The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, municipal elections were held Tuesday in the three newly amalgamated areas of the Province including Twillingate, which is comprised of Twillingate, Durrell and Bayview, Centreville-Wareham and Trinity, and Badger's Quay-Valleyfield-Pool's Island with Wesleyville-Newtown.

In each of the three new municipalities, the councils were enlarged from seven to nine including a Mayor elected at large; five councillors at large; and three ward councillors - each ward generally equating to the boundary of the amalgamating community.

Although some people were elected by acclamation and their names are known, I would like to publicly recognize all of the councils from the three newly incorporated areas.

The new council of Twillingate is comprised of Mayor Harry Cooper and Councillors Gerald Loveridge, William Cooze, Edward Stuckless, Clayton Collins, Brian Guy, Edgar Hunt, Wilfred Scott and Robert Stockley.

The new council of Centreville-Wareham-Trinity is comprised of Mayor Stanley Hunt and Councillors Harvey Fancy, Eric Yetman, Alexander Brown, John Ackerman, Kenneth Hunt, Bill Noble, Brian Pickett, and John Waterman.

The new council of Badger's Quay-Valleyfield-Pool's Island-Wesleyville-Newtown is comprised of Mayor Eli Cross, and Councillors Christine Spurrell, Winston Norris, Valerie Norris, Wayne Perry, Walter (George) Cross, Edgar Winsor, Morgan Hill, and Earl Spurrell.

I'm sure all hon. members join me in extending our best wishes to all of the newly formed municipalities.

I think we all recognize that municipal politicians make significant contributions to the growth and development of our Province and, it is nice to know that, in these difficult times, we have so many people coming forward to serve their communities. In all, Mr. Speaker, a total of forty-five men and women contested the elections in the three newly amalgamated areas. It is my understanding that approximately 50 per cent of the eligible voters went to the polls. As a matter of fact in Twillingate, in that area, Twillingate, Durrell and Bayview, 60 per cent of the people went to the polls.

As the minister responsible for local Government I extend congratulations to all candidates who contested the elections including those who were successful as well as those who were not.

It will be my intention to work with all new and existing councils in the interest of sound municipal practices throughout the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is not much to be said in response to the statement by the Minister except to say that in some of those communities - I do not know, maybe in all, but I know, for instance, with regard to the Centreville - Wareham - Trinity amalgamation effort, they took a vote and, I think, in Wareham it came out to 54 per cent or 64 per cent in favour of amalgamation, Mr. Speaker. That is the type of amalgamation that I was talking about before. This is giving the people a choice. I think if that had been done from the outset the Minister would have had a lot less problems along the way than he has today with amalgamation.

I would like to echo the comments by the Minister in congratulating those councillors and the towns themselves. I wish them success in their endeavors, but I suggest that I would not say too much about the 50 per cent. I think that says something as well, a 50 per cent vote of people turning out at the polls. That doesn't bode well, I don't think, for municipalities in the Province.

I will also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that over the next -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is high.

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is very high.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, in some areas it is high and, I suppose, when you look at some rural areas it could be. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that over the next few months - and I do not know if the Minister is going to be as fast to get up and announce that - I think you are going to have some other troubles. That is, the mayors around this Province are going to throw in the towel and say to the Minister, 'Thanks, but no thanks. You run the communities, if this is what you are going to do with municipal grants.' When those people get their feet wet and see what is happening to municipalities with regards to municipal operating grants and the debt on servicing water and sewer projects around this Province, I am sure some of them will have a different tune.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that as far as I am concerned the volunteers in the Province or anywhere, but more specifically, when it comes to a community council or a council in this Province, are the real unsung heroes in public life. As far as I am concerned, hats off to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Oral Questions, on behalf of hon. Members I would like to extend a cordial welcome to fifty-two Grade IV students from St. Kevin's School in the Goulds. They are accompanied by their teachers, Barbara Wiseman and Gail Hynes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised this morning when, on CBC Radio, I heard an interview with Cyrus Eaton, the American industrialist, who plans to move the Piper Aircraft Corporation from Florida to Canada. I understood from the interview that he has received eight proposals, I think, from other provinces in Canada to locate the corporation in their particular home province.

The only province, it appears, for which there is no proposal is here in Newfoundland. So I want to ask the Premier: Why did the Government of Newfoundland not submit a proposal for an industry that could create 550 jobs, I think it is, and perhaps upwards of 3,000? Why didn't the Premier get involved?

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't know about it.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Eaton said was that there was no formal proposal. What the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador did, in concert with the Town of Gander and the Economic Development Group in Gander, was put forward a very comprehensive package with respect to what's available at Gander, the infrastructure, and all of the work force. There was a comprehensive package and I'd be happy to table it in the House.

When you say proposals-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FUREY: Yes, that was the word he used, but what the Government did was supplied a very comprehensive package. In fact, we discussed with-

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

MR. FUREY: The hon. member says, 'Table it.' I said I will table it. I have absolutely no hesitation in tabling it.

What the hon. Leader of the Opposition has to understand is that when an American company tells a group in Canada that they are going to be moving out of the US, automatically what happens is that company puts itself in a position where they create a bidding war. Essentially you're asking the poorest province in the nation to compete against other provinces to supply tax concessions, grants, monies, and whatever is available from that province, and it's very difficult to do that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will know that after that interview this morning I did an interview equally with the same interviewer, Mr. Miller, and I said that had the Government of Canada responded to the Provincial Government's proposal for a foreign trade zone over a year-and-a-half ago that we tabled with the National Government, he would have known that we would have had a fiscal instrument which would have given us a leg up from every other corporation and every other province - pardon me! - in the nation. But we didn't get that. It would have allowed us to create a tax-free environment that maybe would have been very attractive for the people at Piper Aircraft, Mr. Speaker.

I should tell the hon. member, also, that we followed up with a number of calls to try to locate Mr. Eaton; it was very difficult to reach him. We followed up with a letter which we faxed December 5, inviting Mr. Eaton to the Province, inviting him to Gander particularly and saying that I would be available as a senior minister to discuss this proposal on behalf of the Government. We never did get a response, but I can also tell the hon. member that officials from my department finally did locate Mr. Eaton this morning and the answer was that, although they were very, very impressed with Gander, very impressed with the infrastructure, very impressed with the Government and the local council, that at this time, they want to locate in an area of a greater population and also, Mr. Speaker, as I said, when a company says it wants to move from the U.S. -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is taking up an excessive amount of time on this, and generally repeating himself, and the Chair is satisfied that he has answered the question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.

My question was directed to the Premier for a very specific reason and I am a bit disappointed he did not want to answer the question himself. Perhaps he did not know what was going on and that concerns me even more. I want to ask the Premier - he has heard what his minister has had to say, which is a very weak attempt I think, at trying to explain his way out of this -

MS. VERGE: To cover his tracks.

MR. SIMMS: - trying to cover his tracks as best he can. The fact of the matter is that not much at all had been done in the last month or month-and-a-half since this whole question arose. Now, I want to ask the Premier, where were all the economic geniuses that he and his Government had put together? Where was the Economic Recovery Commission? Where was the Department of Development? - obviously, nowhere. Where was the Economic Advisory Council, for example? Where were all those economic geniuses that he had put together? Why were they not involved? Did the left hand know what the right hand was doing? Why was he not involved?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, all those economic geniuses to which the Leader of the Opposition so disparagingly refers, were doing their work in promoting economic development throughout the Province in other areas that are likely to be far more productive and they were doing what they should have been doing. Now, in the meantime, the Province has made a proper effort at trying to attract the Piper Aircraft Corporation, but let nobody be under any doubt as to what the Piper Aircraft Corporation is doing. They are starting a bidding war in Canada, amongst the provinces.

Now, what is this little Province of Newfoundland going to do to bid against British Columbia, Ontario or Quebec or any of the other major wealthy provinces of this nation? What are they going to do to outbid them? Be realistic. At least be frank and straightforward with the electorate and let them know what we are dealing with. Do not try to pretend that this Province sat back and did nothing, and because we sat back and did nothing, something that was certain to come here is now going to British Columbia. Utter nonsense, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such a disgusting performance or answer by a Premier of a Province which needs all the work it can get. What a terrible, terrible attitude for a Government to take. One thing is for certain, Mr. Speaker, one thing is for certain, you will never do anything if you take that kind of an attitude, I say to the Premier.

Now, I want to ask him, since this proposal could have created or could create over the next number of years, up to 3,000 jobs according to Mr. Eaton himself, doesn't the Premier think that is important enough for him to personally get involved? Did he seek a meeting with Mr. Eaton, himself, when this matter became public back in November, or is he content to take the answer of the minister who said on CBC radio this morning: 'I have had somebody standing by my fax machine all week waiting for an answer.' Is that the approach?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we maintain a ministry of economic development. We have a very competent minister of economic development. He carries out those normal activities on a day-to-day basis. If there is any real prospect that I could make a difference with Cyrus Eaton, I would go to wherever Cyrus Eaton is, anywhere in the world. And to say it is too late now is utter tripe.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, it is utter tripe. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should not try to mislead the people of this Province. They know what Cyrus Eaton is doing, he is starting a bidding war. He is trying to start a bidding war in this country. Well, this little Province, without the kind of help that the minister spoke about, the creation of a foreign trade zone here - had the Opposition supported that and talked to their cohorts in Ottawa, we might have had a chance to attract Cyrus Eaton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I said order. One thing the Chair does not at all appreciate is after my calling order, the minute the Chair takes his position, for somebody to be shouting across the floor. I ask hon. members, please, to follow the rules of the House. My job is to enforce them, their job is to follow them.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government in this Province has entered into competitive bids before, but we have never quit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Finance were in Halifax, I believe, yesterday, negotiating with the other provincial premiers and ministers of finance, talking about co-ordinating fiscal policies. Would the Premier like to tell us what agreements were met yesterday, and what areas of fiscal policy are being negotiated with the other Atlantic Provinces?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There were no negotiations whatsoever. There were discussions about our mutual concerns, and the way in which we might work together to deal with them. They dealt, in the main, with the concerns that the four governments have about a reduced level of revenue and our ability to cope with providing public services with this reduced level of revenue. There were two things that motivated the four provinces getting together; one, to explore the possibility of doing things on a four-province basis that could lower the cost, or cut the cost of each province doing it individually; and secondly, we explored the possibility of dealing with these revenue shortfalls on a similar basis. That is, each of the provinces has to deal with post-secondary education, health, municipal matters and so on, and if two of the provinces were going in one direction on it, and the other two provinces going in another direction, it is more difficult for the public to understand that kind of an approach. So we looked at the possibility of making sure that we let everybody else know what we were proposing before the decision was taken, so that we could all consider working in the same direction. That does not obligate the Government of this Province to go in any particular direction, but what we have done is gotten some good ideas from the other provinces, and I hope that, in return, we shared some ideas with them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, on a supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for that. Would the Premier tell us then, does he have any ideas, or did he get any ideas yesterday, on common policies relating to taxation; on financial incentives for business development, for example; perhaps on Government expenditures? Just which areas are we looking at taking a common approach here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We were looking, in the main, Mr. Speaker, at management of expenditures on a generally common basis, or considering moving in a similar direction. For example, all of us are dealing with the cost of post-secondary education. If we were dealing with it in generally the same manner in the four provinces, with such adjustment as is necessary to accommodate the differences, without any absolute commitment to follow it, but this is the kind of thing we explored. Mr. Speaker, it is not the kind of proposal that we can put forward in detail because, essentially, as the member knows, they are budgetary measures and they will be dealt with in each Province at the time that the budget is delivered. But this is an exploration, beforehand, of areas where we could either save money or move in the same direction.

Another thing that we looked at - for example, we are now looking at putting in place a single securities regulatory body for all four provinces, and saving the cost of having four individual ones, because there is really not enough securities activity in the four together for one significant one. So, we are looking in that direction.

Another similar area that we could take a look at, for example, is the regulation of insurance companies. The same insurance companies that operate in Newfoundland generally tend to operate in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI. So, if we had a single regulatory and policing body for insurance companies we could probably save a good deal of the cost of administration. These are some of the kinds of things we were exploring during the week.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would concede that some of these areas may well be handled better in common, but I think we need some caution here.

Would the Premier like to tell us: Were they also discussing a common approach to wages and benefits in the public sector? Are we looking at some sort of a system of co-ordinating increases or decreases in the public sector? Specifically, Mr. Speaker, was the Premier discussing with the other Maritime Provinces the possibility of a wage rollback this year? I am hearing rumours that we may be looking at a rollback in the public sector.

I asked the minister yesterday about whether or not the increase that was frozen last year would be coming forward this year. Let me ask the Premier now: Are we talking about wage rollbacks this year? Specifically, are we looking at rollbacks in the area of 8 per cent, as I am hearing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I can say we did not specifically talk about wage rollbacks. We talked about dealing with wages in the public sector, in general, but not wage rollbacks. That was not mentioned.

The rollback that the hon. member is referring to results from the fact that unlike Nova Scotia, unlike New Brunswick, unlike Newfoundland, the Province of PEI provided for a 6 or 8 per cent increase in public sector wages last spring in its budget. Halfway through the year they discovered they could not cope with it, and they agree to a rollback. So, they were rolled back to the position they were in before, give or take. All but the teachers, I think, were involved in it.

Mr. Speaker, no, we have not been specifically talking about rollbacks. As the hon. member, I believe, knows, we have already met with the public sector unions in this Province and talked to them generally about it, and we will be meeting with them again to have further discussions on the issue.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I am aware of the discussions being held with the unions, Mr. Speaker, and this where I am hearing the fears that, indeed, we may be facing an 8 per cent rollback.

Last year, the Premier issued a report entitled, 'Challenge and Opportunity' which was basically advocating economic integration of the Maritime Provinces, the Premier just told us all of these areas that we are discussing. Will the Premier not confirm that, indeed, what we are talking about here is moving very, very much toward economic union of the Maritime Provinces?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I disagree, for one simple reason. I do not think economic union can be achieved without political union. You can have governmental co-operation, there is no question about that. You can save a lot of money by having a single securities regulatory body. You can save a lot of money by having a single insurance regulatory body. You can save a lot of money by co-operating in terms of the kind of post-secondary education facilities you provide, instead of duplicating them. You can have all this kind of co-operation. But, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have economic integration without political integration; the two must go hand in hand. So, unless we are prepared to talk about political integration, it is pointless to talk about economic integration.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. On Monday, the Premier met with the Prime Minister, who was in St. John's for the first time since Meech Lake. The reports of the meeting say that they focused on process and not substance. I ask the Premier, when he met with the Prime Minister, did he tell the Prime Minister of our need in Newfoundland to protect transfer payments and social programs and our need to ensure regional equality as a fundamental value which must be written into the Constitution? Did he tell the Prime Minister that that was important to Newfoundlanders?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, two years ago, one year ago, six months ago, three months ago, I have been saying this every time I have spoken on the issue, but not that we just write in constitutional protection for federal transfers, what I am talking about is building the economy of this Province so that we can produce on a comparable basis with the rest of the country. That is the kind of protection we need. That is what I am talking about in terms of joint management for our fisheries, so that we can protect our future in the fisheries.

I talked to him about economic development, and we spent a great deal of our time, most of it, on fisheries, and another major part of it on the economic situation in the country, generally, as well as the Province, and we talked also about the constitutional issue, but that was towards the latter stages of the meeting and it was not the primary part of the meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The medical director of St. Clare's Hospital on Monday spoke about the problems of health care and doctors' frustrations with the inability of the Province to provide adequate health care. When is the Premier going to make a statement concerning the current economic union proposals, which I believe will have the effect of constitutionalizing regional inequality in this Province and destroying the ability of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to share in the wealth of Canada by the constitutional proposals that are now before us? When are you going to make a statement on that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have already indicated my disapproval of that kind of an approach, of the down-loading onto the provinces which do not have the ability to provide for those kinds of public services. I have already done it. The hon. Member sat in the Chamber, I believe, and listened to me do that. I have spoken about it in a variety of other places.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the kind of economic changes that are proposed in the Federal proposal will, in fact, take place, because they have gotten such an unacceptable reaction throughout the rest of the country.

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

MR. HARRIS: On a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier indicate to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that in this constitutional round he will focus on the major issues of substance that affect the best interests of this Province, and demand that in the new constitution that we are going to have, that there will be explicit protection for spending on social programmes and regional equality in a form of social charter that guarantees these basic rights?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, either the member has not read the proposal that I have put forward or he is specifically ignoring it or denying that it exists.

You see, you can't put into a constitution. You must be able to go to the hospital and get an x-ray at least four times a year. That does not belong in a constitution. That is for governments to provide. You put into a constitution principles that require the protection of the social needs. That is there in Section 36, it is there now in Section 36 (1), that commits the nation to the provision of ensuring the well-being of citizens wherever they live. That means educational well-being, health well-being, and social services well-being. It provides for economic opportunity and it commits the nation to providing for an acceptable level of public services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I have proposed is that you put teeth into that. That is what is missing. You do not spell out the number of x-rays to which anybody is entitled in a constitution. That is just for show. If you want to put on a good show and pretend you are doing something then, yes, you would do that. But if you really want to make it work you do it right, you operate on the basis of principle and you put teeth into it so that you can implement those principles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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. Of late the Minister in the media has sounded somewhat less positive about hydro development prospects in Labrador. Perhaps the Minister could give us a very brief update on the situation?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is really nothing new to add since I answered a question on this matter about a week ago. The most recent meeting was about two-and-a-half weeks ago and there is another one that is scheduled now, which is the pattern that we have been following for about two years. We are going to continue to negotiate. I can't really say there will or there won't be an agreement by a certain date. I am cautiously optimistic, but I do not want to hold out false hope.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Globe And Mail reports, Mr. Speaker, that Hydro Quebec appears to be determined to go ahead with Great Whale regardless of what the New Yorkers think or not. Is the Minister concerned that that might put more emphasis on the part of Hydro Quebec in its dealings with the Americans, than it would in its dealings with us?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that particular issue has any effect on our discussions.

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

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

When will the Minister admit that his constant stream of statements on this issue have been nothing more than a smoke screen to cover up the failures of the Wells' administration?

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

DR. GIBBONS: My statements, Mr. Speaker, have never been a smoke screen for anything. I just state the facts as I know them.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. In recent months it has come to our attention that it is taking increasingly longer to have cases dealt with at the Workers' Compensation Board. Can the minister explain to this House why it takes so long for the WCB to respond to the claims of injured workers?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm the premise on which the hon. member bases his question because the information I have, in fact, is that there is no difference in terms of the time to respond to a case before the Workers' Compensation Commission now than there has been at any time in the past several years. From time to time there are individuals, who because of the nature of their injury and their own particular case, might take a lengthy period of time. The number of cases and the number of claimants in the system has actually decreased. The amount of time on a claim has increased, on average, but the time limits are no different now, on average, than they have been for a number of years.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo on a supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: The Minister should talk to the injured workers in this Province and find out how long it is actually taking.

I ask the minister this then. It is quite common for delays to be as long as three months, and in some cases longer in processing claims. Since you are the Minister responsible, what are you going to do now to remedy the situation, and not wait until some report gets dealt with my Cabinet months down the road?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the answer previously, there is no evidence right now that there are any undue delays, anymore so than there has ever been in the Workers' Compensation system for a number of years.

With respect to what we are going to do immediately, I can assure the hon. member and all members in the House, that there is a great likelihood that our response to the Review Committee's recommendations early in the new year will be a lot more speedy than the absolute zero response that came from the 1986 review which has yet to be acted on at all by the Government of that day. There was no action at that time whatsoever.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One has to wonder, then, why we are getting all the calls in our offices, if there are no undue delays, and we also have to wonder why the previous Minister of Employment and Labour Relations said that most of the recommendations in the report were implemented.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister this: Will the Minister confirm that deliberate instructions have been given to the claims adjudicators at the Workers' Compensation Board by the Minister or senior management, to help lower the deficit by deliberately delaying the payments to claimants by the Workers' Compensation Board and that, in addition to that, the medical department has an inadequate staff there to deal with the number of people who are expecting to get claims?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there is, to my knowledge, absolutely no basis or foundation whatsoever that there is any direction from either the Minister or senior staff to delay claims, or anything of that nature, so that there would not be money forthcoming to worthy recipients, clients that deserve assistance under the Workers' Compensation system. There is no such directive, to my knowledge, other than that claims should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

The nature of the medical staff and the idea of having reviews and medical information required before claimant's positions can be finally determined, has always been a troublesome area. It is one that is referenced in the Review Committee Report and one that we will be trying to deal with early in the new year, as we deal with all aspects of the report, a number of the recommendations dealing with reorganization at the Commission itself.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. On December 2 he made a statement and took a position with regards to a hook and release program for the recreational salmon fishery. Over the last day or so we have seen some strong statements coming from the Salmonid Council and from the Outfitters Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister consulted with both those associations before making his statement and, as well, was that just an opinion of the minister or is it the official position of Government, that this hook and release program should be implemented?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I have explained now several times precisely what I said on December 2, and while maybe my choice of words was not good, what I said in effect, I guess, is that hook and release is one option that will be looked at. If the biologists feel that a certain river system requires that kind of an approach then, of course, why not? The commercial fishermen will be sharing a certain amount of pain from what the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans intends to do and, if it's found that river systems require a cautious approach then, as I said, maybe a suggestion would be hook and release.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I just say to the minister that the Outfitter's Association, the outfitters of the Province have been having a pretty rough time the last few years, since a lot of the anglers are going to other provinces because of the decline in our rivers, of salmon, and some of them are saying that if the hook and release program is implemented, then they probably will go under. Has the minister put any thought into, or discussed with his colleague, the Minister of Tourism and Wildlife, and so on, any possibilities of compensation for the outfitters of the Province if his recommendation for a hook and release program is implemented? Has the Cabinet looked at some kind of formal compensation package for the outfitters, to get them through?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. gentleman is reading something into what I said on December 2 that certainly wasn't intended to be there. With respect to the concern being expressed by outfitters, I suspect that maybe hook and release, if it is widely applied over all rivers, would have an adverse effect on them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you recommend it?

MR. CARTER: Certainly, I did not recommend it, Mr. Speaker, and the record will show that I said, that is a suggestion. I would suggest to the hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Speaker, that instead of trying to read something into what I said, or maybe did not say, they should be using their influence on their soulmates in Ottawa to ensure that the commercial salmon fishermen of our Province, some of whom are represented by members opposite, to make representation to their friends in Ottawa to ensure that there is a good, solid package put together to compensate commercial salmon fishermen who, if reports are accurate, will be asked to forego their licences.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. What a bunch of quitters we have over there, Mr. Speaker! What a bunch of quitters!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no, (inaudible) what he said is wrong. 'Mr.Carter is wrong,' the editorial in 'The Telegram' says. It's in there again, today, that you're wrong. I want to ask a supplementary of the Minister of Development and Tourism: What impact would such a hook and release program have on the tourist industry in this Province? A lot of people come to the Province for angling and so on. From what I read, the impact could be devastating on the outfitters and the tourism industry in the Province. Would the minister have any idea what the real impact would be on this Province if the hook and release program is implemented?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member calls this Government a bunch of quitters. Had the other government only known when to quit on cucumbers, perhaps we would be better off today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has told the House that the Government is looking at a number of options. Now, you don't have to be a genius Mr. Speaker, to figure out that if it is hook and release, obviously, it will have an effect and an impact on the outfitter industry and on the tourism industry. Sure, it will have an effect, make no mistake about it. But, I mean, we are trying to be responsible and not political. Hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to play politics with a very sensitive issue. The salmon are in deep trouble. Our commercial fishermen are in deep trouble. There will be nothing there for tourists or outfitters or locals if we don't address this very serious problem Mr. Speaker, and we choose not to play politics with it but do what is responsible, look at all options, and take the right decision for the long term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

A moment ago, when I introduced a group of students, my notes were not accurate. I said that the students were from St. Kevin's Elementary School when, indeed, they are from the Gould's Elementary School.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, could we revert to Presenting Reports?

MR. SPEAKER: May we revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply wish to table three annual reports: The annual report of the Livestock Owners Compensation Board, 1989-1990; the annual report of the Farm Development Loan Board of Newfoundland, fiscal year ending March 31, 1990; and the annual report of the Newfoundland Crop Insurance, again, 1989-1990. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in debate concerning Bill 53, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting The Prevention Of Fire", I was asked a technical question concerning the occupancy regulation for buildings, and in reply to that question, Mr. Speaker, to which I said I would respond - several members on the Opposition asked the question - in answer to that, Mr. Speaker, the occupancy loading ratings are set depending on a number of factors, the main factor which may vary the occupancy rating between similar types of structures, is the use of the premises.

The occupancy factor for eating establishments, for instance, and public assembly halls, would be different. The occupancy loading is established in accordance with the national building code. There are considerable numbers of variables which influence each use and uses are broken down in the building code into assembly uses, institutional uses, residential uses, business and personal service uses, mercantile uses, industrial uses and other uses.

Within each of these main uses, a number of variables has to be considered and these include whether the occupancy required was a space with fixed seats, space with non-fixed seats, stage for theatrical performances, space with non-fixed seats and tables, standing space, dormitories, dwelling units, offices, storage, kitchens and there are many others.

Other influencing factors would be the type of construction, both inside and outside, the number of exits, the proximity to availability of fire fighting water flows, whether or not the property was sprinklered -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I appreciate the fact that the minister is trying to give us some information, but the question was asked in debate. He should have provided the answer when he was here to close the debate, so perhaps he could just table it rather than take the time of the House now to read all that detailed and technical information, because it is not really in order, anyway.

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

MR. GULLAGE: The question was asked in debate and in Question Period, Mr. Speaker, which I omitted to say earlier. Just one more sentence and I am finished. One cannot say, Mr. Speaker, that because two properties appear to be alike in structure and type of construction that the occupancy loading would be the same. In order to make a particular determination, one would have to know the two buildings in question and do an individual assessment to determine whether maybe they may be given different occupancy load levels, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the Chair is not aware, at the moment, of whether or not Answers to Questions are only specifically for Question Period. That has been my understanding, that Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given ought to be for questions asked in Question Period. The Chair will research that. Obviously, if it is in some other forum, then the minister will answer that in the appropriate debate. I think it has been customary that Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given has been for questions asked during Question Period, but the Chair will research it a little further.

MR. GULLAGE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that is academic, because I was also asked the question in Question Period.

MR. SIMMS: Did he (inaudible) notice of the question, that is the (inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Yes I did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I take the minister's word, again, and make the point that anybody giving answer to a question, obviously, it is for notice that has been given, and the Chair does not always know that the notice has been given, in view of the debate that has taken place the day before. So one would have to leave it to the integrity of the ministers. Barring that - not barring the integrity,

because I think we have that, but if there is some dispute, then the Chair will research it.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents in my district, 132 residents of the community of Hodge's Cove.

The prayer and the format of the petition do not conform to the rules of the House. I request the leave of the hon. House to present this petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Could the Chair take a look at the petition?

For hon. members, what the petition is doing is requesting the Government to pave roads in a certain area - upgrading of roads. It does not have the normal format of a petition, but that is its request. If hon. members would agree, it is signed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed!

The hon. the member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I thank hon. members for their kindness. The prayer of the petition says: 'We, the undersigned residents of the Community of Hodge's Cove, in the electoral district of Bellevue, specifically those who are served by gravel roads, do hereby petition Her Majesty's Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to have these mentioned roads paved in the 1992 paving season.

To give some history of Bellevue district, when I got elected some two-and-a-half years ago, despite the millions of dollars being spent in this Province on road work, there were eleven communities in the district of Bellevue that did not have pavement within the communities, themselves. The main roads, the bus routes within the communities, did not have pavement. Hodge's Cove, of course, was one of these communities, and Hodge's Cove is a fairly big community. When you look at the amount of money that Government spends in some of these small communities, it is very, very little. We hear from time to time in Question Period, and particularly, talking about municipal capital grants, equalization grants, and householder grants, there is a lot of money being passed out to the urban areas in this Province in the form of direct Government grants. In a lot of these smaller communities, normally, the only thing they ask for is a few paved roads in their communities, and for the roads to be ploughed and maintained. Sometimes, they request a few little water grants. So these people in the Province contribute greatly to the taxes within the Province but, in a lot of cases, receive very few benefits in terms of Government grants and other forms of funding.

I support this petition. Out of the eleven communities in the Bellevue district that were unpaved when I got elected, we have already looked after five; there are only six more. I guess one of my objectives, in my first term in office in Bellevue district, is to ensure that the other six communities in the district will be paved before I go back to the people seeking my second mandate.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in support of the petition of the hon. member representing a district that had a lot of communities with gravel roads, whereby people find it very, very hard to get to school and work, etc. I can fully appreciate the position the people are in, and I certainly support their petition for improvements in their district.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: The member presented a petition in the House on behalf of his constituents. I would think it rather strange if the Minister of Transportation or the Government did not get up on behalf of the Government and acknowledge, on behalf of the constituents of the hon. member, that there is a problem with the roads.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The Government will respond and speak to issues as the Government sees fit, and not as the member opposite thinks it should happen. We will leave it entirely to the Government. That is the normal process of operating, and we are not going to waste the time of the House with these kinds of points of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I remind hon. members that the Chair is standing and asking for order, and just simply to say there is no point of order.

Order, please!

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Department of Mines And Energy Act, 1989." (Bill No. 60).

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, a couple of very minor amendments to The Department of Mines and Energy Act. Last year, when we studied petroleum product pricing, we found some minor weaknesses in the gathering of information and the posting of prices, so this bill would amend the Act to give the Minister of Mines and Energy the authority to order a person engaged in the refining, distribution or sale of petroleum or petroleum products to provide information respecting activities that may be prescribed by regulation. Presently, any information that we get from the industry is on a voluntary basis. This would allow us to get some information more directly, by regulation.

The second point is the bill would authorize the minister to order a person engaged in the retail sale of petroleum or petroleum products to post the prices at which they are being sold in a manner again to be prescribed, so there would be some consistency in this as people approach a gas pump.

It is very minor, Mr. Speaker, and that is all I have to say on it.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaking for the Opposition, we have no problem with this particular bill. It contains minor housekeeping amendments. However, it is, I should say, in a more political vein, in line with the Minister's duties as the good news Minister of the Wells' administration. Much has been said about the regulation of petroleum products, little has been done. At least, now, we will have some enabling legislation. With that, I have nothing further to say, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to offer my support in principle for the changes to the legislation to give the Government some power to do a proper job in monitoring retail prices and getting information from the suppliers. But I wonder, in the Minister's cluing up of debate, would he give the members some assurance that his Government will be active in pursuing this issue, particularly, as it relates to complaints that we keep getting from the coast of Labrador.

I know the Member for Eagle River does not like to talk about it, but there is a consistent, annual series of complaints about the high cost of petroleum products on the coast of Labrador, the variations between communities which are very extreme, and an apparent monopoly that needs the constant attention of this Government. I ask the minister, in replying to this debate, would he give the House the assurance that this winter, in particular, he will be very vigilant with respect to this problem on the coast of Labrador?

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

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments by the hon. members opposite. As was said, this will give us some teeth now to actually get some detailed information, whereas previously everything had to be done on a voluntary basis by the companies. We will be able to find out some details on cost in places like coastal Labrador that we could not find out before. So my staff will certainly be doing that. I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Mines And Energy Act, 1989," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

MR. BAKER: Order 13, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 13.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the

Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend Certain Departmental Acts And The Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act, 1973." (Bill No. 36).

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 14.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act". (Bill No. 45).

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 3, carry?

Just a second now; just go back to Bill 45 for a minute, to get the clause and the title, as well, the enacting clause.

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

MR. BAKER: Order 15.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, 1977 (No. 3)". (Bill No 47).

On motion, clauses 1 and 2, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 3, carry?

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: An amendment to clause 3, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. GRIMES: In section 9.1 (4), the inclusion of a phrase - and the Opposition critic and the Table have the amendment - 'In the absence of existing agreements', so that the only time that the board would have to look at a past and area practices would be, if in fact, all other things are unavailable because it has been pointed out to us in consultations since, that when there are existing agreements, previous decisions of the board and other adjudicative bodies, and so on, that there is no need to go to past and area practices.

That process is very lengthy and we have agreed with the suggestion that when the other sources of information and evidence are available, there would be no need to go to past and area practice as a reason for making a decision with the board. So, in that case, we move this amendment for the inclusion of the phrase: in the absence of existing agreements', in section 9.1 (4).

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 4 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 5 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carry all clauses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All clauses?

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Again, with clause 5, Mr. Chairman, Section 70.15, has just been restated in the positive. The wording in Bill 47, as presented, was worded in a negative fashion. It is the exact same statement of position except that it is worded and restated in the positive so that the "Notwithstanding the accreditation of an employers' organization in the sector, an employer in the sector is bound by a collective agreement", previously it stated, 'would not be bound unless,' so it is worded more clearly and this facilitates the reading of this particular section.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 5 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 6, carry?

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: An amendment in clause 6, subsection 88.1 (2), to be replaced and substituting the wording here. What this does, is there were two instances where the board could order that the facts would be adduced and the knowledge that material to the allegation would have to be presented before the board. It was there in two different sections in 88.1 (2) and also in 89.6. It was stated with different language in the two sections, even though the intent was exactly the same, so it is changed here to make the wording in 88.1(2) coincide exactly with the wording in 89, subsection 6, so it is the same intent and now will have the same wording.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 6 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 7 carry?

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman?

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

MR. HARRIS: On clause 6, Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet and not recognized by the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not see the hon. member standing. So clause 6 has been carried as amended.

MR. HARRIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what I am required to do. I understand that the rules require me to stand to be recognized. If the Chair did not recognize me, I can only assume that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member is standing.

MR. HARRIS: I can only assume that standing is not sufficient in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has stated to the hon. member that he did not see the member standing, and the Chair cannot recognize an hon. member if he does not see him standing. Those are the rules of the House, and if the hon. member wants to ask for leave to revert back to clause 6, then the Chair has no choice but to do that, if it is approved by the House.

MR. HARRIS: I ask the Chair to seek the leave of the House to revert to clause 6.

MR. MURPHY: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the hon. members, in particular the Member for St. John's South, for giving leave on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on clause 6 and the particular wording of clause 6, particularly as it relates to an attempt by the Government, through this legislation, to avoid some of the practices being undertaken by way of double breasting or avoidance, really, of the provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

One of the most common practice developed in recent years, Mr. Chairman - and it is not something that is brand new, it did not happen yesterday or the day before, but it has been in practice for the last couple of years - is, in essence, a form of double breasting. What happens, Mr. Chairman, is that companies - and this happens quite often with construction companies, but it happens with other companies as well - that what they do is, instead of setting up a new company or a double-breasted company that is owned by the same people, they will have what is called a payroll corporation.

If one looks at some of the applications that have been before the Labour Relations Board, for some strange reason accountants initials seems to be the names of most of these corporations. In fact, I understand from the applications that I have been involved with myself, when in practice, that certain types of companies can be set up on a matter of a day's notice. All of a sudden the employer is no longer the employer that everybody thought it was, but the employer is an accounting firm which is, in essence, acting as a payroll company.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there have been applications before the Labour Relations Board where the board has determined that the real employer, in the case of interpreting this Labour Relations Act, was, in fact, the company that was providing the money to the payroll company to make the payments. Mr. Chairman, it does not take terribly much imagination for these companies, that are trying to avoid the provisions of this act, to put in place one or two people who may have some expertise to get around the rulings that the Labour Relations Board has made.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister whether he would not be prepared to propose an amendment to clause 6, or to section 89 of the act coming up in clause 7, which would ensure that the Labour Relations Board was certain to have the power to determine, for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act, that such an activity or such a company conducting payroll activities and only peripherally involved in any other activities, would be, in fact, for all purposes of the act, considered an employer. It might require, Mr. Chairman, a minor technical amendment to clause 88.1 or clause 6.

What it reads now is, "Where, in the opinion of the board associated or related activities or businesses are carried on," and it goes on to talk about the ownership of those companies, Mr. Chairman. An amendment to that would provide that the associated or related business being carried on would permit the board to declare that a corporation, person, partnership, or syndicate, would be an employer for the purposes of the act, even though they were not related or under common control.

So, I think the Minister is aware of this problem. He knows that this is a practice that goes on, and he knows that the Labour Relations Board is not certain that the Labour Relations Board has jurisdiction. It is going to be a difficult time over the next few years, with people having to fight off various applications to do this, and I wonder would the Minister address that issue to the House and advise the House whether he is prepared to accept an amendment to the new Section 88.1, which would guarantee that this type of activity would be considered to be part of the common employer provisions under the new section.

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I recognize fully and having discussed the matter previously, as well, with the Member for St. John's East. This whole issue of the payroll companies and so on has been raised in some of the discussions that have been carried on with the unions involved here, representatives of the employees, as well as representatives of the employers, and this consultation has gone on now extensively and in a detailed fashion over the past six months. Prior to that the issue was also raised before the Legislation Review Committee briefly last year.

The difficulty, Mr. Chairman, is that nobody has yet brought forward any kind of proposal for amendment to include that kind of provision that meets with any kind of agreement. No one has really proposed that that be dealt with at the same time as the rest of these matters. Everyone is aware that there is another issue there that will have to be dealt with at some point in time and, based on the consideration that we have given to the matter to date and the fact that that has only been raised tangentially and has not been part of any detailed consultation process with the main players involved and affected by this change, it wouldn't be proper, in my judgement, to entertain amendment along that line now. But it is certainly something that is under ongoing consideration and might be part of some changes in the future dealing with the same types of matters that are dealt with here now.

On motion, clauses 7 through 8 carried.

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act." (Bill No. 57)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act." (Bill No. 58)

MR. BAKER: Order 18, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 18.

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)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 2 carry?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking to Bill 59, Mr. Chairman, a lot of people in my district have a lot of concern about the power, or exactly what this bill does to them, the tremendous impact that parts of this bill has on what's occurring -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are on the wrong one.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if this new House Leader has deliberately misled me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair called Bill number 59.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: My understanding is that the Member for Menihek wished to put on the record his comments about Bill 57, and we had already done that. So I am wondering if, by leave of the House, we could allow the Member to make his comments about Bill 57 for the record?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the House agree to revert back to discussion on Bill 57?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly appreciate the House granting leave to allow me the opportunity of speaking on a bill that has such a tremendous impact on the residents of Western Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, we all know that the role of a Crown Corporation can play a very important economic role in the economic development of a province or an area, specifically. We have seen other provincial governments use Crown corporations such as a hydro corporation - Hydro Quebec in the Province of Quebec - as being part of the industrial strategy. We have seen Ontario Hydro, in the Province of Ontario, being used, some funds from Ontario Hydro, to specifically help an area that has been hit harder than other areas in the Province of Ontario in the recession. We have seen funds through Ontario Hydro being used in a diversification fund in northern Ontario to help alleviate unemployment problems and to diversify the local economy in northern Ontario. More specifically, Elliot Lake.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good government.

MR. A. SNOW: A very good government, Mr. Chairman, in the sense that they are responding to the needs of people. Of course, labels do not necessarily make a good government. You have to have people involved in that particular party or governments of all parties, Mr. Chairman, who have a concern for people, who put people above the bottom line.

I firmly believe that this is what this Government does not do. It should direct its Crown corporations to participate in moves that would and could help people, and help them in a region such as Western Labrador. One of the few advantages that is left that we can offer from Western Labrador to attract new industry, to service the mining industry that is now presently located in the Province of Quebec, one of the few advantages that we did have was providing the opportunity for them to move north, set up their shops in Western Labrador, provide services to the mining industry and, thus, create jobs. That is what it would do. It would allow the opportunity for these entrepreneurs to establish in Western Labrador rather than in the Province of Quebec and create more employment opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, not only would it provide that opportunity, it would also create or continue the opportunity for people in Western Labrador to maintain the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to, in knowing the fact that they do not have to pay a high, exorbitant cost for electricity. A lot of the people who went to Western Labrador to work in the mines were enticed there because of low housing costs and low heating costs in the housing units that they had to live in, recognizing, of course, that they consume more energy than other areas of this Province because of the extreme climatic conditions.

So, Mr. Chairman, this Bill facilitates Newfoundland Hydro taking over the Carol Utility Company, Mr. Chairman, which will undoubtedly offer tremendous increases to the people of Western Labrador. In Labrador City right now Newfoundland Hydro are asking for a 30 per cent increase, Mr. Chairman, to electrical charges. Hopefully, they will not get the right to increase the electrical charges by 30 per cent, and 15 per cent in Wabush, Mr. Chairman. If the people in Western Labrador are going to have to pay 30 per cent more for electrical energy next year, and the following year the intent of the hydro company has been stated publicly, that they want to have a uniform rate, and the people of Labrador will have to pay as much as 300 per cent more than what they are paying today.

MR. GRIMES: That is unfair.

MR. A. SNOW: The Member for Exploits says that is unfair and I thoroughly agree with him, that it is unfair. I am glad that he recognizes the unfairness of this and that he is going to speak up for the residents of Western Labrador. If this proposal ever comes to Cabinet, I hope that he will speak up for the residents of Western Labrador.

I believe that the Government should direct Crown corporations, such as Newfoundland Hydro, to play an important role in the economic development of the Province and areas of the Province. The opportunity has been there. You are missing an opportunity to do it. It can be used as a lever to entice businesses to come and reside, operate, and create more opportunities for employment, and economic activity in Western Labrador, but you have to have the understanding and the caring of putting people above the bottom line and thus making this Crown corporation work for the people rather than just working to expand its own territory or its own domain, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Order 19, Mr. Chairman.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Chairman, just to correct one error, in fact, from the hon. member opposite. This particular set of amendments has nothing at all to do with Hydro Corporation taking over the private grid in Labrador City, absolutely nothing. It does include Labrador for the cross-subsidy, but it has nothing to do with taking over the grid.

A bill, "An Act To Establish An Advisory Council On The Economy." (Bill No. 61)

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

MR. BAKER: By leave, committee stage on Bill No. 60, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave Bill No. 60.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Mines And Energy Act, 1989." (Bill No. 60)

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

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

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

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to report Bills 36, 45, 57, 58, 59, 61, and 60 carried without amendment, and Bill 47 with amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again presently by leave.

On motion, Bill 47, amendment read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third time presently by leave.

MR. BAKER: Order 21, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 21.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Lotteries And Amusement Devices In The Province." (Bill No. 32).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill. There has been a fair amount of discussion about this bill in the last couple of days, and I would like to inform the House as to the reason, one reason, really, why it is important that this be dealt with now.

First of all, just a brief summary of the bill. It has to do with the licensing and the control of certain devices. In terms of the licensing, clause 4(1): In accordance with the regulations, the Minister of Justice or a person designated by the Minister of Justice may issue a licence to the owner of an electronic or mechanical amusement device.

Now, this is in addition to the lottery aspect of it.

Clause 4(2) says: 'Where the owner of the electronic or mechanical amusement device referred to in subsection (1) fails to obtain a licence or fails to comply with the terms and conditions contained in the licence, inspectors appointed by the Minister of Justice may seize and retain that device.'

Mr. Speaker, to go a step further, if you jump to clause 6(1): 'A person who fails to comply with or otherwise contravenes this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and every person who is guilty of an offence is liable on summary conviction in the case of a 1st conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 and in the case of a 2nd or subsequent conviction for a similar offence to a fine not exceeding $5,000 and, in either case, in default of payment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months.'

Those are the consequences of disobeying, or going against this particular bill and the regulations contained. The penalties are even greater than that, because if you go to clause 6(3): 'Every continuance for a day or part of a day of the failure to comply or other contravention referred to in subsection (1) constitutes a separate offence.'

So it is not that a person can get charged and get off with paying $1,000 fine, while he perhaps had the illegality continuing for a number of days, weeks, or months and hence could make thousands of dollars. Every single day or part thereof constitutes a separate offence, which makes the fines or whatever that much more serious.

Mr. Speaker, the question will be asked: Why am I insisting, or is Government insisting, on doing this piece of legislation right now? I would like to explain that. First of all, the first point that I want to make is that this piece of legislation gives the Government and Cabinet, or whatever, exactly the same powers it has under the Criminal Code, with one exception. So, we are, in a sense, taking powers that exist under the Criminal Code and putting them in the bill, but we are making an exception. There is a difference between what we can do under the Criminal Code and what is here, and it is that exception I would like to explain, but, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you a little story first.

I would like to tell you about what has happened in New Brunswick. Of the devices we mention here, we have lotteries: the Atlantic Lotto, Lotto 6-49, that type of activity. But we also have the so-called slot machines, or the electronic machines.

AN HON. MEMBER: Slot machines.

MR. BAKER: Whatever they are called. I have heard them called by a variety of names. But there are electronic machines, Mr. Speaker, on which people can go and play a variety of gambling games. That is what is included here in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to you what has happened in New Brunswick, and not only New Brunswick, but in some other provinces with regard to these machines. I would like members opposite to listen because that is the crux of the reason why we want this bill through now. The machine is not a lottery, but simply an amusement device like a pinball machine. I used to play pinball when I was a kid for five cents. These are amusement devices, but they were put in corner stores and made highly available all over the Province of New Brunswick and in some other provinces, as well.

What these machines do, and I have researched this, these machines, you put in your money and you play certain games of poker, games of chance, and you either win or lose. Now, most of the time you lose, and your quarter or whatever is gone, but sometimes you win. And when you win a number of times in a row, you build up credits in the machine. Now, so far, this is just an amusement device, just like the pinball machines where you win your free games, you get your credits show up free games. However, credits build up if you win, and when you stop playing, you push a button and a printout comes and you are told how many credits you have. Now, Mr. Speaker, you cannot do anything with credits, so, ordinarily, that would be the end of it. The person would have the satisfaction of playing the device, being amused by it, which was supposedly the function of it, and that would be all. However, Mr. Speaker, there was another side to these machines, and the other side was this: these credits, in a lot of cases, could then be taken - I am talking not about what is happening here, but what has happened in other provinces, I will get to what is happening here - could be taken and turned in to the proprietor who would illegally - because legally he or she could not do it - pay off for the credits obtained in the machine. So, in other words, legally these machines were entertainment devices, but in reality, with what was happening, they were gambling devices.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) entertaining questions.

MR. BAKER: Yes, sure.

MR. MATTHEWS: Why would they do that? I mean, even not knowingly playing it for money, I would think, where would the money come into the transaction?

MR. BAKER: Okay, here is the catch. I did not really go into how the machines function. You see, there is a little chip that you put in the back and it controls the number of times people win and this kind of thing, so the people who owned the machines were putting in a chip that indicated the machine would pay out a certain percentage of times, and there would be a split of the money because, as members opposite know, it is one thing to put your money in and be amused, it is another thing to stand a chance of winning money. And the word very quickly got around that you could actually win money with this, so that is what stimulated the interest. There was a run on these machines, and the under the table pay offs that were associated with it, and the machines could be manipulated. One week, the owner of these thousand machines, or whatever, would come in and put a chip in, and that chip would cause a fairly large payout, and word would get around that this machine had a large payout. Then he would come in the next week, change the chip, it would be a lower payout, and make a killing.

The profit was then split between the person who owned the establishment and the person who owned the machine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Okay, but I will get to the difference now. What was happening was that these machines then proliferated all over the province - I will use New Brunswick as an example - and there was a tremendous amount of illegal gambling happening in corner stores and bus stops and everything all over the place.

Now then, Government would not want that to happen. This is an illegal activity. Right? So do you know what they tried to do? They tried to stop it. But they found out, because of the way the court system works - and I am not a lawyer, so I do not understand the intricacies of the court system - but the way the court system works, they would have to get conclusive proof, using undercover agents, and so on, that this activity was happening. But they had to get this proof in every individual incident. And there were not enough undercover people, they just did not have enough policemen, to actually lay enough charges to have an effect on the number of machines in the Province.

MR. HODDER: I just wanted to make a comment.

MR. BAKER: Sure.

MR. HODDER: When I went to the University of New Brunswick in the 1960s, these machines were around. They weren't in Nova Scotia and they weren't in Prince Edward Island. I would submit to the President of Treasury Board that the reason these things were allowed to - and he gives the New Brunswick experience, which I do not think is a valid experience. I think the problem there was that the Province never did outlaw the things and they turned a blind eye to them right from the late l950s and early 1960s.

MR. BAKER: Yes, I was going to get to that. That matter will be dealt with a little later on. I just wanted to first of all set the stage and point out what these machines were, how they could be manipulated by the chips, and what happened in that instance.

Now, the hon. member, when he went to university, that was a long time ago, and there were some of these machines around, certainly, but nothing like what has happened in the last year or so. What has happened is - well, a number of things have happened. Number one, the machines have been outlawed - a certain type of machine has been outlawed in some of the states in the United States. So they have this hardware that they wanted to put in use somewhere. So that is why there is now a flood of these machines into Canada coming through New Brunswick first, and Nova Scotia has a tremendous problem in the last number of months. I am just talking about recent history now. In the last number of months hundreds of those machines have flooded into Nova Scotia and are starting to flood the market in Nova Scotia the way they did in New Brunswick.

The reason it is happening is simply that there is no control. We had some of the machines in this Province, and they were showing up in the bars and so on. So this is one of the reasons why the decision was made to try to control what was happening in this Province. Because a couple of hundred of those machines had already come into the Province this summer. So by controlling it we do a number of things.

We ensure that there is control. If it is left wide open they are going to show up everywhere because we have no way of telling someone: you cannot put an amusement device in a corner store. We just cannot do it. If we knew and could prove it was gambling we could do it. We can't stop it otherwise, it is the only way to stop it. It gives us control over where these machines go, to ensure that if they are not to be used - now this is a separate issue. Members might want to suggest that we should, after we have this control, then make the decision that we will not licence any more and that if any more show up we can simply go and seize them, we now have the right to do that. Members can make that point. But in order to do that you first of all have to have the control which this bill gives. It is as simple as that. It is a matter of control. Right now they are limited to places where people over the age of eighteen - what is the drinking age now, eighteen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen.

MR. BAKER: Oh, nineteen. Anyway, where people of drinking age go. They are limited to that. They are not in places where kids can get at them and so on, and spend hour after hour shoving their quarters in.

MS. VERGE: Just intoxicated adults.

MR. BAKER: Well, I remind the hon. member that she was part of the Government that got us into the lottery business in the first place. I remind the hon. member of that. Like I say, that is not the issue here, the issue is control. If the hon. member wants to talk about the way the control is used that is a totally different issue. As a matter of fact, it is a totally irrelevant issue until we pass that bill because we have no control over these machines, because the gambling will go on under the table like it has been going on in other parts of Canada, and we will have no way to control it.

I will say one other thing to hon. members, that across Canada where there have not been the controls, the people who have been controlling these machines are members of organized crime. Organized crime has been controlling these machines.

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of the machines I see are owned by Lotto Canada.

MR. BAKER: Well, if the hon. member would listen, I just finished explaining. That is why we decided to go the control route and not the route that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have gone, and they are now kicking themselves because they did not go, and are wondering how they can get back to where we are now, to get control of the whole thing before it gets out of control. It is out of control in those provinces right now.

So, right now we have, I suppose in one sense, said to these establishments that Atlantic Lotto will be allowed to put those machines in but you cannot have any other machines. So right away that has kind of shut down the operation of what I now call the illegal machines. Once this bill passes we can then say, 'This machine in this place is illegal, there is no license for it.' We can then go in and seize it, if they do not immediately stop the operation and get rid of the machines. If they start showing up in corner stores, we can shutdown the operations.

Right now we have some indirect kind of control through the licensed establishments to sell liquor. We have an indirect kind of control now. This would give us direct control over every single establishment that wants to put one of those machines in. I can tell you that a matter of two or three months is serious in this particular case. There are thousands of machines now in the process of flooding the market and it has only been in the last month or so, couple of months, that they have really started to hit in Nova Scotia. Some of them have already shown here but the flood has not hit yet .

MR. HARRIS: In what month did Atlantic Lotto put theirs in?

MR. BAKER: It was about six months ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was to replace the underground machines that were already there.

MR. BAKER: That is right, yes. There are a lot of underground machines in there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: There are no machines down my way, and I am going (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: That is right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The President of the Council is speaking. If other members would like to take part in the debate there will be an opportunity.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this bill gives us control over not only the gambling devices, not only the normal gambling means like Lotto 649 which is just as much a gambling device or gambling activity as the electronic machines, not only does it give us the control that we already have over Lotto 649 and all of those activities, but it gives us control over the electronic and mechanical amusement devices that we did not have before. That is really the only change from the control we now have under the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important that this bill be dealt with now. It has nothing to do with the issue of whether we should get involved or not. It really deals with the fact that if that activity does happen in this Province then the Government will control it one way or the other. I would suggest that that is the way that this should be dealt with. I know that some members opposite have been taking it in an entirely different light, but it has nothing to do with the philosophy of whether we should be involved in gambling or anything else. All it has to do with is allowing us to control the illegal gambling activities, and then, if members opposite want to suggest we should cut down our gambling activities once we have the control, I would agree with you. We need the control to do it because if we do not get the control, I can guarantee you that within a short time there will be illegal machines all over this island, ten times as many as are there now. They will be all over this island. I guarantee you they will, and I that is why -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well I am just telling you the truth now.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) put them all over the Province.

MR. BAKER: Okay. I am trying to explain this in a non-partisan, realistic way. I admit that we have put 782 machines in the Province. That is well known. That was never hidden.

MS. VERGE: That is not well known.

MR. BAKER: It is well known.

MS. VERGE: There were no public hearings about it.

MR. BAKER: It is well known that there are 782 machines. The member, in her usual way, is being totally partisan, ignoring the purpose of this act, and trying to score a few political points. Well I wish her luck. That is fine. That is fair ball. But I just want it to be known for what it is. This act gives us control, then when we have control, it is up to us to decide what to do with it. These machines are in existence now in the Province. We have put 782, I believe, into this Province, 782 machines. But I will tell you that if we do not get control there will be 7,082 in very short order in corner stores and grocery stores all over this Province.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the legislation before the House. What the hon. Government House Leader is talking about here is a piece of legislation that is to authorize the Government monopoly on gambling. That seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to be the purpose of this legislation.

We have heard the minister tell us what he wants to do, what he wants to control, and he wants to do this. What did they do so far, Mr. Speaker? They wanted to give the carte blanche to the Cabinet of this Province to undertake gambling activities on behalf of the Government. He has already done that.

AN HON. MEMBER: We already have that.

MR. HARRIS: He has already done that. What he wants is a monopoly to raise funds through gambling.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government has not given any commitment whatsoever as to what they are going to do with the power they are asking the Legislature to give them. They are asking for the power to control it, but what they have done so far is engage in the prospect themselves. The Minister has admitted that they have 782 machines. We were told the other day that there are 782 machines in 276 establishments that were put in by Atlantic Lotto. This is the Government gambling scheme, Mr. Speaker, for which there has been no public debate or discussion about. There is no commitment from this Government to do anything other than take control over this and continue their monopoly on gambling as another way of raising funds, Mr. Speaker, from a type of activity which has been condemned, not for its moral value - if somebody wants to gamble a few shekels here and there, then I do not think that there is any suggestion that the secret police should go around and see if the Member for St. John's South is playing poker with his buddies on a Thursday night. If he wants to do that, Mr. Speaker, then I do not think that even the Government's (inaudible) police would want to interfere with that. But, Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a different type of activity all together.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister could get up and tell the House in how many of these 276 establishments where Atlantic Lotto has now placed these slot machines - and let's call them what they are, slot machines - how many of those 276 establishments have these other machines in them? The Member for Burin, the Opposition House Leader, says that there were none down his way until Atlantic Lotto put them in. None!

MR. HODDER: And none in St. George Bay either.

MR. HARRIS: And the Member for Port au Port says there were none in St. George Bay. So what did the Government do so far. They are not there to control this activity, Mr. Speaker, they are there to monopolize on it. So far, that is the evidence that we have on this side of the House as to what this Government intends to do with this power that they want. Even without the alleged power that they are asking for, they have been out promoting this kind of activity as the Government of this Province and I think there is something wrong with that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe the public wants to have gambling. Maybe they do, but they have not even been asked. I think this is a very controversial kind of activity. Service clubs and service organizations have complained about this in the past. There is a whole big issue here which the Government is hiding its head under the sand about, wants to, and has already been for the last six months, engaging in a new form of gambling, which twenty years ago, Mr. Speaker, I think you had to go to Las Vegas to do. It was all a big deal, go to Las Vegas to find out what slot machines were all about, or go down to Placentia to the Argentia Naval Base and play the slots for a bit. I think some people used to do that.

MR. MURPHY: Or go down to Pepperrell (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Or some elderly Members, like the Member for St. John's South, remember going down to Pepperrell during the War. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Member for St. John's South will get up and tell about the nature of gambling activities and what it does to people and what his experience of it is. That is a different experience.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a major issue. We are not talking about public morality here, we are talking about government activity, government fund-raising activity. I have listened to what the hon. Government House Leader says, and I listened to what the Department of Finance officials had to say in the Committee the other day. I do not see the Minister of Justice in the House defending this Justice bill. Mr. Speaker, what we have here is something that this Government is trying to - we do not have anything in this Bill which controls the Government. What about the control of the Government? He is talking about controlling gambling and giving all the power to the Cabinet, but what about the control on this Government? What kind of control is there going to be through this Bill on what this Government is going to do with this activity? From what we have seen so far, the only thing they want to do with this activity is have a Government monopoly on slot machines so they can put them in every bar in this Province. They are in 276 now. I do not know how many bars there are in the Province. Maybe they will put them in every single bar in the Province and make sure that the whole Province is covered, so they can soak every dollar that they can out of the public of Newfoundland who are in bars and who may be susceptible to the desperation of needing to try and pick up a few dollars through the hope, the false hope as it turns out, of getting a few dollars out of a gambling machine, because they are so desperate for work or for other alternatives. Mr. Speaker, that is what this Government is encouraging with this policy, with this programme of monopolizing gambling and proliferating gambling in this Province, not controlling it at all.

Now what I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is what control is there going to be over this Government? This Government wants to give itself, through the Cabinet, the power to organize gambling, to control gambling, but the only evidence we have as to what they want to do is raise money through gambling.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have not have anything from this. There is nothing in this Bill, nothing that says what the goals are. What are the goals of the Government taking over this? Is there some public purpose? Do I see anything in this Act that says public purpose? Where is the public purpose? All we are talking about here is power. Power and control is all we are talking about. There is nothing in here which says that the Government shall control lotteries in the public good. There is nothing here that says that they will make sure the conduct of lotteries, the application of lotteries and the proliferation of lotteries and gambling is going to be such that it does not interfere with community life, family life, or with any of the public values that people consider important.

MR. BAKER: Let prohibition do it.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the meat of the issue. Now we have the Member for St. John's South talking about being sanctimonious, and the Government House Leader talking about prohibition. Well, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about prohibition.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what the Government House Leader is suggesting is that we have it all one way or all another. I am not suggesting prohibiting all gambling. I didn't suggest prohibiting all gambling. The Government House Leader would say, 'Let her go, but the Government will do it and we will make the money on it.' That is what he is doing. 'Let's have gambling, let's let the Atlantic Lotto Corporation go in there with whatever forms of gambling that it can come up with, whatever methods whereby that they can psychologically suck in people to buy these tickets.'

I know, Mr. Speaker, and I can see some of the Members in this House who, as part of their education, studied a little bit of psychology and have discovered and know that there are certain rules that apply. How you can convince people to do certain things a certain number of times? These little computer chips, that the Government House Leader talks about, are all designed scientifically, Mr. Speaker, to get people to spend the maximum amount of money for the least amount of reward. Psychology, Mr. Speaker, and it is scientifically determined. It is a way to get the maximum amount of dollars for the minimum amount of reward. The Government House Leader knows all about it. He probably taught psychology in high school. I know he taught science at one time.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a government prepared to take control of this, it seems, so far, for the purpose of engaging a monopoly on it. The kind of gambling that is being permitted in this bill is unrestricted except at the dictate of the Cabinet.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have not heard any statement of policy from this Government about what the goals are, other than Government monopoly and fund-raising. We were told the other day that so far this year - and that is only so far, the Atlantic Lotto did not get permission to get in there until July - we have gotten an additional $6 million. Now, the Minister may get up and say that it was really only $5 million because we really over estimated. Well, you tell us the truth. Is it $5 million, $6 million, or $7 million? It does not make any difference, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The report says $6 million.

MR. HARRIS: Something says $6 million? The report says $6 million. The estimates say $6 million. The hon. Government House Leader says that the estimates are overestimates. Well, what odds? Five million dollars in six months, Mr. Speaker, is a lot of money to be hauling out of the bars of this Province through gambling machines that this Government has established for the purpose of apparently raising money. But he now has a smoke screen about some mysterious mafioso. The mysterious mafioso coming in and getting all of those machines. I do not know anybody else who has seen these machines except the Minister. The Member for Burin has not seen any of them. I do not know if he hangs around in bars, perhaps he does not. But his constituents would be telling him about them if they were a problem. The only machines I have ever seen, and I have not seen very many of them, just as the Member for Port au Port, have been the machines that have been placed by Atlantic Lotto Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any problem letting the Government have the authority to control gambling. This Legislature ought to have the authority and the power to control gambling, and there ought to be regulations to set it up. But what is absent from all of this, Mr. Speaker, is any commitment on the part of the Government for any public consultation process. I do not mean a one day debate here in the House of Assembly, because it looks like that is all we are going to get, unless our new Clerk of the House is able to carve up a Christmas turkey and lay out a table on the floor of the House, as the former Member for Bell Island used to say, have the Christmas turkey here. I do not think we will be having Christmas turkey here, Mr. Speaker. I think we are going to have a one day debate about this, but that is not the kind of public discussion that is needed to deal with the issue.

I would like to see the Minister or get up and, in his remarks, or someone on behalf of the Government, commit the Government to a public consultation process on the activities of this Government in gambling. I think there needs to be some information that the Government has to provide to the public about the nature of the activities that this Government is engaging in through the Atlantic Lotto Corporation. I would like the Minister to tell us about Nevada tickets and how many of them are sold and where they are sold. Mr. Speaker, we were told by the officials of the department the other day that this Province, of all the provinces, are the biggest sellers. We outsell all other three Atlantic Provinces in Nevada tickets. Now what are Nevada tickets, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is three of them put together?

MR. HARRIS: Three of them put together. Yes, we outsell all of them put together, in Nevada tickets. Now what are Nevada tickets, Mr. Speaker? They are little cardboard slot machines.

I know the Speaker may not be familiar with these things, unless he goes to the garden parties in his district or various places and buys some of them. These little cards are about three inches long, about an inch and a half wide, and they have four little things on them. Exactly the same as a slot machine, Mr. Speaker, you haul these things open and if you get three lemons, three carrots, three strawberries, three cherries, or whatever it is. If you get three of a kind you win one dollar or two dollars or ten or fifty. Well, Mr. Speaker, the exact same principle at work. It is designed to get people to spend the maximum amount of money for the minimum amount of reward. And it works! That is the thing, it works. Somebody has figured this out, some genius, maybe someone from the Economic Recovery Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've been around for years, 'Jack'.

MR. HARRIS: I know they have been around for years, but they are around for years now being everywhere in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Candy stores and grocery stores, and groc. and confs., or whatever you want to call them, have all of these Nevada tickets being sold by the Atlantic Lotto Corporation.

They are proliferating to the extent that anybody in this House can testify to having witnessed people spending a twenty dollar bill and another twenty dollar bill in the desperate hope that they might be able to get a few more dollars that they really desperately need.

They have been around for years, they are now around and proliferating and they have been encouraged by the Government by engaging in this form of activity. So what I think this Government ought to commit itself to -

MR. REID: (Inaudible) millions of dollars, service clubs from one end of this Province to the other, churches, every organization, legions, have put millions of dollars into this Province through Nevada cards, and there is nothing wrong with it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now, you're going to take it away from (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, that is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Carbonear says that the service clubs have put millions of dollars into this Province from the Nevada tickets. Where did they get it? Did they go out to Hibernia and get the millions of dollars from the Nevada tickets and bring it in? Did they go to Las Vegas and bring in the millions of dollars? Where did they get it? Where did they get the millions of dollars? Did they get it from somewhere? Did they bring it into the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) bingo (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the Member will get up and tell us, how these Nevada tickets brought money into the Province - how the millions of dollars were brought into the Province by these Nevada tickets?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: The only thing that has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that perhaps - I do not know if it was millions of dollars, but how ever many dollars were sent out of the Province to bring the Nevada tickets in, they were then sold to the people of this Province and the money gathered in one place. But no money came into the Province for Nevada tickets, I guarantee you that.

Let's be honest here, Mr. Speaker. I do not really have any objection to a church fair or a service club fair selling a few tickets when people really know what they are doing, just making a donation to a charity. If the Kiwanis Club of Harbour Grace or Carbonear or the Lions Club want to have a fair and raise a few dollars for charity and people come and spend a few dollars to support the charity, there is nothing wrong with that. But what we have going on is something entirely different.

What I think is necessary, and I will ask the Government House Leader to commit on behalf of the Government - because they are going to force this bill through. They are going to keep everybody here till Christmas turkey time if they don't, they are going to force this through.

But let's hear a commitment from the Government to set up a task force, a review, a study of the spending habits and activities of the Atlantic Lotto Corporation in this Province and see where they are getting their revenue. What kind of money is Atlantic Lotto Corporation hauling out of communities in this Province, and where are it coming from? Is it coming from the communities that can least afford to have the money drained out through this process, or is it coming from the people who have lots of money and do not mind spending it?

Now that is something we should know about, and the public of this Province ought to know the facts. This Government can produce those facts and they can provide the information to the public. There ought to be an opportunity for public response in it, and there ought to be an opportunity for the people of this Province and this Legislature to direct this Government as to what they shall do with this power that they want for themselves now, which they seem intent on harbouring to themselves, to have a government monopoly on gambling, to raise taxes, to raise revenue, from this form of gambling which has been called, I think quite accurately, a voluntary tax on the poor. That is what it has been called. Government sponsored gambling of this nature has been called, I think quite accurately, a voluntary tax on the poor, using the psychology of gambling to extract money from people who can least afford it, a voluntary tax on the poor.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is the poor people who pay!

MR. HARRIS: Make the poor pay, that is what the member says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I do not think that is fair, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that the poor should pay more than they are paying now in taxes. If this Government is going to continue to carry on these kinds of policies, then they are going to pay for it at the polls.

I am giving them a request right now, Mr. Speaker, that they engage in a form of public discussion about this, make the facts available to the public, set up a Government task force or committee to make those facts available, hear what the public have to say about it, and listen and change this legislation so that the Government will, in carrying out the power grab that is contained herein, conduct themselves in accordance with the wish of this Province and of the people of this Province, and not in some monopoly tax grab under the guise of control, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for recognizing me this time.

Mr. Speaker, we have to ask why the Government is trying to sneak through this legislation on the last sitting day before Christmas. In my years in politics, I have noticed that governments at all levels, governments of all stripes, tend to wait until just before Christmas, when people's attention is diverted with Christmas celebrations, to institute and announce unpopular and controversial measures.

We saw it from the Wells Administration last Christmas eve, when the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs announced his new municipal grants system - that was the euphemism. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs announced a three-year phasedown of provincial funding to municipalities in the Province.

Now, here we are in the House of Assembly, on the last sitting day before Christmas, and suddenly the Government has to rush through this Lotteries Act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Act was prepared three or four weeks ago, but it only found its way to the House of Assembly Legislation Review Committee last week. At that committee meeting, Mr. Speaker, with members representing the three political parties, all of us agreed that this measure deserved more public discussion and we all decided to have a public hearing here in the House of Assembly on January 15. The Committee Secretary issued a news release to that effect, which went out on December 6. The Committee Secretary published an advertisement, which has already appeared in the paper, inviting people to make representations to the Committee by contacting the secretary and by coming to the public hearing at the House of Assembly on January 15.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why is the Government short-circuiting the Legislation Review Committee, cutting off the public hearing process and, on the last sitting day before Christmas, forcing this legislation through the House of Assembly? Mr. Speaker, the reason is that the Government is trying to cover up its escalating activity in gambling. The Government put video slot machines in bars throughout the Province earlier this year, without explaining to the people the significance of that escalation, without providing for any public discussion, without asking the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador if they approved of that revenue measure.

The consequences are alarming, and now the Government is trying to get legislation to shore up its powers and to authorize the Cabinet to carry on unlimited gambling activities. Now, Mr. Speaker, nobody would quarrel with the objective of giving the Provincial Government the power to legislate gambling and lotteries permitted by the Criminal Code, let me say that up front, but many people in the Province and many members of the House of Assembly have serious concerns about what has been happening in the Province.

The Provincial Government has a multitude of choices for raising revenue; there are many possibilities for taxation. What the Wells Administration has done, is coldly and calculatedly looked at the options and chosen video slot machines in bars as a source of millions of dollars of revenue in lieu of increasing a progressive tax, such as the income tax, which would take money from the well-off.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget figures tell the story. In the last fiscal year, this Provincial Government derived $19 million from lotteries - $19 million from the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, a corporation of the four Atlantic provinces, which until then had been operating the 6-49 lottery and selling Nevadas, and not all of that I would condone. That is a personal view. But earlier this year, the Wells administration, in conjunction with the Maritime Provinces, decided to have their lottery corporation get into a new business. They decided to purchase and place in bars around the Province, video slot machines. The Government House Leader has admitted that, to date, there are 782 video slot machines in bars around Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now the effect that escalation of Government gambling business has had on Government revenue is startling. We have seen a growth in lottery revenue to the Government from $19 million last year to $26 million, the latest projection for this year. The Government began the Budget year forecasting a growth in lottery revenue of $1 million. Twenty million dollars was listed in the estimates tabled back in the spring. But at mid-year the Minister of Finance raised that estimate and he is now projecting $26 million in revenue from lotteries, up from $19 million last year. That is a growth in Government revenue from lotteries of 37 per cent, 37 per cent in a year of record high unemployment and in a year of deprivation and worry.

The Government has chose to extract revenue from people who are desperate, who are out of work, who are poor, who are worried, people who are in bars and who are drinking and whose resistance is down because of the effects of liquor. That is what the Government has chosen. The Government could have rejected that option. The Government could have gotten that revenue from other sources, from a progressive taxation.

This whole issue of government-operated lotteries is controversial. It seems to me, however, that there is a broad consensus in support of the Atlantic Lottery 6-49. I may be wrong. But the revelation of the Government, through Atlantic Lottery Corporation, raising $6 million to $7 million in the few short months they have had lottery slot machines, and the discovery that there are Government-owned video slot machines in bars around the Province, are disturbing people as they discover this, as they find out this information.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Now the Government House Leader is asking me to go over the figures. This year, at mid-year, the Minister of Finance raised his projection of revenue from lotteries to $26 million compared with $19 million last year. At the Committee meeting last week I asked the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Gill, to explain how that jump in revenue had come about. He said: $6 million to $7 million results from the addition of the video slot machines in bars, $6 million to $7 million.

Now, if that is accurate, if the Government has derived an extra $6 million to $7 million in this Budget year from video slot machines in bars, given that the bar owners get 35 percent of the take and, given that the Atlantic Lottery Corporation requires, I would say, 10 or 15 percent for payouts and administrative cost, that must mean that bar patrons have blown about $ 14 million net on the government-owned video slot machines.

Now, Mr. Speaker, many of those bar patrons cannot afford to waste that money. I would suggest that many of those bar patrons have children who don't have enough to eat.

Mr. Speaker, the most objectionable part of what is going on in this House of Assembly today, though, is the short-circuiting of a public hearing process, a public hearing process that was decided last week by a committee of this House made up of members of the three parties represented in the House.

MR. TOBIN: With the majority over there.

MS. VERGE: That's right. The majority of members on that committee are government members. The committee is chaired by the Member for Harbour Grace and the other government members present were the Member for St. George's and, perhaps I could be corrected, I believe - there was definitely a majority of government members and then the Member for Fogo and the Member for St. John's East, as well as myself. That tri-party committee, a committee of the House of Assembly, unanimously agreed to put this draft legislation out for public discussion through a public hearing process. We planned a public hearing for January 15. We issued a news release. We published a notice in "The Evening Telegram" and, now, on the last sitting day of the House of Assembly before Christmas, the Government House Leader is ignoring all of that, is going against the wishes of his own backbenchers on the committee and is ramming through the legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there's psychology at work here. There's psychology at work, of course, in the government getting revenue from slot machines, instead of through a progressive taxation measure, but there's psychology at work in the way the Government is trying to get this new legal power. It has to do with saving it until the last day before Christmas, expecting that most of the reporters and most of the members of the public will be diverted with Christmas merrymaking, so they won't really notice it any more than people noticed or realized what was happening when the Government allowed Atlantic Lottery Corporation to put video slot machines in bars around our Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to cover up its true intention, which is to grab revenue from the weak and the vulnerable and the desperate, in the bars, by saying that the Mafia are about to invade us. All kinds of hoodlums and gangsters are carrying on these types of gambling activities under the table already and we have to act to keep out the Mafia. Well, Mr. Speaker, how come nobody over here has seen any sign of Mafiosi

video slot machine activity in our districts?

AN HON. MEMBER: You go home every night.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, we don't have any problem with -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: We don't have any problem with empowering the Government to crack down on illegal gambling activity, but I would have thought they already had that authority under the Criminal Code. But, if there is any doubt about their legal powers of enforcement, by all means, clarify that, but do not - do not set up this Provincial Government to have a monopoly to carry on endless gambling activities and lotteries. Do not set up this provincial government to have a monopoly on slot machines and bars and, in the bargain, set up the Provincial Government to put slot machines in shopping malls and corner stores and wherever else. If they can get $6 million or $7 million from 782 slot machines in bars, well, think what they might be able to get if they had 1,500 slot machines in bars or 3,000 slot machines in bars. While they are at it, why not put slot machines in shopping malls? Why not have a slot machine out here in the lobby? There are no limits on the power this bill would give the Provincial Government to carry on gambling activities.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very controversial area that many individuals in the Province, some of us here, have serious problems with. There are people in the Province who would probably characterize these issues as moral issues. Mr. Speaker, the Government has not consulted anyone. In fact the Government has gone out of its way, and here today is going out of its way, to sneak this by people, to get it passed on the last day before Christmas, hoping that people will be so involved in their Christmas celebrations and their Christmas preparations that they will not really realize what is happening. Mr. Speaker, people were not informed, people were not consulted, people were not asked for their opinions when the Government was considering the video slot machines.

Evidently, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his colleagues got a briefing about video slot machines. Video slot machines were first owned and operated in Canada by the Government of Manitoba and the Atlantic Provinces through the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, and our Government were next. Mr. Speaker, the five other provinces of Canada are not operating video slot machines.

I see the NDP Government in Ontario is looking at it now. There was a Globe and Mail editorial yesterday, a headline: 'Bob Rae, one-armed bandit. They say that gambling is addictive, if so, Canadians know who is really hooked.' It goes on to talk about governments being hooked. It says, 'No one is forced to gamble, as Mr. Rae correctly observes. On the other hand, gambling is hardly benign in its effects. Every study shows that the biggest purchasers of lottery tickets are the poor who can least afford to squander their income in such a fashion. It is hardly a defence for such a regressive means of finance, that it is legal.'

Here we get into semantics, Mr. Speaker. The Government House Leader talks about wanting to crack down on illegal activity but, of course, he is here advocating a law which is going to make it legal for the Government to have a monopoly. He wants to sanction and cloak with nice words the present Government activity of owning and operating slot machines in bars. So he does not want to crack down on that, he just wants to keep out these fictitious, anonymous, shady, mafiosi.

Mr. Speaker, all the Government is trying to do is to legitimize a tax grab from the poor, from the unemployed, from the weak and from the desperate. The Government is operating video slot machines in bars - I am looking at the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle and I am wondering what he thinks of all this? I wonder if the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle has any pangs of conscience about being part of a Government which is owning and operating video slot machines in bars, which is taking out of the pockets of poor people about $14 million per year. That is so far. That is just this year, the year when the Government got into the business.

We now have 782 video slot machines in about 250 bars. That is in a few short months since the Government got into this activity. The Deputy Minister of Finance is saying that the Government is going to be getting about $6 million to $7 million revenue this year from that source and, as I say, that is after the bar owners get 35 per cent off the top and it is after the Atlantic Lottery pay out an administration cost. So the net result of all of that is that the bar patrons are blowing $14 million this year, this first year, on these Government owned slot machines.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader has been testy this afternoon, and I feel it is because he personally has some problems with this. I sense that the Government House Leader himself is uncomfortable with what his Government has done. Now, perhaps he and some of the others did not fully understand what was happening when they decided to allow the Atlantic Lottery Corporation to put the slot machines in bars in our Province. Maybe they did not realize that the video slot machines would have the psychological effect that they have had. Maybe they did not realize that they would result in a rise in revenue in one short year of 37 per cent. The evidence suggests they didn't, because when they prepared the Budget last spring they forecast a growth in revenue of only $1 million, from $19 million to $20 million, and it was at mid-year, after the video slot machines had been in some bars for a few months, that the Finance officials raised that revenue projection up to $26 million.

MR. BAKER: No, that is not the reason.

MS. VERGE: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is saying that is not the reason. At the committee meeting last week I asked the Deputy Minister of Finance for an explanation, and he said that the video slot machine revenue to Government is $6 million to $7 million. He also pointed out that recently there has been an increase in purchases of 6/49 tickets which he attributes to some recent big winnings of people in our Province. And finally he made the point that the people in our Province are proportionally the largest purchasers of nevada tickets. I understand that has been true for some time.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. Government gambling activity is a major revenue raiser. Government gambling activity has been escalating. The change that has dominated this discussion is the recent addition of the video slot machines in bars. With technological development who can say what the next gambling devices will be. Mr. Speaker, it is time to halt and have a thorough public discussion about what we have, where we have come from, and where we want to go.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about trying to give the Provincial Government the power to regulate gambling that is permitted by the Criminal Code of Canada. That is not the issue. I venture to say all members of the House would readily support the Provincial Government in its efforts to regulate and police gambling that is permitted by the Criminal Code of Canada, and also to enforce the criminal code prohibitions. The criminal code outlaws certain types of gambling, and it is up to the Provincial law enforcement officers to implement those provisions of the criminal code by having the police investigate, crack down, and lay charges where there appear to be violations.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the fact that the Provincial Government is heavily into the gambling business. The Provincial Government is growing more and more dependent on Government operated gambling for its revenue. The Provincial Government, while having operated certain types of gambling for the last several years, this year chose to get into a radically new type of gambling, namely the video slot machines in bars.

Mr. Speaker, while the Government tries to excuse itself, tries to morally absolve itself by saying that the mafiosi were doing it, or were about to do it, or we were about to be invaded by some shady characters from New Brunswick, there was no evidence of that that any of us over here saw. The Government rushed to put slot machines where they had never been before, and where they had never been heard of.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I realize that we are getting close to the festive season and, certainly, celebrations, but they have not arrived here yet. I find the House all to noisy, so I would ask hon. members please to control their talking.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was the point I was trying to make earlier. This is the festive season. Members, reporters, and citizens of the Province are distracted from every day business by the celebrations, and that is precisely why the Government has waited until this very afternoon to try to put through this controversial legislation which it knows many people in the Province object to. Not only is the Government trying to sneak this through this afternoon, but it is short-circuiting a public hearing that has already been planned for January 15, that was decided on by members from the three parties in this House. Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough.

The Government now in office is headed by a man, now absent - I should point that out too, that the Premier conveniently misses debates on controversial matters - but a Premier who presents himself to all of Canada as a man of principle. Well, I would like to hear the man of principle justify what the Government is doing escalating its involvement in the gambling business. I would like to hear the Premier's defence of this legislation which gives limitless powers to the Provincial Government to operate lotteries and gambling activities. I would like to hear the Premier's rationalization of adding video slot machines to bars as one of its innovative revenue measures. Talk about regressive taxation, Mr. Speaker!

These video slot machines, the Government points out, are limited to age-controlled establishments. That is another euphemism. The video slot machines are not within the reach of children because they are only present in liquor establishments, where you have to be nineteen years of age to enter. Mr. Speaker, what the Government is doing is placing the slot machines in places where people are consuming liquor and, through the consumption of liquor, have their resistance lowered.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, all I need to do is point to the Budget bottom line. Last year the Provincial Government took $19 million in lottery revenue. This year they are expecting to take $26 million. We debate positive and negative variances in the Budget, we talk about rises and drops in revenue of various sorts, and here we have a whopping 37 per cent increase in revenue from Government gambling, Government owned and controlled gambling. This coincides with rising unemployment, rising out-migration, and growing desperation. Mr. Speaker, the Government needs the revenue. I do not quarrel with that. But the Government has many options for raising revenue. There are several more palatable types of revenue which are progressive in their nature which I would urge the Government to switch to.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the parts of this bill that empower the Government to own and operate video display terminals - what are they called, video lottery terminals, slot machines? - and which authorize the Government to get more involved in gambling enterprises.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the parts of the bill that enhance the Provincial Government's role in regulating gambling and lotteries that are permitted under the Criminal Code. I have no problem with any legislation that strengthens the provincial law enforcement role in policing the Criminal Code prohibitions of gambling. But, Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to the Government's denial of public discussion about this legislative measure. I strongly oppose the Government's refusal to engage in a public hearing process about the Government's role in legal gambling, and I am against the measures of this bill being rammed through here today on the last sitting day before Christmas -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: - which shore up Government's monopoly in video lottery terminals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words on this. I think I am mostly concerned about the fact that we, in this Legislature, have never had a chance to debate gambling in the Province. This is the first opportunity, with this bill, where we have had a chance to say anything about it.

Mr. Speaker, I did listen to what the Government House Leader had to say. I have never seen a gambling machine in this Province outside of an American base until six months ago. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that in every single club in the areas I am familiar with they are there and they are being used.

I spoke to a friend of mine who owns a club in one of the rural areas of my district. He would not agree with me when I speak against them, but he tells me he pays for everybody who works in that club, for his heat, light, and everything else, from the profits he makes on those machines. It a marginal club, it is not a big place. Mr. Speaker, I think it is well known that gambling is addictive.

I should point out to hon. members that at one period in my lifetime I taught adults in what is now the Bay St. George Community College, and it was my first experience in seeing one of the students whom I have, in his early thirties, who was addicted to gambling. He had lost his home, lost his car, had lost the whole works. I didn't think that such a thing existed.

It was just the other night on one of the television stations, I think it was CBC but I am not sure - they showed a community where these machines have been allowed for seven or ten years. Some are over the border in the States.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jade Gardens.

MR. HODDER: Yes, I will talk about Jade Gardens, too, because, if police are going to hunt down people in Jade Gardens who are gambling amongst themselves and then Government allows gambling machines, I think there is a double standard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if the member would just let me continue.

That was quite an informative program because the experience they had had which a lot of the provinces do not have right now is that - I mean, they interviewed people. You know, there are club organizations that had been formed, like Gamblers Anonymous. Members here have said, 'Let the gamble. If they are adults, let them gamble.' Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer to an editorial that was in the Globe and Mail yesterday. Just to quote the editorial, and it has to do with the decision of the Ontario Government. They are contemplating putting gambling machines in. It said, 'No one is forced to gamble,' and that is what Bob Rae has been saying, that no one is forced to gamble.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. HODDER: The Premier of Ontario. 'But, on the other hand, gambling is hardly benign in its effects. Every study shows that the biggest purchasers of lotto tickets are the poor who can least afford to squander their income in such a fashion. It is hardly a defence for such a regressive means of finance, that it is legal.'

Mr. Speaker, yes, people have a choice. People have a choice as to whether or not they smoke cigarettes, but yet we, in this building, have told people that they have to go outside and smoke. We have taken measures in that way. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing in this Province, what Government is doing in this Province, is actually running lottos. They are the recipients of Atlantic Lotto.

Now, I do not know where the Government House Leader is coming from when he talks about Mafia. Any member, and we represent all areas of this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Or organized crime.

MR. HODDER: Or organized crime. But there machines were not there. The first machines, and the only machines I have ever seen - and I go to my district and very often we have meetings in clubs because there is no community center or whatever. As the Minister of Development knows, there was never a machine in the Piccadilly Lounge, but there is now, and there is in every single club in Bay St. George. And they have been there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: But, Mr. Speaker, is it right that - now, we have Atlantic Lotto. A person who goes to buy a lotto can usually buy perhaps five tickets, or whatever, and it costs him five dollars a week, or perhaps ten dollars a week if he buys twice a week. But what is happening now is that about one in ten of the population are gamblers. I am not a gambler. I have never gambled. I have had the scattered - but I do not know how to play those machines. I walked along recently and I asked how you played it, and it seemed very complicated. I am not saying that I have never played a slot machine, I have played them on American bases. I am not a gambler - but some people are. Some people are, and about one in ten is more likely to gamble than others. But about one in, I do not know, 1,000 or 2,000, who will gamble their house away, or their social assistance cheque. So why is Government now opening up another area for abuse? How can the Government be closing an area when they allowed Atlantic Lotto to put in machines. I did not allow Atlantic Lotto to put machines throughout this Province, the four hundred and some-odd machine. I did not allow that. Now, I understand that this bill stops other machines from coming into the Province, that were never here before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Without this bill, you cannot stop (inaudible).

MR. HODDER: That is garbage, Mr. Speaker. Who wants to stop Atlantic Lotto? You brought Atlantic Lotto in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, governments have been looking for new ways to get money, and this is another way to get money, but we have to think of the morality of what we are doing. And I don't think that bringing lotto machines into this Province is going to do a lot for the children of parents who use these machines. And it is well-known that it is the poorer people who use these machines the most. You are not getting the money off the richer or the middle class here. You are taking from the poorer. What difference, you might say, whether a person uses the machines or not? Well, certainly, it makes a lot of difference to their children. It is another way, and if we are going to legalize gambling in this way, why not legalize everything? If you say it up to choice, if it is a person's choice whether he does it or not - I think it was a very bad move on the part of Government to allow Atlantic Lotto to bring these machines into the Province. To tell you the truth, I don't know how Nevada tickets got to be the way they are. You go down around the malls and there are people tearing these things. You go into the stores and there are people tearing these things. They had to be allowed in the Province, and perhaps it was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) let them in.

MR. HODDER: Yes, it may well have been the other Government that brought them in.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are out of control now. There is no control.

MR. R. AYLWARD: There is control. They are licensed, every one of them.

MR. HODDER: I have no idea. I was not part of the decision-making process, but I know that I cannot escape by saying that. I will say that you were part of the decision-making process which decided to bring Atlantic Lotto into this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like somebody on the other side to get up and tell me why we could not stop Atlantic Lotto from putting four hundred and some-odd machines across this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven hundred and eighty-two.

MR. HODDER: - seven hundred and eighty-two machines in four hundred and some-odd bars. Why, Mr. Speaker, do only the Atlantic Provinces and Manitoba, at the present time, have those lotto machines? Why couldn't this Province say, no, we have gone far enough with the gambling.

The Government House Leader got up and talked about New Brunswick. New Brunswick had machines. Yes, they had machines. They had machines in 1962, and these machines were there and a blind eye was turned to them, and they got to be entrenched in the Province. We did not have machines up until six months ago, and the decision should never have been made to bring them in here. The member says that it is out of control in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. If it is out of control in Nova Scotia, then I would submit to him that it is out of control in Newfoundland, as well, because from what I see going on, and the same people, time after time after time, to me it is out of control here. It has nothing to do with the Mafia, other machines, or anything else. And it has to do with the decision that the Government made some six or seven months ago to bring them into the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak for a long time. I just wanted to voice my opposition, as one member of this House of Assembly, to these machines. I think we have gone far enough and if I had my way - and I think the Government should - I would reverse that decision and make sure all machines go out of the Province and make it an offence for any. Now, that does not make me popular with a lot of my friends, but I guarantee you, I would, if I could. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things I want to deal with that have been brought up during the speeches we have heard so far. First of all, I would like to respond to some of the comments by the Member for St. John's East. He asked some questions and made some comments. He talked in terms of the bill giving us, meaning Cabinet, all of this power, and he talked at great length about the tremendous amount of power this was now going to give us.

Being a lawyer, he should realize that under the Criminal Code, we already have that power, 99 per cent of the power that is referred to in this bill. There is only one change - and that has been talked about here today - the change having to do with the amusement devices that are electronic, and that, in the rest of Canada, and it was started here, had become gambling machines and there was no control over them. That is the difference. So there is no great amount of power being given us. It is all about power, he said. Well, we already have the power and if it is all about power, then I suppose we would have never ever envisioned this bill, because we have adequate power over everything else under the Criminal Code.

He asked the question about how many of the 276 establishments had the other machines previously? I will find out for the hon. gentleman. I suspect it is in the range of seventy, if my memory serves me correctly, but it was quite some time ago when I looked into it. I will get the exact number, it certainly was not 287. There were quite a number. I will find out and inform the hon. gentleman as to how many.

He claims that this bill is promoting that activity around the Province, when, in actual fact, it is doing the opposite. It is controlling this activity around the Province and taking it out of the hands of people in whose hands this activity should not be. It is taking it out of the hands of these people and putting it into the hands of Government, and the money that is generated is going back to the people of the Province.

He talks about it being simply a Government fund-raising activity. Now, that has been mentioned by a number of speakers, and certainly, it raises funds, I believe, about $3.5 million in this current year.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, $6 million (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No, I am just telling you what it is, now, and you can check my figures if you want to. I am just telling you what it is, about $3.5 million. Now, then, there has been a tremendous increase in activity, I think members opposite are right, and I think that the whole idea of gambling needs to be examined. I do not dispute that for one minute. There has been a tremendous increase in those Nevada tickets, and one wonders why. There has been a tremendous increase there, far more than was envisioned. Actually, the video machines are probably turning in a bit less than we had envisioned for machines, but there has been a tremendous increase in the Nevada tickets. So, some of that $6 million or $7 million that was referred to is from these machines, but a lot of it is also from the increase and the use of Nevada tickets that we had not anticipated.

The charge or the comment that this is simply a fund-raising activity - we may question gambling, per se, in the Province, and as I said, that discussion maybe should be held sometime - there is nothing wrong with fund-raising activities, I say to the member. There is nothing wrong with fund-raising activities. We need fund-raising activities. We need many more. However, as to whether gambling should be one of them, maybe that is something that should be debated in some detail, but there is nothing wrong with raising funds, I say to the member.

The member also said: Where is the public purpose, and there is no control; he waxes eloquent, or he believes he waxes eloquent, on that topic.' I just want to say to him that I have explained the purpose: the purpose is to control, and, in fact, the control is in this bill. If we do not pass this bill, then there is no control over those - what do they call them? - the white machines or something. I forget what they call them now. But, if we do not pass this bill, then those machines are totally out of control in the Province, and will become totally out of control.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I agree. He mentioned the Nevada tickets, and I agree, that is the same thing except it is not electronic, that is all. The Nevada tickets are exactly the same thing. They are probably not as attractive because, as he pointed out, these machines are done with a great deal of psychology built into them. But the Nevada tickets are essentially the same thing, and that is the whole question that we have.

The Member for Humber East took a slightly different approach. She tried to imply that there is something sneaky about this, that we are trying to hide something, that is the approach she took and it is all very well, I suppose; Why are we short-circuiting the process? And she does not object to anything we would do to reinforce, or to enforce the Criminal Code and all that kind of thing. I have to assume that she is in agreement with most of this bill and that her only problem is with the video terminals. Is that correct?

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, with leave.

MR. BAKER: Go ahead.

MS. VERGE: The minister has been accurate, so far.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Both members are standing.

MR. BAKER: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will yield for a second.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The first part of the minister's summary is accurate. It is true to say that I personally strongly object to the video slot machines. The fact that Government is owning and operating them is even more objectionable. I also have problems with other types of gambling, including the Nevada tickets.

MR. BAKER: We already have control over those.

MS. VERGE: Government operating the gambling activities as a source of revenue, I think, is highly objectionable. The other main point I made in my speech was that this whole area deserves a thorough public discussion. There should be a public hearing process. There have been some gradual developments and recent additions that have overtaken many citizens and it is time that we halted, paused and thoroughly examined what has been happening, where we are now, and have some serious discussion about whether we should make some changes as we move ahead into the future.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Surprisingly, I agree with a fair amount of what she says on the concept of gambling and the fact that perhaps there needs to be more public discussion. This bill is simply about getting control over one aspect of that whole process, that I feel we need now and cannot wait three, four, five, or six months for. I am serious when I say that. But, surprisingly, I agree with a great deal of what she says. I am sure she is expressing now what she could not express as a Cabinet minister when the original gambling was brought into this Province through Atlantic Lotto, 649, Nevada tickets, and all that sort of thing. She is now expressing that she has a personal reservation against all that, and I accept that. Obviously, she did not control what went on previously.

Anyway, in her speech she uses words skilfully that tend to create an impression. She says, 'The Government House Leader admitted there were 782 machines,' and the way she said it was as if there was some long struggle and perhaps even torture involved, and finally I had to admit. That is a skilful use of words. I did not admit anything. I freely announced, because I researched this -I did not know the exact number to date, and I researched it - I freely announced in this House there were 782. I did not admit it, in the way that she -

MS. VERGE: The Evening Telegram said (inaudible) how you admitted it (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: She beat it out of you.

MR. BAKER: Anyway, that says something about the use of words.

She mentions that the Government could have rejected getting involved, you know, we could have said no to getting involved.

I say to the Member, that's right, we could have said no, and we still can say no. There is nothing to say we have to be in it forever. We still can say no.

However, as I explained earlier, these machines were in the Province - and I will get the exact number in response to a question from the Member for St. John's East - and there are an awful lot of them still in the Province just waiting to see what happens to this Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you go about (inaudible) the numbers?

MR. BAKER: I tell the hon. Member, a lot more than are now out there in the field.

This is a more serious matter than she realizes. If we did not get involved, than there would have been many more machines around here than there are now. I can just state what I believe to be the truth, going back to first when I looked into this, over a year ago, first when I was introduced to that concept and had a lot of questions myself, a lot of the same questions she is asking now.

So, we had no choice in terms of getting involved. I believe we had to get involved and we have to now, but that does not mean we have to stay involved. Once we have the control, we can then control and we do not have to stay involved, and she can put on pressure in whatever way she wants to try to get us out of it if she wants to.

The only part of her speech that I have to comment on in a negative way is, when she talks about the fact that this particular device, the video terminals - and that is the understanding I have - is kind of preying on the poor, starving, unemployed people of the Province. Now, I would put to her that that is probably exactly what the nevada tickets are doing because you can go into the corner stores and the fast food places, anywhere at all in this Province, and buy those things and so on. And to a certain extent 6/49 does cater to that. If there is one type of gambling that does not specifically cater to these people it is these video terminals. The poor starving people do not spend their time frequenting bars, very few of them, because you need to have a lot of money to spend to go in there. I do not go in there, I cannot afford to go in there. This is the one device that is shielded from all of the ready access, so I do not swallow the argument about the video terminals doing that. I would agree with her that the nevada tickets and the Atlantic Lotto tickets do that, and it is not particularly nice.

The Member for Port au Port, the one thing I would like to comment on in his speech had to do with his claim that in 1962 these machines were in New Brunswick. Now, Mr. Speaker, these machines did not exist in 1962.

MR. HODDER: I did not say anything about New Brunswick.

MR. BAKER: Well, he was up there going to university.

The fact of the matter is that that cannot be true. He must be talking about different types of machines. He must be talking about the pinball machines or whatever. These machines did not exist in 1962. The computer technology did not exist to create them. They just were not in existence in 1962, so he must be talking about some other type of machine.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I just want to make the point once more that I believe: Number one, we have to do this to control illegal gambling in the Province, and I believe we have to do it now; and number two, I agree with the members opposite that perhaps we should take another look at gambling and government. I agree with that. We should take another look at that. Having said that, I would like to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, "An Act Respecting The Regulation of Lotteries And Amusement Devices In The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill No. 32).

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could stop the clock for a while?

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed to stop the clock?

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed!

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I would like to move to the committee stage on Bill 32. It has to be done by leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: It is by leave that we move into committee.

{Continuation of Sitting, December 11, 1991)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Lotteries And Amusement Devices In The Province." (Bill No. 32).

On motion, clause 1, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, since this bill is being rushed through with indecent haste, and since, until yesterday afternoon, at least, the members on this side of the House expected that the bill would be examined thoroughly through public hearings in the new year, with the committee having scheduled a public hearing for January 15, I am afraid that in proposing amendments I am at the disadvantage of not having had sufficient time to thoroughly analyze the technical terms in the bill and to consider sufficiently how the bill relates to the Criminal Code of Canada.

When I spoke in the debate on second reading of the bill, I made it clear, and I know the Government House Leader understands this, that I support any and all provisions of the bill that clarify or strengthen the Provincial Government's role in regulating lotteries that are permitted under the Criminal Code of Canada. Having said that, I acknowledge that the criminal law is solely within the purview of the Federal Parliament. However, I would like to amend this bill to make clear that the Provincial Government, itself, is not escalating its involvement in the gambling business to raise revenue. Therefore, Chairperson, I have considered amending clause 2 to limit the meaning of lottery scheme in this bill. Now, what I am really getting after is limiting the ability of the Provincial Government to be able to carry on gambling activity and, at the same time, preventing private concerns from operating slot machines. I have considered proposing amending clause 2 along the following lines. I have a concern that this proposal may not achieve my goal but, as I said in the beginning, because of the rushed debate, I have not had time to do the necessary research, so I will propose an amendment along the following lines that, after the words 'Criminal Code', the following words be added: 'except video lottery terminals and slot machines.'

Chairperson, the Member for St. John's East is suggesting that this may not achieve the end that I am seeking, and I acknowledge it may not, but what I am trying to achieve is a limitation on the ability of the Provincial Government to own and operate video slot machines. Now, the words 'lottery scheme' appearing in clause 5, enable the Cabinet to make regulations and, Chairperson, I do not have a problem with the Cabinet making regulations. As I said before, I support the parts of this bill that give the Provincial Government power, or clarify the Government's role in regulating and licensing gambling that is permitted under the Criminal Code. But, in making this suggestion, what I am trying to achieve is, preventing the Provincial Government from operating, through the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, or in any other way, video slot machines.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I should point out to the hon. member that there is a real problem with what she is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No Sir, there is a real problem with what she is trying to do, and it is a problem that I have wrestled with, in one sense. If you look at clause 4, there is reference made to an electronic or mechanical amusement device. You see, there is no such thing as electronic slot machines, there is nothing which fits that category. Okay? And they can be varied very quickly. Within months, a whole new series can be put out that can do the same thing, yet would not show cards on it, for instance, so you cannot identify them. It would not show oranges and apples and lemons on it. They can be modified so quickly.

They are simply amusement devices, they could be simply pin ball machines that they pay off on. So there is real difficulty in defining them, as the hon. member suggests, and that is why we have had to include all electronic or mechanical amusement devices, which would include the pinball machines and so on, to cover the whole thing, so we can get a handle on and cover what we want to stop. And the definition problem was difficult because the illegal use of them was occurring under the table. There was no money changing hands in the machine, it was just simply a printout with credits. You can do that with any kind of machine, and it is a whole concept of the illegal gambling that this clause tries to control, so there is a lot of difficulty in defining what the member wants to do.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson?

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

MS. VERGE: I would like to ask a question for clarification to assist us in dealing with the detailed examination of the bill. The bill uses two technical terms. It uses in clause 2, the term 'lottery scheme' permitted by the Criminal Code, so we would have to look at the Criminal Code to determine what that means in the Criminal Code. But then, in clause 4, as the minister just pointed out, the bill uses the technical term 'electronic or mechanical amusement device'. Chairperson, I would like the Government House Leader, or perhaps the Minister of Justice - whose name appears on the cover of this, well, the former minister's name appears on the cover, but there is a new minister now - perhaps the new minister to explain the difference between those two terms. Why is 'lottery scheme' used in clauses 2, 3, and 5, but not 4? - and in clause 4 this other term 'electronic or mechanical amusement device' is used. Why one term in parts of the bill and another in clause 4, and what is the difference between the two terms?

Finally, since what I am trying to get at, particularly, in proposing an alteration to the bill, is the video lottery terminals or video slot machines, which category the video slot machines fit into. Do they fit into both? Is 'lottery scheme' a generic term, and 'electronic or mechanical amusement device' one type of lottery scheme with 'lottery scheme' being the blanket term? Would somebody for the Government try to clarify, please?

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

MR. BAKER: No, the lottery scheme, as I said, means lottery scheme permitted by virtue of the Criminal Code. Under the Criminal Code, these types of machines do not fit. So what you have here are two types of things. Lottery schemes would be the 6-49 and all that kind of stuff, and any other scheme that might come up like it. There is another one - what is the other one? Atlantic Choice, and there is still a number of these lottery schemes. Now, they are all covered under the Criminal Code. I am not so sure if things like bingo are covered under there, but I think all the normal kinds of things are.

Now this electronic terminal is an abnormal thing. They were all called amusement devices and, as such, were not covered under the Criminal Code. Amusement devices are not. The pinball machines were never covered under the Criminal Code. They are amusement machines. Then the pinball machines progressed to the electronic things you see in the games arcades and those are not covered under the Criminal Code. But then, they took those video arcade things and developed the devices we are talking about, from them, and all of a sudden there were payoffs. Now, they were never covered under the Criminal Code. So, what we have done is taken all that other stuff now, that we find difficult to define, and used the catchphrase to mean everything that is not under the Criminal Code as electronic and mechanical entertainment devices. That is the catchphrase then for all those other things that do not come under the Criminal Code, that now we can control. And in there somewhere, in the big web of that word, we will catch those gambling machines, but it also includes all the other, the pinball machines, the whole bit. Everything is included in that phrase. Clause 4 and some subsequent clauses are the ones, I believe, you wanted to change. Now, the definition is left until later, it is left to the regulations simply because it is very difficult to define, to come up with specific definitions of these machines.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understood that the hon. the Member for Humber East had not intended to make the amendment to clause 2, and since she has done so I believe that the amendment would, in fact, not be in order, because the effect of it would be to change the definition of 'lottery scheme' to exclude the very things that Government wants to control. By changing the definition in clause 2, it then would mean that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may not make regulations. Looking at clause 5, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations (a) respecting the development, conduct, management and organization of lottery schemes under this Act". After 'lottery schemes' it would be, 'lottery schemes except video lottery terminals and slot machines'. The minister would not be able to make regulations under Section 5 and may not prosecute for violating those regulations under 6, so it seems to me, although I understand and support the approach that the member is taking that somehow or other there ought to be a debate in this House about what the Government is going to be doing, I think, the effect of her amendment would be to prevent the Government from making a regulation which would potentially outlaw all those, except licensed slot machines and video lottery terminals, and if they cannot make regulations which outlaw all but licensed ones, they cannot prosecute anybody for not having a license. So, it strikes me, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment, while the intent of it may be one that I could support, the effect of the amendment to clause 2 would make it impossible for the Government to prosecute people for having the very machines that the member is trying to outlaw. I will say, what this argument and debate has underlined is the lack of detailed study of this bill that ought to have gone on in committee, the Legislation Review Committee, scheduled to meet on January 15 to discuss it.

Now, the minister, in his speech, and we can go through each clause-by-clause, the same argument all over again - the clock has stopped, and presumably it could be stopped forever - we can go through clause-by-clause here. The minister said there ought to be some public debate on it. He has not provided any forum for that. He has not suggested any way that it would take place. What the hon. the Member for Humber East is doing is trying to have a debate about what the Government is going to be doing with its power. Now, if the minister has some proposal as to a method whereby the public can get involved in this debate, then maybe we don't have to stay here all night and go through it clause-by-clause and have the same argument on every clause about what is going on, and what the effect of the bill is, and how can we make an amendment that is going to make some sense out of what the Government's policy seems to be in this area, which is let us have gambling controlled by the Government. Let the Government earn revenue by it. If the minister has some proposal that would make sense for a public forum on the issue, a method of public input, with the facts before the public, then let us hear about it. Maybe we can deal with the legislation and give the Government what it wants, the power to regulate this activity.

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, this discussion has been useful. I say again that it is regrettable that this is being rushed so much, because it is an important area. It is controversial. Besides all that, once we plough through the policy issues, we get down to some technical difficulties, and that is what I was trying to deal with when I made my comments initially on clause 2.

I agree with what the Member for St. John's East just said about the effect of qualifying clause 2. I would not want to limit the Provincial Government's power to regulate gambling and lotteries permitted by the Criminal Code of Canada. Therefore, I would like to withdraw the motion that I made to amend clause 2. Instead, I will wait until clauses 3 and 4 to propose amendments.

MR. BAKER: Could this be the intent to take away our ability to control the video terminals?

MS. VERGE: No, Chairperson. The intent is to clarify, reinforce, agree with, underline, the Provincial Government's power and ability to licence and regulate lotteries. I think what the Government House Leader is getting at is important. All along I have been assuming that video lottery machines are a lottery scheme as defined in the Criminal Code. I have not researched the law on this.

MR. BAKER: I am sure they are not.

MS. VERGE: But I take the Government House Leader's point. He did make it when he spoke earlier. What I understand him to be saying is that there are lottery schemes which are dealt with in the Criminal Code - there are some prohibitions on gambling in the Criminal Code - and then there are lottery schemes which are made legal under certain conditions, under certain Provincial controls, by the Criminal Code. Then what he is saying is that there are 'amusement devices' that have changed in recent years and which now effectively, in some cases, are slot machines which have not yet been defined by the courts as constituting lottery schemes.

So my position then would be to support the measures in this bill which give the Provincial Government the power to regulate both, to regulate the lottery schemes permitted by the Criminal Code and also to regulate and licence the amusement devices, including the amusement devices which are now, effectively, slot machines. That is my intention, and I believe, for the reasons that the Member for St. John's East gave, that my intention would be served by leaving Clause 2 alone. Therefore, I withdraw my motion.

On motion, clause 2, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 3 carry?

MS. VERGE: Chairperson.

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

MS. VERGE: I would like to move an amendment to clause 3. Now, clause 3 empowers the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Cabinet, to carry on lottery schemes, either alone, to have the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, alone, carry on lottery schemes, or to enter into agreements with other governments to carry on lottery schemes. It is under this type of arrangement that we have the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, which has gotten deeper and deeper into the gambling business, and which, earlier this year, added video slot machines in bars.

Now, even though there is some reason to think that 'lottery scheme' has not been interpreted by the courts to include the video slot machines, just in case there is any doubt - because I suspect that this has not been interpreted by the courts yet - Chairperson, I move an amendment to clause 3 by adding after the words "lottery schemes", each time those words appear, the following words: "except video lottery terminals and slot machines". I have a copy of the proposed amendment.

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

MR. BAKER: I have to say again to the hon. member that there is a real problem with "video lottery terminal", a real problem, because that does not deal with the issue that she thinks it does. For instance, when you go in to buy a 6-49, they have a video lottery terminal that you get your 6-49 out of. That is a video lottery terminal. Okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) video.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a lottery terminal.

MR. BAKER: It is a lottery terminal but some of them are video, aren't they?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) strings on them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, some of them have little (inaudible) on them, numbers, places and pictures and everything. Some of them (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: And this is the difficulty, I find. And the only way we could see to have a phrase broad enough to cover it is: 'electronic or mechanical amusement devices'. Because that is what they are called, amusement devices. Electronic video terminal covers - I mean, there is an electronic video terminal, for instance, in Motor Registration. That is what they use, an electronic video terminal, computer video terminal, whatever. You really have to use the phrase 'electronic or mechanical amusement device'.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 3, carried.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson.

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, with respect to clause 4, did you call clause 4?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I haven't called clause 4.

MS. VERGE: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 4 carry?

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, in accordance with what I said earlier, I move an amendment to clause 4 as follows. I move that the clause be amended by adding after the words "electronic or mechanical amusement device" the following words: "except video lottery terminals and slot machines".

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 4, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 5 carry?

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clause 5 (a) allows the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations regarding the "development, conduct, management and organization of lottery schemes under this Act." It goes on to talk about all sorts of activities for which the Lieutenant-Governor may make regulations.

I would like to move the following amendment to clause 5, and that would be that after the word "organization" in clause 5 (a) be added the words "or prohibition", to read: "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the development, conduct, management and organization or prohibition of lottery schemes under the Act."

Now, Mr. Chairman, all of this legislation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible) a seconder.

MR. HARRIS: Or prohibition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seconded by?

MR. HARRIS: Seconded by the Opposition House Leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. HARRIS: No. The Member for Humber East?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: So, Mr. Chairman, the amendment would now allow the Government - I mean, the Government is saying, what we do with our power is up to us, but they have not even given the Government the power to prohibit certain forms of lottery schemes, to say that we will only have this kind, we will not have that kind or we will only have certain kinds of operations. Mr. Chairman, the Government has not seen fit to give itself that power, so this is a very minor amendment. I am sure that hon. members opposite would be hard pressed to vote against such an amendment which would, at least, give the Government the power to make regulations which would prevent certain types of activities.

Now, this is, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, a test of the sincerity on this bill, that if they really believe what the Government House Leader has been saying - I do not know what the Minister of Justice thinks although the former minister's name is on the bill; we have not heard a peep from him, not a peep from the Minister of Justice on this bill, but perhaps he might want to speak to this amendment. Having had an opportunity to sit and review the bill for the last half-hour, he might want to have a word to say on it but we have not heard a peep from him yet.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple, straightforward amendment giving the Government the power to make regulations which not only develop, conduct, manage and organize lotteries, but perhaps certain types of lotteries they would want to prohibit or are we going to have open season? - open season, power to the Cabinet, open season to attack the vulnerable in our society, with whatever lottery schemes their geniuses in the Finance Department can come up with. The issue now before this House, Mr. Chairman, is, the Government wants to have the power to give the power to the Cabinet, to these fellows here and the woman who is not here, to give the Cabinet the power to do everything they can, to devise whatever schemes that their geniuses can come up with to take money from people through lotteries, or do they also want to have the power to regulate and prohibit certain kinds of schemes if they find them within their wisdom to get rid of them? This is the test, Mr. Chairman, of the sincerity of this Government. It is a very simple straightforward amendment and I ask that the House gives its consent to it.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I cannot believe this is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: I can.

MR. BAKER: The hon. member is just flapping his gums. Number one, the items that he mentioned here, we already have the power to do, so it is not being given us, we already have the power to develop, conduct, manage and organize lottery schemes. I will just keep going - prescribing the license fees in terms and conditions within the licence. Lottery schemes, we can already do that, but the next one, authorizing licences, prescribing terms and conditions contained in the license to operate and manage mechanical or electronic amusement devises, that is the one we do not have. But that is not what I cannot believe coming from the hon. member who happens to be a lawyer and I am not a lawyer, but I really presuppose that - for instance, taking the one I just read: 'The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the issuance of licences' and so on. Now, does that mean that all licenses will be issued? Does that mean that everybody who applies gets a licence? Does that mean that licences will exist everywhere?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. BAKER: Or does it mean that we can refuse licences?

MR. DECKER: We can control, refuse, take back, cancel.

MR. BAKER: The fact that we are given the control, the power to issue the licences implies - implies of necessity - that you have the power not to issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No, if you are given the power to issue, that also means you have the power not to issue, that is my understanding.

AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly. Precisely.

MR. BAKER: And the hon. member is suggesting the opposite. He is suggesting that if we have the power to make regulations respecting the development, conduct, management and organization of lottery schemes in the Province that we do not have the power not to. That is what he is assuming, and that we then have to state that we have the power not to. Or to disorganize lotteries or whatever he wants done with it.

I just don't understand what he is getting at. Not only that, but he is referring to lottery schemes, so - and just as a matter of clarification - I assume he means the 6-49 and all those, right? Because that is the only thing that refers to there. The clause that he mentioned does not refer to the mechanical and electronic amusement devices that he seems to be trying to get at.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they have these machines in Ontario?

MR. BAKER: Yes, all over the place.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson?

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. I would like to move an amendment to clause 5, by adding after subclause (c) a new subclause, lettered (cc), saying the following: "prohibiting mechanical and electronic amusement devices or certain types of mechanical or electronic amusement devices".

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, under the rules of the House a seconder is not required, but if there is any dispute about that there will not be any shortage of seconders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 5, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 6 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Chairperson?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, the Government House Leader has tried to scare everyone, talking about the mafiosi being on our shores, about shady characters from New Brunswick about to invade and set up gambling enterprises. I would like to question the adequacy of the penalties outlined in this clause to deal with such terrible criminals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

On motion, clause 6, carried.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Lotteries And Amusement Devices In The Province." (Bill No. 32).

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

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

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

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 32 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Bill No. 32 ordered read a third time presently by leave.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, Orders 4 through 19, 21 and 26.

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

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting Crown Lands, Public Lands And Other Lands Of The Province." (Bill No. 22).

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Land Surveyors In The Province." (Bill No. 29).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act." (Bill No. 38).

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Office Of The High Sheriff Of Newfoundland." (Bill No. 27).

A bill, "An Act Respecting Colleges Of Applied Arts, Technology And Continuing Education." (Bill No. 37).

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Consolidation And Revision Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland." (Bill No. 49).

A bill "An Act Respecting The Application And Effect Of Certain Acts Passed In The Present Session Of The Legislature Upon The Revised Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1990." (Bill No. 48).

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law." (Bill No. 52).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospitals Act, 1971." (Bill No. 51).

A bill, "An Act To Amend Certain Departmental Acts And The Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act, 1973." (Bill No 36).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act." (Bill No. 45).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, 1977 (No. 3)." (Bill No. 47).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act." (Bill No. 57).

A bill, "And Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act." (Bill No. 58).

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).

A bill, "An Act To Establish An Advisory Council On The Economy." (Bill No. 61).

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Lotteries And Amusement Devices In The Province." (Bill No. 32).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Mines And Energy Act, 1989." (Bill No. 60).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank all hon. members for the co-operation shown. I understand that one of the bills generated a lot of controversy, and that is probably unfortunate but, by and large, support was exhibited for most of the bills there that have gone through. There was opposition expressed for some, which is the way it should be. So I would like to thank all hon. members for the way that they dealt with this legislation in the last few weeks. I would like to suggest to all hon. members that we have a brief adjournment for about twenty minutes. His Honour will be here around 6 o'clock and then if we could all come back to the House to hear His Honour give Royal assent.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

It is the wish of the Lieutenant-Governor that all present be seated.

Thank you.

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, 1985, The City of Mount Pearl Act and the Municipalities Act." (Bill No. 11)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs Act, 1975." (Bill No. 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Geographical Names Board Act, 1974." (Bill No. 43)

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Unimproved Lands (Redistribution) Act." (Bill No. 20)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act." (Bill No. 21)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Status of Women Advisory Council Act." (Bill No. 35)

A bill, "An Act To Establish The St. John's Centennial Foundation." (Bill No. 41)

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting The Prevention Of Fire." (Bill 53)

A bill, "An To Facilitate The Amalgamation Of Certain Municipal Services In Relation To The Northeast Avalon Region." (Bill No. 50)

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting Crown Lands, Public Lands And Other Lands Of The Province." (Bill No. 22)

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Land Surveyors In The Province." (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To The Memorial University Act." (Bill No. 38)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Office Of The High Sheriff Of Newfoundland." (Bill No. 27)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Colleges Of Applied Arts, Technology And Continuing Education." (Bill No. 37)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Consolidation And Revision Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland." (Bill No. 49)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Application And Effect Of Certain Acts Passed In The Present Session Of The Legislature Upon The Revised Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1990." (Bill No. 48)

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law." (Bill No. 52)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospitals Act, 1971." (Bill No. 51)

A bill, "An Act To Amend Certain Departmental Acts And The Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act, 1973." (Bill No. 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act." (Bill No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, 1977 (No.3)." (Bill No. 47)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act." (Bill No. 57)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act." (Bill No. 58)

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)

A bill, "An Act To Establish An Advisory Council On The Economy." (Bill No. 61)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Mines And Energy Act, 1989." (Bill No. 60)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Regulation of Lotteries And Amusement Devices In The Province. (Bill No. 32)

Lieutenant-Governor: In Her Majesty's name, I assent to these bills.

I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to wish the members of the hon. House a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy, and joyous 1992.

PREMIER WELLS: Your Honour, if I may presume to speak on behalf of members, I am sure on both sides - but I am confident the Leader of the Opposition will express his view - the members, I am sure, return to Your Honour similar greetings for a joyous Christmas occasion and for a happy and a more prosperous New Year for all of the people of the Province and, indeed, for the country.

May I add one more thing. Since this is the first occasion on which Your Honour has performed a formal function in this Chamber since being sworn in, I want to add also our sincere welcome to you, and express our pleasure at having Your Honour with us on this occasion.

Thank you very much for your kindness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Thank you, Mr. Premier.

MR. SIMMS: Your Honour, I wish to be associated with the remarks of the Premier. I must admit, Your Honour looks as if he has sat in that Chair for many, many years, and has done a magnificent job on this, his first occasion, if I may be permitted to pass along that kind word. I also agree with the Premier that I hope that Your Honour and Mrs. Russell and your family have a happy Christmas, a memorable Christmas, and a happy and healthy New Year. More particularly, I know you would want me to extend the same best wishes, as the Premier has done, to the people of the Province.

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Thank you, Mr. Simms.

MR. HARRIS: Your Honour, as a member of caucus of one, it is often difficult to know who is speaking on my behalf when they rise to speak, so I, myself, usually have to get up and speak. Having just today celebrated one full year as a caucus of one, I will speak today on my behalf -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - to join in the greetings on both sides of the House for the Christmas season and for a happy and healthy New Year for you and your family, and thank you for attending on us.

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Thank you.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to wish all members a very happy holiday. I expect, after much hard work during January, that sometime in February we will see each other here again in this same Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at it rising do adjourn until the Call of the Chair, and that the House do now adjourn.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Government House Leader in wishing everyone a Merry Christmas, particularly the staff of the House and Hansard people and so on.

As I was looking at the Clerk with the pile of bills, I said across: How is that for progress? I think we have opposed when we have had to, but I think it has been a productive sitting.

I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Hopefully, we will not see you too early here in the New Year, maybe around the precincts of the House, but not in here.

MR. SIMMS: Particularly your old friend, 'Leonid'.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, and if I knew how to say Merry Christmas in Russian, I would.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to wish all hon. members a very Merry Christmas, and compliments of the Christmas season, as well as the staff of the House. It has been a very interesting session, well, a very interesting year for all of us, but especially for me to try to operate as a caucus of one, and deal with the rules. Unanimous consent is a wonderful thing. It allows me to play a significant role in this House, and I thank hon. members for their co-operation with my limited position and the size of my caucus.

Merry Christmas to everybody, and we will see you all in the New Year.

MR. SPEAKER: Wishing everyone a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and you can come and see the Speaker tomorrow at 4:30 p.m. in the Government Caucus Room.

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