amount of stability in that area, and work is being done to improve it.

With respect to the common employer provisions - I have just passed over, I guess, the issue of special projects. I am not sure that the minister has adequately explained the need for the revisions sought to section 70 of the act with respect to special projects. It strikes me that they are making some changes here which are not necessarily dealing with some of the problems that have already come up in the Hibernia project with the lack of a full degree of coverage, shall we say, by the ability of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make orders covering the project, and may in fact, be creating further technical problems with trying to get representation for employees who might not have been covered by the original application. There are a couple of applications now before The Labour Relations Board, and it remains to be seen whether those problems can be resolved by the board under the existing, or indeed the new legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to save most of my remarks to deal with the so-called common employer provision, because this deals with the very specialized area of double-breasting - the most significant issue in the construction sector in this Province in many, many years. To do so it is necessary to really look back at what has happened to the construction labour force in this Province over the last

five, six, or seven years and to not lay all the blame on the current Government, although they have waited two and a half years to bring this legislation forward. This is a problem that was identified many years ago by the trade union movement and it was made perfectly well known to the previous Government now sitting on this side of the House. They were well aware of what was occurring in the construction sector in this Province. Essentially, the story was this, we had in this Province a very skilled and a very coherent construction labour force that was unionized. That the employers in order to be able to bid and do a job properly were expected and required, and in fact in order to be able to successfully compete, they were in a position where to get the skilled labour that they needed to do a proper job they went to the trade unions who had the skilled trades available and they were able to negotiate collective agreements and have a very stable working relationship and a very stable workforce in this Province.

So, what happened, Mr. Speaker? What happened was that the construction companies and some of their people who were engaged in that sought to find ways around the existing labour law of the day. They sought to find ways around the existing law of the day and with expensive lawyers and all sorts of legal shenanigans, and the ability to spend money, and outspend the unions and keep one step ahead of the ability of the trade unions to organize, particularly the construction industry where if I wanted to take a company of a shelf, call it a construction company, engage in a project tomorrow that might last for two or three weeks, or two months, I can do it, and if the trade union is able to come in and organize my employees it will not get to the Labour Relations Board and get completed before the job is finished and I am off to another job site with another company off the same shelf, or another shelf, ready made companies, or paper companies where the operating minds are actually the same person or the same individual group, or in some cases families. That was the pattern that developed.

The Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, the Labour Relations Board's mechanism in terms of bureaucracy, in terms of its requirements to give notice and periods to allow for replies, to allow for interveners, and all the kind of requirements of natural justice that the Labour Board is bound by, all of those procedures took a sufficiently long period of time so that construction companies were able to sneak around these proposals and to go through the backdoor and they were able over a period of time to develop and to eat away at the loyalty of employees who were desperate for work. This Province did not have sufficient employment for them to get their stamps, did not have sufficient employment for them to support their families. These people were the most vulnerable and they were able to, over a period of time, because the previous Government in the first instance allowed it and construction companies were able through the element of double-breasting - the Member for Kilbride knows about one of these groups, he talks about it in the House all the time. It is Marco and Mr. Tom Hickman.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: Well, he may not be double-breasting himself but certainly his companies have been very active in eating away at the unionized construction labour force in this Province. What has happened, Mr. Speaker, is for a period of time, maybe three or four years, the previous Government did absolutely nothing when they were being called upon, and called upon, to do it. We had terrific problems in this Province. We saw them out in Come By Chance when they started to rebuild the company out there. There were literally battles between groups of Newfoundland workers looking for work, some unionized and some not. And, Mr. Speaker, I think that the employers in this Province sat back and enjoyed that experience very much. They were quite delighted to see workers fight against workers over scarce jobs, because they knew as a result of that circumstance, that the ability of the trade unions to represent their workers properly and keep the level of wages up to significant amounts comparable to other provinces was being diminished every hour that this went on. And the fact that workers were so desperate that they would literally fight with each other for jobs and to prevent certain activities from going on, that, Mr. Speaker, gave great comfort to the construction companies in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, what happened? The previous government and the Minister of Labour in that government were able, as a result of much pressure to sit down and negotiate what was called a Memorandum Of Understanding. The Memorandum Of Understanding was promised to the trade unions as a way of resolving the problem and that was put into effect by Mr. Ted Blanchard or it was promised by Mr. Ted Blanchard. I know the Member for Harbour Main was the Minister of Labour at one time and he can get up and tell us what he did to solve the problem when he was Minister of Labour.

MR. DOYLE: For two weeks.

MR. HARRIS: He was Minister of Labour for two weeks, so it should only take him a couple of minutes to tell us what it was.

So, what happened here was, the previous government, which had promised to resolve or try to resolve this problem back in 1988, failed to do so, Mr. Speaker. Why? Perhaps they can get up and tell us why they didn't do it. They deep-sixed the then Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, Mr. Blanchard, they deep-sixed him and they backed off on their promises. Mr. Speaker, they might get up and tell us, they might admit that, as I suspect, it had something to do with campaign contributions for the last election. Nevertheless, they backed down and betrayed the workers of this Province. They will get up in this session of the Legislature, on this bill, and talk about what friends they are with the labour movement, but when they were in office, they betrayed them and they allowed the situation that we now have to develop and to grow, so much so, that this legislation that we have now will not solve the problem. And I know the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relation knows this, but he is bringing this in now as a part of lip service to labour and he knows it will not really resolve the problem.

The problem now is, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the neglect of the previous Government and the slowness on the part of the present Government that we have in this Province now, two competing labour forces, the unionized sector with a group of skilled labour, skilled workers, skilled tradespeople, who are able to do as good work, as excellent a job as any workforce all over North America. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that in order to get jobs, these people have to go all over North America to get them. The people who remained loyal to the unions of which they were members for many, many years, are now going to the United States to work if they are members of the international unions. I meet them frequently, Mr. Speaker, working in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia or Ontario and they come back here, they go back and forth to work. They cannot get jobs in this Province. Why, Mr. Speaker?

Because this Government and the previous Government have allowed the non-union sector to grow to the point where now, the unionized companies who have been dealing with these trade unions for many years are having difficulty competing, so what is happening now, Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a bill which seems to be aimed at the double-breasting construction companies, but is really a bill that supports the non-union companies. This, Mr. Speaker, is the Tom Hickman bill. This is a bill on double-breasting that is going to support and give comfort to the non-union contractors in this Province.

MR. TOBIN: That's what is wrong with it.

MR. HARRIS: That's what is wrong with it, Mr. Speaker. It is going to give comfort and support to them because what it is saying is that you, Mr. Contractor, or Ms. Contractor, who have dealt with the trade unions over the years, who have entered into collective agreements and who have, over the past four or five years - and I am not saying it is a proper thing to be doing - but who have to protect themselves to compete, set up little double-breasted companies to try to get a few contracts, these people, Mr. Speaker, are now being told, No, you cannot do that anymore, you have made your deal with the unions and you stay in that sector. We have another whole non-union sector over there who are left alone. Nothing is going to happen to them. So the Tom Hickmans are being looked after by this Government, and the employers who have, over the years, sat down and negotiated collective agreements are now being told that you have made your bed with the trade unions, and you can lie in it and be damned. Mr. Speaker, that's what is wrong with this legislation. It is not going to solve the problem of double-breasting. What is being done is that after five, six, seven, eight, or ten years of allowing the non-union construction sector to eat away at the labour force in this Province, is they are now rewarding them by preventing anybody else from competing, and particularly preventing the experienced contractors who have been dealing with the unions over the years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a solution.

MR. FLIGHT: In conclusion.

MR. HARRIS: There is a solution, and the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, the minister responsible for puffin pins, should listen, because a lot of his constituents are affected by this legislation - his constituents who are going off to the Mainland or the States to work because the union employers are being treated in one manner by this Province and the non-union employers given a free hand.

Those individuals need protection from this Government. What needs to happen - and I know that the members opposite are always interested in my solutions, or the NDP solutions to problems, so I am going to give them a solution. The solution is to introduce legislation, yes, that prevents double-breasting, but also builds a level playing field out there in the construction industry in this Province for a period of say five years. We have to make up for what this Government and the previous government have done to allow this competition to develop to the point where now there is not going to be true and fair competition between one group of employers who have, over the years, dealt with trade unions fairly up until they started double-breasting, and started trying to undercut them and go behind their backs. But I have spoken with them, and they are not dishonest people. They are not devious people. They are out just to survive, and what they say to me is, we had to do this to survive; to stay in business, to be able to get any contracts at all we had to do this.

So that is the kind of thing that is going on. The people who have been involved in negotiating, and members of The Construction and Labour Relations Association who have been involved in negotiations - and I have spoken with them - they would like to see some stability in the construction industry in the Province. They would like to see them be able to remain a part of it. What is happening here is that they are being told no, you now cannot compete with these non-union people because you cannot go out and double-breast. You have to go with your union contract and your union rates. Meanwhile, the others are out there now, as a result of what has happened, able to get enough workers to be able to do a job and undercut them.

I have been shown the different bids that the union and the non-union contractors have made, and you look and compare the two, and the contractors will show you, here is the bid of the union contractor, and here is the bid of the non-union contractor, and the difference represents maybe only $100,000 or $200,000 in a $3 million or $4 million contract; but the difference represents what? Benefits - pension benefits, health care benefits, the kinds of benefits that a union has been able to get for its members by negotiating over the years so that it will provide for them in their retirement, the kind of protection for occupational health and safety above and beyond - there is some cost associated with that - above and beyond what The Labour Standards Act provides; certain benefits in terms of overtime, which are designed to ensure that the workforce is not worked to death, and worked long hours in the construction trade. The difference between the contracts and the bidding is merely the benefits that the union has over and above the hourly rate, and wages to a certain extent. The wages may be a dollar on a sixteen or seventeen dollar an hour type contract, very minimal, Mr. Speaker, but enough to give the contractors who have gone non-union the edge on a bid, because the bid is going to be given to the lowest bidder unless you are dealing with somebody who cannot do the job, or unless Government has some other plan, or other scheme in mind that they manage to get through. But, generally speaking, the non-union contractors are outbidding the union contractors by the difference in the very important benefits that particularly construction workers who are seasonal, who are sporadic workers, need to have if they are going to build for retirement, if they are going to be able to have something to retire on. The unions have established pension funds to provide for that and have other benefits of employment built into their contracts.

So, Mr. Speaker, my solution and my proposal is that if the Government wants to put this legislation in - I have no problem with the legislation, but the legislation, by itself, is going to be an advantage and a bonus to the non-union contractors and a disadvantage to the people dealing with the unions - what they should do is implement a fair wages policy. It is not a new idea, the Federal Government used to have it at one time for contracts. Great Britian had a fair wages policy, Mr. Speaker. We are not necessarily talking about something that would last forever, but for a period of time, perhaps five years, perhaps ten years. There ought to be in the Public Tendering Act or in the legislation of this Province, a level playing field for union and non-union contractors which would provide that in all contracts that are let by the Government -

MR. MURPHY: Sit down.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for St. John's South yells across, 'Sit down'. Perhaps if he would avoid the conversation he was having, he might listen to the proposal that I am putting forth, and he might learn something. In fact, his constituents who are dependent upon the construction industry might be asking him about this in the next few days, and perhaps he should try to be in a position to explain to them.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, a proposal that would level the playing field between the union and non-union contractors, to allow an opportunity to undo the harm that has been done to the construction labour force in this Province for the past five or six years, would be to establish a fair wages policy. The basis of this policy would be that any Government contracts let under the Public Tendering Act or provided for with Government funds, such as what have come to be known as the MUSH, the Municipalities, Universities, Schools and Hospitals contracts where the Government is providing the substantial dollars involved, that all those contracts being let, construction contracts, anybody contracting for those jobs should be required to contract those jobs on the basis that they would pay and be required to pay the negotiated rate of wages and benefits as established by unions as certified under the Labour Relations Act. That should be an opportunity to level the playing field.

No one says you have to be a member of a union and no one says you have to be a member of a unionized contractor, but, if you are going to compete for a period of five years or ten years, whatever is required, to level that playing field, that you can compete on the basis of paying the same wages and the same benefits to employees to make up for the devastation that has gone on in the labour force in the Province over the last five or ten years.

Mr. Speaker, if they wanted to compete on the basis of being more efficient or being able to do the job better, being able to do the job with a smaller labour force, or finding materials in a cheaper way, having them delivered by a better method, different construction methods, being more efficient in terms of your overhead, you could compete and you could offer a better contract price to the Government, the schools, the hospitals, and municipalities involved. But, Mr. Speaker, it would be done in such a way as to ensure that there was a level playing field, that the common employer legislation that is here before the House would work to strengthen the labour force in this Province, and not to see it further destabilized and invite further instability and further chaos and conflict, Mr. Speaker, such as the kind of conflict we saw during the rebuilding of the Come By Chance Refinery.

Mr. Speaker, there are other problems with the legislation. Some of them are technical problems that can be deal with in the Committee stage of the bill. I do notice, Mr. Speaker, that although some of the suggestions that the Committee of the Member for St. John's South had made were taken, or one was, and that was one that deals with what do you do in a successor of rights situation where perhaps you have a hospital with a contract for food services, a university, or Government with a contract for cleaning services, and one group of people out there for three or four years, the same people are usually hired by the new company that comes in or they will bring in a cheaper work force. There ought to be successor rights provisions that cover that. That was not addressed in the minister's remarks or in the remarks by the Member for St. John's South. That was brought to the committee, it was recommend by the committee, but I do not see it there in the legislation.

Perhaps I am mistaken and the minister can point me to it or tell us why he has left that out, because there are a significant number of people, and they are people who are not very well provided for in terms of wages and benefits, Mr. Speaker, and who are in many cases at the low end of the skills level where somebody can come in, bid a contract, and bring in a whole bunch of unskilled people, undercut the union rate that has been established, and obviously are going to get the contract because they are going to be undercutting existing wage rates. That is something that this Government ought to be doing something about, and should have done something about when it had an opportunity to make amendments to Section 89 of the act.

I am not sure I am happy with the wording that is used in Clause 6 of the bill. The common employer legislation is not broad enough to cover the variety of organizations and things that can go on in the name of double-breasting. There are still going to be ways around it and I am sure we will see them, as lawyers have a chance to pick it apart and find ways of having people operate several different companies through different forms of shareholding other than having common control, that is designated there by having various members of families and other in-laws, and sometimes outlaws, involved in companies and new corporate structures, or various forms of subterfuge, Mr. Speaker.

I do appreciate the reverse onus type of provisions which at least level the playing field to a certain extent in terms of procedure before boards and the provision of Section 7 which requires an employer to make known knowledge to the board as a statutory requirement, the enforceability, which I have some difficulty with, but nevertheless the statutory intent is there and failure to make information available would be an offence under the act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I should thank hon. members for their applause. I am just about finished.

Those are my remarks on the bill and I hope when the minister rises to speak he will address some of them, particularly the proposal that I put forth which would allow a level playing field, which would resolve some of the problems that have been created by the inaction of the previous Government, and the delay in action by this Government in trying to resolve the problem. A situation has been created and is out there now. I do not think the minister would want this bill to continue to be called a non-union employer's bill but as it stands right now that is who it will help, that is who it will serve, and I am very sorry that the Government has not gone further than that and looked after the problem that this bill is designed to resolve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the contributions made in the debate by the members for Fogo, St. John's South, and St. John's East. I will take a few minutes to deal with a number of the issues. I deliberately did not mention the contribution made by one of the other members because it had nothing to do with the bill and what not.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to some of the comments made by the Opposition critic, the hon. Member for Fogo, it was admitted in my opening comments in introducing the bill that in fact there is no intention in Bill 47 that is before the House now to try to undo the things that were permitted to be done under the previous administration. There is no attempt whatsoever, and it is recognized that it is not possible to retroactively fix the kind of double-breasting arrangements that cropped up over the past four or five years in particular. This bill, and the revisions proposed in Bill 47 propose, Mr. Speaker, to look to the future to make sure that the kind of actions that were taken over the past four or five years and that were addressed in the memorandum of understanding and so on will not be allowed to continue into the future. We feel quite strongly and are quite comfortable that is the very best that a government can do at any time, to see that there was an injustice and to make sure that it cannot continue. Because it was acknowledged by everyone involved in the consultation process that it was absolutely impossible to go back over the past decade and to undo the kinds of things that had occurred over that period of time.

Certainly I might mention to the hon. Member for St. John's East in particular, I would certainly be interested in hearing more about his proposal in terms of a fair wage policy, either in meeting or by having something presented in writing. It is a notion that has been raised from time to time in meetings with certain representatives over the past six months or so. Again, it is not addressed in Bill 47, much like other issues are not, because of the fact that we recognize - and as I indicated before, the Legislation Review Committee from last year recognized - that there are a series of other issues in respect to labour relations that still need to be addressed at some point in the future.

Bill 47 does not purport or does not in any way claim to correct and fix all of the ills in the area of labour relations. But the five that are addressed in the bill we feel that they have been adequately dealt with at the present time, and we look forward to seeing what will evolve in the next little while. Because the whole area of labour legislation and labour relations in this Province as everywhere else is continually in a state of flux by the very nature of the relationships that are ongoing on a daily basis. We feel that these new provisions will certainly make for probably improved times, nonetheless, very interesting times, over the next little while.

The hon. Member for Fogo mentioned the idea of being up to date at the Labour Relations Board - his feeling that they were not, necessarily. I will just point out: there is a difference between the normal time lines in getting a hearing done and being behind in terms of applications and so on. It does take some time to resolve matters before the Labour Relations Board. We have indicated that if there is difficulty in getting the process started we could very quickly fix that and address that by adding more people if necessary. It has not been deemed to be necessary to date.

I would also like to point out that there was some reference that some individual unions may not have had in their possession copies of the latest draft of the bill. I can only respond to that in that each of the unions in the Province is part of a representative body. They met with me individually and as part of the representative body. My commitment was to give them copies of the draft bill as soon as it was introduced in the Legislature. That was done, and I have never attempted to interfere with groups like the Federation of Labour or the Building Trades Council to suggest to them how they should disseminate information amongst their own members. Each of those had the opportunity to look at the bill, and those that had particular concerns did, and each of them responded in turn.

So, in closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that it is clear there are still concerns. The non-unionized sector expressed most of the gravest concerns, contrary to what the Member for St. John's East might try to lead us to believe. They still feel that this has gone too far and it does not protect them at all. They are frightened to death that under the common employer legislation the non-union branches and arms of their companies are going to disappear. They were the ones who lobbied hardest for us to give them more protection and so on, and we did not succumb to that pressure. But we feel that there is a very fair balance now presented in Bill 47.

So, in fact, Mr. Speaker, we look forward to moving a few other minor amendments by way of wording, tidying up and so on in the Committee stage, and I look forward to continuing the ongoing dialogue with the employer and the employee representatives as we work together to try to make sure that these amendments to the Labour Relations Act do provide for a fair playing field and a fair opportunity for everyone involved in the labour relations community, particularly in the construction sector.

With those few closing remarks, Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in moving second reading of the bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, 1977 (No. 3)," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 47)

MR. BAKER: Order 19, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 19.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act." (Bill No. 45)

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to the act and would limit the period of time permitted to a council to operate under interim development orders. Presently, Mr. Speaker, when an area is defined as a municipal planning area, no set period of time is in place to limit the period that they would operate under interim development regulations, where they would, in fact, control a given area, defined, of course, under The Municipal Planning Act, control that area without a plan of any sort. So, we are confining the period of time now to five years.

We are saying that within five years they have to formulate, along with officials of the Department, a municipal plan with proper planning and zoning regulations put in place. That is the only change, Mr. Speaker, to this particular act, the fact that we are putting in a period of time of five years, and also allowing, that if necessary, at the end of five years it can be extended for another period of five years. We do not foresee that in too many circumstances, but we have put that proviso in there just in case.

The main thrust of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is a five-year period after which a plan is to be put in place.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions rather than anything else, and if he does stand it will not mean he is closing the debate, if the House is in agreement.

My understanding, under The Municipalities Act and under a municipal plan - take Deer Lake, for instance, where there is a municipal plan in place, and say a planning area such as Nicholsville, and Deer Lake has jurisdiction over that particular so-called planning area, and it is more or less just an extension of their plan. Why is it you would want a limit on it? That is my question, Mr. Speaker. Because those places like, for instance, Deer Lake, will not take in the area anyway unless there is an amalgamation, so to speak.

For instance, if you went outside, down the viking trail towards E.D.M. Consultants, down there somewhere, that is a different area. So, why would you want an extension, when municipalities really do not want to take the areas over?

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

MR. GULLAGE: By leave, to answer a question, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not closing.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, you can answer a question.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not really apply to a situation where we have a control area nearby a municipality. The Town of Deer Lake was used as an example by the hon. member. Deer Lake has control over lands which surround it and surrounding communities for control purposes only, but that does not pertain to this particular amendment. This amendment really applies to a municipality and its own confined boundary itself. It does not apply to a controlled area that may be outside its jurisdiction. So, we are dealing with an incorporated municipality that has not yet put a plan in place for the town.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Okay. The understanding then is, a municipality that is incorporated but has got no municipal plan?

MR. GULLAGE: That is right.

MR. WOODFORD: Okay.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I do not see any problems with this particular amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. If the Minister speaks now, he closes the debate.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I really have nothing more to add. It is an important amendment, but really a minor amendment in the sense we are just adding a time frame to a situation that already exists. I think it is important that we do cap the period of time that is available to a municipality to have a town plan in place, because for their own benefit it is important to have planning and zoning regulations in place, and we are simply capping the period of time, so I would move, Mr. Speaker, second reading on Bill 45.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 24, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assignment Of Book Debts Act, The Bills Of Sale Act, The Conditional Sales Act And The Registration Of Deeds Act In Relation To The Offshore Area'. (Bill No. 59).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill has two objectives. The primary objective is to comply with the Hibernia agreements that have been reached by providing for the registration of interest under these acts in the offshore area. This objective will have significant benefits for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the sense that Newfoundland law will apply in the offshore area. The law will be interpreted by Newfoundland courts and hopefully, a significant amount of the legal work will accrue to Newfoundland law firms. And also, because these instruments are going to be registered under Newfoundland law, there will be a revenue increase to the Provincial Government by having these instruments registered in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The second objective of this particular bill, was to clarify a situation that occurred when the Federal Government brought these pieces of legislations, The Bills Of Sale Act, The Registration Of Deeds Act and The Assignment Of Book Debts Act, into their ambit to apply it to the offshore area, they felt that the language in the Provincial statutes as they stood, was not broad enough to cover debentures of partnerships consisting of corporations.

However, since the provincial law did apply to the registration of debentures of corporations, it was felt that since corporations made up partnerships, if the individual corporations could register their debentures then the debentures of partnerships could be registered - anyway the second purpose of the bill was to clarify the registration of the debentures of partnerships, and those amendments have been introduced into these acts to bring them into conformity with the federal legislation, so now there is no ambiguity between the two jurisdictions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just rise to make a few remarks in support of the legislation. It is one of these areas, I suppose some people call it 'lawyers law', you know where you are dealing with technical kinds of amendments and debentures and security instruments. It is very important to have this legislation up to date and dealing with the nature of the kind of business transactions that go on in a sophisticated business environment.

So I welcome the Province's speedy amendment of several pieces of legislation that deal with this type of business, particulary in that it would facilitate the use of this Province's securities legislation for the purposes of securing debts and other financial instruments, as it has to do with the offshore area.

I am also glad to see the Province exercising as complete a jurisdiction as possible over the area there and I assume - I take the minister on his word as to the jurisdictional issues. No doubt the officials and legal advisors in his Department have dealt with it. Once again, it is a bill to facilitate the operation of the Hibernia project and the maximization of benefits to this Province and therefore it has my support. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister moving the Bill speaks now he closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assignment Of Book Debts Acts, The Bills Of Sale Act, The Conditional Sales Act And The Registration Of Deeds Act In Relation To The Offshore Area," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very close to 5:00 p.m. I wonder if we could stop the clock at 5:00 p.m. for a couple of minutes? I want to call Order 16.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 16.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend Certain Departmental Acts And The Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act, 1973". (Bill No. 36).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is simply a bill to amend various departmental acts throughout Government by changing some conditions under which ministers can be authorized to make agreements, and setting out the circumstances. This is simply to make this consistent within all the Government acts. In all of the acts it will state: Power to enter into an agreement shall include the power to amend that agreement but, where the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to the original agreement is required, that approval is also required for the amending agreement.

Then there is a Notwithstanding Clause: Notwithstanding that the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is required for an agreement under sub-paragraph 6(a)(xvii) or section 13 or 14, and unless otherwise directed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the minister may enter into an agreement under subparagraph 6(a)(xvii) or section 13 or 14 without the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under these conditions. This is where the conditions are listed. First of all, where: (a) there are funds appropriated by the Legislature for the specific purpose; and (b) the expenditure of the funds has been approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for the department's budget for the fiscal year in which the agreement relates.

Then, added to that: (2) where the minister enters into an agreement under subsection (1), the minister may enter into an amending agreement, subject to those same terms, conditions and monetary limits required under subsection (1).

In essence, what it says is that where everything has been approved, where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has approved an expenditure, where it is a budgeted item approved by the House of Assembly, then the minister can enter into agreements, and it tends to speed up the process. That is essentially the main element of this particular piece of legislation, and it applies to all acts.

Then there are a couple of housekeeping items in terms of listing Government acts, and so on.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have no great difficulty with this piece of legislation, and as the Government House Leader said, we had something very similar to this, I believe, a few days ago, if I remember - something similar to this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes we did. There was something very similar to this where we were giving ministers authority to enter into agreements. We have no great problem with it, Mr. Speaker. That is all I wanted to say about it.

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

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I move second reading.

On motion, a bill "An Act To Amend Certain Departmental Acts And The Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act, 1973," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 36).

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that tomorrow ordinarily would be Private Members Day, but by leave of all Members of the House we could revert to Government business tomorrow. We are in the middle of about twenty or twenty-five different pieces of legislation at various stages, and I would like to get through these and spend a bit more time on these particular pieces of legislation. There is no pressing need in terms of Private Members Day tomorrow. We do not have one. The Official Opposition does not have one. The Member for St. John's East has one which he read today, which he indicated was for debate later on in the spring or whatever, in his release, so because there is no urgent need I thought we might do Government business tomorrow.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We have no problem. I had spoken with the Member for St. John's East a bit earlier, as the Government House Leader has alluded to. I just want to say to the Government House Leader, we have no problem with it whatsoever. I just want to make sure though, as the minister knows, there are some problems with Order 14, Bill 32 - some problems as a result of meetings of the Legislation Review Committee - and I was just wondering what he intends to do with that tomorrow, because I really need to understand that before I can totally agree with what we are going to do tomorrow. I think the Member for St. John's East was on the committee, and the Member for Humber East, so there are some concerns with that particular piece of legislation that I would like to clarify. I think the committee was looking at carrying over some kind of discussion until the middle of January on it, so I would like that clarified.

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member mentioned that, because that is a very real problem at this point in time, and I understand the process that has been gone through with the

Legislation Review Committee. However, this particular bill, "An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Lotteries And Amusement Devices In The Province," gives Government and Cabinet control over these activities in the Province, and I say to the House and members opposite particularly, that the quicker we get that particular control the better for everybody in the Province. What we do with the control when we get it is a topic that I believe some members on the committee wanted to debate, which in my way of thinking has no relevance to the particular bill itself, because I think that all members agree that we should get control over these activities and then the extent to which Government becomes involved is another totally different issue that could then perhaps be debated at some other time, but it is not relevant in terms of this particular bill, I feel. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we get that control now because of some things that are happening now. We have to get that control now so that we can properly exercise it in the future, and the way we exercise it perhaps could be a subject for debate.

So it is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to try to pass this legislation and stay as long as it takes to get that control. If members opposite want, when the House opens in the spring or whenever, in the winter, a debate on a Private Member's Day or something, on the principle of gambling in the Province, I am sure that could easily be accommodated and we would welcome such debate. Right now, the key is to get control of the process and I would be glad to explain privately to members the details of what I mean by getting control of the process and the reasons why I insist on having it now.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Government House Leader is correct in saying there is only one resolution for Private Member's Day tomorrow that will be on the Order Paper and that is mine. It is a very serious resolution and has to do with representation in this House and I would be satisfied to set it over until after Christmas so that members could have an opportunity to reflect on this issue so that the debate would be based on that kind of reflection and consultation with their members, because I think it is a rather important resolution. I would be prepared to put it aside so that we could deal with Government business.

The Government House Leader mentions the Lotteries Bill. He will know, if he has been told by the Chair of the committee, that there is a major concern about the fact that this legislation, while it does take control by the Province over lotteries, gives all of that control to the Cabinet without any debate having taken place on the issue of what the Cabinet intends to do with that control. There is a major concern that we now have slot machines in bars, and the Government has apparently now given permission to Atlantic Lotto to operate them, but there has not really been significant public discussion about it. I do not think a private member's resolution sometime in the spring or winter is a way of doing that. If we are passing legislation in this House about Government-sponsored gambling, essentially, then, if the hon. the Government House Leader can find a way of this House having some control over that debate, and over the direction of the legislation by promising to bring another bill before the House in the spring, perhaps something can be done about that. But otherwise, to me, it seems a very serious concern that is still unresolved, although I do appreciate what the Government House Leader says about the urgency of doing something about the problem.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand what the Member for St. John's East is saying and, in essence, we are saying the same thing, let's debate it. My point, though, still is that what we are talking about here is getting control over what is happening in the Province. That is one issue. What we do with that is a totally, completely separate issue. I feel it is very important that now we get control. Then we make decisions as to what to do with that control. But we need that control now and that is why I am prepared tomorrow to call that bill and have a full debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I must remind hon. members I think that the green paper I mentioned this morning is still in effect.

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