December 15, 1994           HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLII  No. 81


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

The Premier not being in the House today, I would like to direct my questions to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Since the unemployment rate in this Province is at 21 per cent, the highest ever, and the number of people on social assistance is at a record high, and in view of the fact that this government has provided an emergency program each year since taking office, how can you justify to the people of this Province that your government will not proceed with an emergency employment program this year on a stand-alone basis?

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

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

As I have already told my hon. friends opposite, all the employment generation programs that were initiated this year were cost- shared between the Provincial and Federal Governments. When we approached this problem early in the Fall, obviously, we had to take the same course of action.

Now, I say to the hon. member that the time and the negotiation process, and/or the dealings with the Federal Government, are, I would suggest, very close to nigh, and we will have an answer very, very soon for the hon. member concerning the emergency response program.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to point out to the minister that it is not the Federal Government's responsibility, but this government's responsibility, to respond to a tremendous need, an emergency such as this Province has never seen.

Let me ask the minister: Can he elaborate on what the Premier said to the media yesterday, that it is just as well for people to be on social assistance as to be working on government job programs. Doesn't the government realize that the people of this Province would rather work at anything for a day than be on welfare for a day? Doesn't this government understand the notion of dignity?

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

MR. MURPHY: I have absolutely no intent of responding to what the Premier said. The Premier said yesterday what he said yesterday. My concern, as the minister responsible for this program, is to continue to do the best we can to provide the people of the Province with immediate, short-term, necessary funding. We are working very hard at it, I say to the hon. member. This is a Liberal government and we will continue to work hard at it.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, working hard is one thing - producing results is another, and this government has failed, to this point, to produce any results for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: In view of the fact that this government is protecting, and protecting, let there be no doubt, a budgetary surplus, can you, Minister, stand in your place today and justify why a program has not been issued? Will you stand today and commit that you will do everything in your power and that you will force your government to announce an emergency employment program today that will bring some good news to people in this Province before Christmas?

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

MR. MURPHY: Let me say to the hon. member that we are doing everything in our power. The problem is, we are suffering the consequence of the aftermath of seventeen years of wasteful administration, and it is very tough for this government to pick up all the programs that need to be addressed with the dollars that are available.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I say to the member, this government is doing everything it can and we will continue to do so.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Natural Resources.

The Department of Environment and Lands brought in regulations cited as the All-Terrain Vehicle Use Regulations, 1993. Now the intent of these regulations was to control the use of ATVs over environmentally sensitive terrain such as wetlands.

Now, will the minister admit that these regulations went far beyond the protection of such environments and will he make immediate changes to those regulations?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have no plans to make any immediate changes to any regulations, but I have said publicly and the Environment minister has said publicly, that over the winter we intend to review the regulations that were put in place a year ago, and we will consult the public when we review these regulations and determine whether of not there is a need for any changes. There may be a need for some changes, if so, we will find out during the consultation process.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, if you had consulted the public when you brought them in, we wouldn't need to be consulting the public on changes to those regulations.

Now, I wrote the minister, too, on December 6, expressing a concern. A twelve-year-old child from my district ventured out on to a portion of a highway and had his father's bike confiscated by police. Now, that family lives 4.5 kilometres off the main highway on a road that is not accessible by automobile. The child needs the bike to get 4.5 kilometres back and forth, 9 kilometres a day, to a bus stop in order to get to school. The father needs the bike to get to work, as well as for other family needs, and in case of medical emergencies.

There is no flexibility in those regulations to permit discretionary judgement by the justice system. I ask the minister - and I asked him on December 6 in a letter - will he just change the word `shall' in these regulations to `may' to give the justice system flexibility to give a penalty that is in proportion to the offense?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the particular case that the hon. member has mentioned in the House today. He has discussed it with me, I have discussed it with my staff. I've asked my staff to review the case. As a matter of fact, I asked my Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for these regulations to have a discussion directly with the hon. member. If that has not happened, I would certainly expect that it will happen soon, and look forward to him getting more details on it.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Yesterday, in the House, I asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who tabled the legislation, Bill 62, some questions pertaining to that particular piece of legislation. I would like to ask the minister now responsible for municipalities around the Province - the minister yesterday just went through second reading on Bill 17, which is an amendment to the regulations to the road component, to try to put that in by regulation every year, thereby decreasing the incentive component of the MOG every year.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on the $3,500 per kilometre for snow clearing for municipalities in the Province next year will bring this - next year it will come into effect. Would the minister now tell the House if he agrees with this piece of legislation now being brought in by his colleague, Bill No. 62?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, there is a question here directly related to a bill that will be debated in the House sooner or later. The thing that surprises me is that one part of the bill basically says such a transfer requires the permission of municipalities except where a bypass road is constructed.

What we are basically saying in that bill that my hon. colleague has put forward is that we will go out and consult with communities, and do everything we possibly can to encourage communities to take over these roads, but we certainly won't force communities to take over the roads.

This particular bill I do support, yes, and there are a lot of communities in the Province that support it as well. In fact, in my riding alone there have been a number of communities that have asked the minister, by letter, to allow them to take over roads. There is a mayor coming in from the Baie Verte Peninsula after Christmas to make a proposal to this minister to basically let him, and let his community, do a number of roads that are now being done by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. So in a lot of cases around the Province towns are asking for this.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, I do support my colleague and this particular bill. When this particular bill comes to the House, then I am sure that both myself and my hon. colleague, and anyone from the other side, will have ample opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of it.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The minister just quoted a section of the explanatory note. It has nothing to do with what is in this particular bill. The explanatory note mentions a bypass highway and so on, but that has nothing to do...

Would the minister now rise in his place and tell me if he agrees with section 38.(1) of this bill that says: ...the minister may, by order, transfer a highway or part of a highway that is under the jurisdiction and control of the department to a municipal authority in which that highway is located.

Mr. Speaker, this is, and is stated in the act, by order - not in the Municipalities Act now. It is nowhere to be found under Works, Services and Transportation. Could the minister stand in his place now and say that this means the same thing?

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

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

By order, basically, I guess, is after the deal has been struck with the municipality then the order has to be issued to consummate the deal, I suppose, in being able to pass or transfer roads that were maintained by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation on to the community.

Let me tell the member a little story. Back in 1986, and the story relates directly to the question, then the Minister of Transportation, a Mr. Dawe at that particular time, came to the Town of Carbonear and said to us, and I was mayor at the time: We would like to pass over all the jurisdiction that we have on all the roads in the Carbonear area to the municipality. And I said: For what?' He said: well, we will pay you a certain amount of money to take over these roads and maintain these roads from now on and we want to get out of it. But, Mr. Speaker, I remember the member at the time coming to me and basically telling me that it was a policy that was created by his government at that particular point in time and there was nothing wrong with the policy because as the mayor at the time, Mr. Speaker, it was a sizable figure, it was almost $400,000. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Premier came to Carbonear when he was opening the by-pass road, passed me the cheque and then told me to leave because I was not invited to the party that he was having for three days to open the by-pass road. Now I remember that distinctly.

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this proposal. There are hundreds and hundreds of kilometres of roads in this Province that municipalities can financially, I suppose, look after when it comes to snow clearing and maintenance. We, as a government, will provide whatever means, be it money, be it whatever, to those municipalities when we decide - if the municipalities in concert with the municipalities - what roads we are going to pass over to them. So I will go back and say again, I do support the legislation without any doubt and just about every member on that side supported it back or at least those who were sitting in the House in 1986 supported that legislation at that time and I believe the hon. member was sitting in the House at that particular time.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, where the minister has been for the last few weeks but what he just stated back in '76 and what has been in place in this Province ever since 1976 is a policy that whereby any municipality, in consultation with the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and Department of Works, Services and Transportation could take over a road provided that road was brought up to Department of Works, Services and Transportation standards. It was always there and never, Mr. Speaker, is there anything to be found in the Municipalities Act whereby - now the minister knows and his backbenchers over there - this time they had better speak up before it is too late - in this case, Mr. Speaker, the minister can, by order, not consultation, not negotiation, by order. Now will the minister stand in his place and admit to the municipalities in the Province and the people who are concerned with this because it is going to cost them thousands and thousands of dollars, admit that this is a drastic and draconian change to this legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, as a past mayor of Carbonear, as the past President of the Federation of Municipalities, I can assure this House that I will do everything I possibly can to help and maintain the status quo, at least if it is financially viable, to the communities, the town councils, around this Province.

This member does not have to stand and say or try to impress people that he is the only one in this House who feels for municipalities around this Province. I have just as much feeling if not more for the municipalities in this Province, and I can assure the member that everyone on this side of the House feels exactly the same as I do. So don't worry, I say to the hon. member, we will do the right thing when the right time comes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Minister of Natural Resources about Hydro. Yesterday my colleague for Burin - Placentia West asked the minister questions about the failure of Hydro's gas turbine at the Holyrood plant on the weekend. Perhaps because the minister misunderstood the questions or perhaps because he is trying to hide difficulty at Holyrood the minister said there was no problem with the gas turbine. Yet the minister's own statement which he tabled on Monday said, and I quote: "On the evening of December 10th, problems were encountered with the Gas Turbines both at Holyrood and Hardwoods." Page 3 of the statement.

I would like to ask the minister if he can now tell the House of Assembly why Hydro's gas turbine installed at a cost of over $10 million in recent years at Holyrood failed to fulfil its one and only purpose, which was instant restart electricity during a blackout. Why did that gas turbine fail on the weekend?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and others obviously don't understand what happened at 1:35 p.m. on Saturday afternoon during the blackout. When at 1:35 p.m. a major breaker faulted at Holyrood everything at Holyrood that was operating went down automatically. It went down. Nobody could manually interfere with the going down of that system. Nobody could.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, the member doesn't know what she is talking about. You don't know what you are talking about. The system went down automatically. Nobody could manually interfere with that system going down. They would be at risk themselves personally. The whole system in Holyrood would have been at risk if anyone tried to manually interfere. The system was under the control of the automatic operation and it went down automatically. Everything operating went down automatically at 1:35 p.m. as a result of that failure of the breaker at Holyrood.

It went down properly. They had to cool it down properly so that they wouldn't have a major disruption and major damage to the Holyrood system. After it went down properly, properly controlled, then they started to bring it back. Everything at Holyrood went down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, everything went down, but it was brought back properly. Nobody could stop it instantly and have it instantly re-going.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the minister. It is the minister who doesn't understand what happened at Holyrood, it is the minister who doesn't understand the difference between the gas turbine and the thermal units at Holyrood.

I would like to ask the minister, why did Hydro install at a cost of over $10 million a gas turbine at Holyrood? Wasn't it for the express purpose of bringing up power instantly in the event of a blackout such as we had on the weekend? Why then did the minister say in his own statement that he tabled on Monday: "On the evening of December 10th, problems were encountered with the Gas Turbines both at Holyrood and Hardwoods."

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can't seem to understand that everything at Holyrood went down at that time when that major breaker faulted. The small gas turbine that is there, as well as the steam units, everything went down, and everything stayed down. The steam units had to cool down properly. Everything was down.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the minister. Why was the gas turbine down when it should have been up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, everything at Holyrood was operating properly before 1:35 p.m. on Saturday. Everything was operating fine, and the Hardwoods gas turbine was also operating fine and providing power. Everything was working fine, but when line 217 from the Western Avalon to bring in power from Bay d'Espoir was energized and brought on, and the breaker at Holyrood was connected automatically, or connected by the operator - automatically from inside, but not from outside, manually - the breaker blew, the breaker faulted, and when that happened it knocked out everything. It knocked out the gas turbine; it knocked out the steam units, and when that happened, because of the nature of the systems in place there, they go down automatically, and it takes time for everything to go down automatically.

MS. VERGE: You don't understand (inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: I do know what you are saying. Madam member, I do understand what you are saying, but the system had to cool down properly, and then they were out there in the dark and nothing could come on for awhile, but they eventually solved their problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

According to the exceptions to the Tendering Act, your department has recently purchased a combine harvester at $18,000. I would like to ask the minister why your department has purchased this twenty-year-old piece of equipment, a 1975 John Deere combine harvester?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For a moment this fall I thought they had forgotten all about one very important part of this portfolio, and that is food and agriculture.

A few years ago, in view of the Province's effort to establish an alternate feed program for the livestock industry, the department started some very significant grain trials, primarily on the West Coast of the Island but some here adjacent to the research station in Mount Pearl, but most of it on the West Coast of the Island, where they have demonstrated very, very clearly that we can grow quite well and very economically grain such as -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: The hon. gentleman from Marystown - I think I have it right this time - often has, in this House, a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: - a diarrhoea of words and a constipation of ideas.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does he have today?

AN HON. MEMBER: Both.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister to address the question that was asked.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will do that, and in the process of doing this work on grains we also had to acquire a combine harvester. Such a harvester was found that was in excellent condition, at a very, very reasonable... To be honest with you, I believe it came from Nova Scotia, but it was in excellent condition, at an extremely reasonable price, within the limitations of budget, and the purchase was made.

Now, with regard to the question as to whether the department had gone through the Tendering Act, I think in this particular case -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the minister to resume his seat and I will ask for a supplementary. The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the machine came from Prince Edward Island. I will just inform the minister of that.

I will try to keep the questions as brief as I can, so maybe the minister can answer the same way, and this time answer the question. I would like to ask the minister: Where is this machine now? Is it still owned by his department, and has any grain been harvested yet by this piece of equipment?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

I know my hon. friend from Baie Verte - White Bay really wants some assistance in the future and I can assure you he is going to get it because he asked the question that I wanted him to ask. Had the combine harvester harvested any grain? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, in this hon. House, that I had the opportunity two months ago, to sit on that combine harvester and harvest wheat in Robinsons. I harvested wheat in Robinsons only three miles away from my birthplace; so yes, indeed, it has been used to harvest grains on the West Coast.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: I am pleased to hear he harvested grain because I don't think the minister has a grain himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister, this time, to answer the question. I will give the preamble, the minister can answer the question.

First of all, when this crop was planted, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, there were no intentions by the former minister, the former department to purchase a harvester and all of a sudden, within hours or days of the member taking over his portfolio, we had a combine harvester purchased out of Prince Edward Island. When was it purchased, that is what I asked the minister; secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister, whose scheme this was, to experiment with growing grain in this Province? Does the minister have any studies to indicate that this Province will be able to compete successfully with the Prairie Provinces?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I should like to tell this hon. House that the combine harvester in question was purchased by a minister with great foresight into the Agri-Food industry of this Province and that was my predecessor. He had great foresight and he decided that this Province should become self-sufficient in feed grain and he purchased that combine harvester to achieve that.

Now the other thing that I should tell this hon. House that I will make every effort to make sure that the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay has an opportunity to sit in the cab with me, next year, as I combine more wheat and more grains on the West Coast, and no, with regard to putting Western Canada out of grain production, well, that is always something that you have to strive towards is that goal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: It is a goal that we must strive towards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I thought that the smurf in Smurf and Turf had an open mind but it is just vacant.

Anyway, on a more serious note, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health.

In line of our conversations Sunday night subsequent and other conversation on Tuesday afternoon, and yesterday afternoon concerning the Gateway Residence in Dunville and the appalling treatment senior citizens had, would you be able to inform this hon. House of your latest findings sir, please?

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

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

Thank you for the question. I find it difficult to stand at this point and follow the illustrious act of my colleague here, in fact, I don't think I would even aspire to that level of competence and greatness in oratory.

But as to the question you asked, the hon. member knows full well because I already shared the findings of the staff from my department with him yesterday as to the visit we had with the personal care home in Placentia. He is asking for purposes of the media gallery I would think but it will gain him no political points when he tries to use or suggest that the elderly, the weak, the disadvantaged and those who need personal care are not being cared for. The people at the home in Placentia that he referred to, my staff visited them, they talked to the management, they talked to everyone of the residents that were there and the findings were basically this, that given the circumstances of the weekend past they were cared for and they agreed that they had been cared for in as humane and in as caring a fashion as could be reasonably expected under the circumstances. To try and say that that is not the case is to try and make political points on the backs of those who are most vulnerable and who least deserve that type of treatment. I would suggest that the hon. member take due notice of that with regard to the question on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the public galleries from Port Saunders, the Mayor, Tony Ryan, and councillor Randy Patey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I shall on tomorrow ask leave to introduce, and I hope to adopt, the following resolution:

WHEREAS society has a collective responsibility for the wellbeing of children;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Members for Conception Bay South, Port au Port, and Waterford - Kenmount, be, and are hereby appointed as a select committee to examine into and to report upon, (a) the present legislation and policies of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to services to children, (b) the legislative changes, or enactment and policy changes, if any, which are required to promote mechanisms through which the wellbeing of children may be enhanced, and (c) other matters directly and necessarily related thereto. That the committee be authorized to send for persons and papers, to sit in session and out, and sit from place to place throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and that the committee are directed to report to the House by December 31, 1995.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MS. YOUNG: I would like to respond to a question raised in the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Kilbride. He raised the question of providing funding to one of his constituents to visit a daughter who was a patient in a hospital in Halifax.

Now, I would like to point out that, that question was raised earlier by the member and it was also addressed by the Deputy Minister of Social Services. The policy was explained to him and I think that by raising the question again yesterday he was just raising false hopes for the family involved and trying to score political points.

The policy states that we are not prepared to provide funding for travel except for parents of dependent children. This policy has been in effect for many, many years going back to the previous government.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I resent the remarks by the Minister of Social Services. I raised the question in this House because neither my constituent or myself were not satisfied with the policy. It is unjust and it should be reviewed. I raised the question legitimately yesterday and I did in no way, share or form try to raise the expectations, or provide false hopes for any of my constituents.

Thank you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is my submission that is not even a point of privilege let alone a point of order. All I say to the hon. gentleman is, `as yea sow so shall you reap', he got exactly what he deserved on this one.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The minister did not respond to Answers to Questions at all. She gave a political speech initially there, and I think it was only proper and in order for the Member for Kilbride to voice his concerns on that matter.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the minister clearly responded to the question, gave an clear answer, gave an answer in private, and gave an answer here in the House. It was a clear answer.

MR. SPEAKER: To the two points of order raised. First on imputing motives, members do it from time to time and the Chair shows some latitude. From what I recall of the question and the answer probably the member and the minister are equally at fault in that case.

Secondly, in as much as members in asking questions use the occasion to give something of a speech, ministers take advantage of the same opportunity. In either case I don't think that is a fair point of order to raise at this point, so I will pass on it.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to table in this hon. House today an answer to a question that was raised by the hon. Member for Mount Pearl a few days ago. It wasn't raised in Question Period but I'm going to table the answer anyhow. It was raised during a debate on a matter. The question related to whether this Province was exporting hundreds of thousands of pounds of chicken out of the Province. I have an answer that I will table.

I will simply say that indeed, and I'm very proud to say, there is chicken being exported out of the Province, because it is in line with the future of the agri-food industry and further and secondary processing. It is an excellent secondary processed product that is being shipped out that has gained some considerable attention on the mainland of Canada because it is such a good product.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) lose on it.

DR. HULAN: We don't lose on it, really. In fact I can tell you one of the products that we are shipping out also is a de-boned product that normally sells for $0.20 to $0.60 a pound, usually at closer to $0.20 a pound. We have a contract over there at $0.47 a pound. Not bad at all.

The other answer that I should like to table, Mr. Speaker, is in relation to the hon. Member for Grand Bank yesterday regarding TAGS. Again I will table this answer, but I will simply state that one part of the question related to how the money might be shifting from this Province to cover off TAGS recipients in the other Atlantic provinces and Quebec. My department has received assurance from the federal people that Newfoundland's share of $1.4 billion of the $1.9 billion will not be reduced. Thank you.

Petitions

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

MR. WHELAN: May I present a petition to the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The prayer of the petition is as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the District of Harbour Main humbly sweareth: Whereas there are many hundreds of people on the Avalon Peninsula who work at the Bull Arm site travelling the Trans-Canada Highway in the very early hours of the morning; and whereas snow clearing doesn't commence until some time after the initial traffic rush; and whereas the roads are and have been very treacherous, causing a number of minor accidents in recent weeks; be it therefore resolved that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation's crew be instructed to coordinate their snow clearing efforts to precede the departure of the workers. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Dated December 15 1994.

Mr. Speaker, as the prayer of the petition indicates there are a number of people who work at the Bull Arm site, not only from the District of Harbour Main but from all over the Avalon Peninsula. The number of people who have signed here on this petition is approximately 700. I understand that there are more petitions forthcoming. I know that the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has in the past shown some sympathy with regard to people who travel back and forth. I know that he has opened roads to facilitate people travelling back and forth their roads that heretofore have never been cleared before in the wintertime. I realize that he certainly has the best interest of these people at heart.

I would strongly suggest that he take a very serious look at the conditions of the road and the conditions that the people have to travel back and forth on on a daily basis in the wintertime. At this particular hour in the morning the roads seem to be more treacherous than any other time of day. It is before the dawn and usually the ice and snow does not have a chance to melt. The highways equipment usually goes on the road at about 4:00 or 4:30 in the morning which is around the same time that these people leave home. I realize that the equipment cannot be everywhere at once but if they were to start an extra hour or two earlier and perhaps take into consideration the fact that people are travelling back again in the evening, to try and coordinate their efforts to have the snow clearing equipment, sanders and graders, precede the workers, it would certainly be of benefit to these people. I strongly suggest and strongly urge that the minister look into this with a view to resolving it to the satisfaction of these people. Thank you very much.

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

MR. WOODFORD: I rise in support of the Member for Harbour Main, Mr. Speaker, in relation to that particular petition. The petition I believe calls for - to make sure that the roads are salted, sanded, cleared and so on, Mr. Speaker, early in the mornings so that people working in Bull Arm can get back and forth from the members district and I guess other districts around the Avalon Peninsula. I am well aware of that, Mr. Speaker, I just came from Harbour Main this morning, Harbour Main district myself, I visited my parents out there. I had two brothers - I got one still working on the Hibernia site who just came off work very early this morning and so I can vouch, fairly categorical, what the roads are like between Harbour Main, specifically and Bull Arm but more so, Mr. Speaker, I can - and the member alluded to the fact that it is early in the morning that the roads seem to be worst than other parts of the day.

Well, Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago - tomorrow morning it will be two weeks since there was a very, very serious accident just outside of Benton in Gander. There was a head on collision, three individuals were killed and one survived. Two people were from Springdale and one from Deer Lake, in my district. The gentlemen worked at Bull Arm, the two of them, himself and his buddy. Another gentleman, a friend of mine from Cormack, Mr. Bud Hiscock, survived. He was the only survivor out of that crash, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I visited him in the hospital, the first time he came too in two weeks and he is down there now strapped up but he is going to make it. He is going to make it. This was at 8:40 in the morning with black ice on the road, just outside of Gander. Now there may be an excuse early in the morning, Mr. Speaker, but there is no excuse for that hour of the day.

Now we don't know what can happen. We don't know, temperature changes and so on. This kind of stuff I know can happen periodically but the foreman on the roads, as far as I am concerned, should be out and should be out early enough to have those sanders, graders, salt trucks and whatever on the roads. Very sad situations happened in the last couple of weeks in our Province, Mr. Speaker, and I can associate with the thoughts of the member and the requirements, the wishes and the requests from the people of Harbour Main and other places around this Province because it touched me personally in the last couple of weeks to see what happened in my district with two gentlemen, one gone and one -I would say he is going to make it now but that is all, just. If anybody - and the other two gentlemen from Springdale, two young people, one nineteen and one thirty, gone.

The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West lunch time today - two people, a man and his daughter gone just last week. We had another lady from Clarenville I believe it was or out around the Clarenville area the other day, all those are sad incidents, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the minister to get the message out to his foreman to make sure that they are on the roads.

I travelled last Saturday from Corner Brook to Deer Lake - I think it was last Saturday evening - and I think that the requirement now for a foreman is to get out before the operators come out. The foreman is supposed to be on the road and call out the operators, if there is any need, before the required time, whether it is 4:00, 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. I think they are supposed to be on the road and call the operators out before that.

So I would say to the minister to take the concerns of those petitioners and my concerns to heart, Mr. Speaker, and make sure that everything possible is done to make sure that the roads in this Province are safe for everybody to drive on, not only the people who are working at Bull Arm but for every resident in this Province.

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

MR. EFFORD: Just a couple of brief comments, Mr. Speaker.

There is nobody in this Province, especially myself, who understands the requirement and the need to have our highways safe in the wintertime. Our climate changes as much sometimes as two, three and four times a day, depending on the temperature, the sun, the ice conditions, and everything else.

The hon. members opposite know, as well as all hon. members on this side of the House, that the shift starts at 4:00 a.m. when the foreman goes out. The trucks go out automatically at 5:00 a.m. They work until 1:30 p.m. covering the highway every two hours, according to the road conditions, but the key factor is that you cannot drive the same speed in the winter as you would drive in the summer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Let me finish, now. The speed must be reduced and adjusted according to the condition of the road.

They talked about the accident in Gander. That same morning the Town Council of Gander was in my office for a meeting, and even before I knew there had been a serious accident there, I asked the town council: You just drove all the way from Gander, - seven councils in the one machine - `what are the roads like coming in? The roads were reasonably good all the way from Gander. Half-an-hour later I got the news that there was a serious accident, but they had driven in that morning.

The one east of Roaches Line, I drove that very piece of road twenty minutes before the accident. It was snowing. There was continuous snowing. It took me twenty minutes longer to come into town than it normally would in good conditions. The condition of the weather causes things to happen.

Now, about the people in Bull Arm, very simply, I have already met with the people in Bull Arm. I agreed to send officials down to Bull Arm and meet with the people down there to try to get an understanding of the shift system. The officials have already been down there and we are trying to work with the people in Bull Arm and to adjust our shifts to their shifts. That is the intent, to see if we can work out some kind of a time schedule that would suit both parties.

I have already told them that. It was only a week ago that I met with them, and now I find today that they sent a petition to the House of Assembly saying: Why don't you do something? But if you are going to do it, you might as well do it right or not do it at all.

We are on top of all the issues. We do the best job we can with the snow clearing and the salting and the sanding on all of the roads, and we caution people, all of us, to use common sense. Accidents will happen. Use common sense in driving and drive according to the condition of the road. Accidents will happen. You cannot have 100 per cent safety on our roads, but working together we will do the...

I suggest to the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, he has opened his mouth enough this week; he should keep it closed.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. WINDSOR: What was the cause of the accident you had, road conditions or careless driving?

MR. EFFORD: The accident I had?

MR. WINDSOR: You had a week ago.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) here in the city.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the minister has finished speaking. We are not into questions and answers. I recognize the hon. the Member for Placentia on a petition.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a petition from the District of Placentia, and I will read part of that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: These people ask the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned, do hereby request the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to generate desperately needed employment in our communities, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

This petition was in a small convenience store for only two or three days, and there are fifty odd names on it.

This is the fifth time since the House opened this session that I have been up to initiate emergency work for people. I have had the privilege of supporting other members over here, but only on two occasions have I heard members from the opposite side jump up to talk about needs in their own districts - the Member for Fogo and the Member for Twillingate. Don't tell me that other members across don't have emergency situations in their own districts. I can't believe it. This is Newfoundland. This is the Province. They are from all over.

These people who have been up supporting and giving petitions know full well what is going on in this Province. They have seen emergency responses before when the situation wasn't as bad. With more money, with no moratorium, there were grants. Why, even last year there was one for $6 million, and this year, when things are worse, unemployment is higher, more people on social services, a bunch of people ready to be thrown off TAGS, there is not one red cent. There is something really radically wrong.

I've said it before, that we should not have to wait for Ottawa. Lots of times in our past we've never had to wait for Ottawa. The initiative was taken by (inaudible) people here, but it is not being done now. To hell with Ottawa, let's do it ourselves. Whatever they come in with after the fact will be gravy. We've all heard stories about parents looking after their own youngsters before they look after themselves. I've heard a member this morning say that this woman refused to get her own prescription filled so she can put a bit of grub on the table. That is what one of the members over here said he had heard, a story this morning, talking to a person.

It is tragic. We are supposed to be part of one of the best countries in the world. I find it amazing that we can't reach out to help the ones most in need of help. It is obvious that when it comes to giving, this government stops at nothing to provide to people who need the most help. Where is their thinking? Do people know? Do the members opposite? Are they in tune with what is going on out in Newfoundland? Taxies here in St. John's, Jiffy Cabs, coordinating with other groups to get coats for mom and dad so mom and dad can supplement other things to their family. That is going on these weeks, and things are much worse out in rural Newfoundland.

We are waiting for Ottawa. We are waiting for `the Ax,' we are waiting for Lloyd. We can't afford to wait for Lloyd. It has to be Clyde. No, my friends, we can't - tomorrow we will adjourn here and it will be our last chance at a public forum in the people's House to raise the issues of what people need.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: It is a not a funny matter out there, I say to the Minister of Education and Training, and the Minister of Social Services who knows better.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are funny. What you are saying (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I might be funny. I don't mind me. I don't mind you making fun of me, but never make fun of the people who need help.

There are two types of government obviously.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: Those people who look after the flock, and those people who look after the fleece.

MR. SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

MR. CAREEN: We are looking at those who look after the fleece.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased today to stand and support the petition put forward by my friend for Placentia. Once again we have a petition from a group of people who are looking for some type of emergency program this year. This is one of several petitions that members on this side of the House have presented. It was very upsetting yesterday to hear the Premier believe that people in this Province are not in dire need. He touched on the word starving and he played that word starving to the media very well, I should say, but I think that we have to look at things in the general sense. We walk into the house in the evening and we are on the go all day and you say: Oh my God -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: We agree, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. He is another one of the clique who doesn't understand what is going on in this Province, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

When we walk into the house after being on the road all day and we say: Oh my God, I'm starving, we don't mean we are falling down on our hands and knees, but we mean we are hungry, Mr. Speaker. I say there are people in this Province who are hungry. I gave a couple of examples. I have umpteen examples that I can give to the Premier or any member of the Cabinet on that side of the House, examples of where people are hungry in this Province. Many of the examples were children going to school in this Province without the proper clothing, and indeed without the proper food. If people think that is not happening, there's something wrong. People think that is not happening in this Province. In The Evening Telegram today: `Twenty-five per cent of the children in this Province are living below the poverty line.'

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology had a news story in the paper yesterday about growth in this Province. He used many percentages, many numbers in reference to that growth, but what he didn't mention was what I just quoted, that 25 per cent of the children in this Province are living below the poverty line. he didn't mention that there was an over 200 per cent increase in Social Services cases in the Province over the past year. The Minister of ITT didn't mention that in his news release. He didn't mention that over 50,000 people in this Province will be depending on food banks or some type of help this Christmas to put food on the table. He didn't mention that 3,000 to 6,000 people coming off TAGS program at the last of December this year will be facing Social Services for the first time in their lives. He didn't mention that, Mr. Speaker.

I can go on and on with the percentages of people who are finding life difficult in this Province. We may have seen growth in our economy in some industries in the Province, but we have seen what they call a jobless growth. We have seen a growth where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That is what we have seen in this Province over the past year.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. MANNING: Is it not true? I ask you then, where are the jobs? Sure, we have industries that are growing but the profits are going out of this Province into Ontario and Quebec, and god knows where, Mr. Speaker. They are not going into the pockets of the people of this Province, and that is the problem we have with this government. That is why people are hungry in this Province. For the first time in their lives they are facing Social Services.

I welcome the petition of the people of Placentia. I welcome the petitions of the people of all districts that have been put forward here in the House of Assembly, because people are asking a question. People are asking this government to come and realize the situation that lies, not only outside St. John's, but also right here in St. John's and in Mount Pearl. People are hurting in every part of this Province.

We are not saying this is the answer to all our problems. We are not saying that, Mr. Speaker, but this is an emergency situation and it is time for the government to do something on a stand-alone basis. We can't be depending on Uncle Ottawa all the time to do something. We need something now, Mr. Speaker. We need something for the people at this present time and I pray that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations stands up in this House tomorrow, the last day of the sitting of this House, and announces something for the people of this Province. People are waiting with bated breath for that minister to announce something, and what a welcome Christmas gift it would be for many people in the district.

Mr. Speaker, I go back once again to the Premier's comments yesterday about what is happening in this Province. As far as I am concerned, the Premier is out of touch with what is going on. The Premier and a great many of his colleagues on that side of the House, I allow, Mr. Speaker, never had to worry about putting food on the table. They never had to worry about their children going to school hungry because they always had full and plenty.

Well, I invited the Premier yesterday, but he didn't have the guts to come with me out to my district and visit people who are suffering in this Province. I say that he should stand up and he should see what is going on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that all of us are interested in getting out of the House. Given the hour of the session so far this afternoon, it is obvious it is in the interest of everybody that we get out of this House as quickly as we can. I hope the House will not have to sit late this evening, but to ensure that we can, if we so wish, perhaps I could begin by moving that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

There will be a Late Show, of course, from 4:30 to 5:00 p.m., so we have only effectively an hour-and-a-half left. If there are no questions given to the Speaker, then there will be no Late Show, but I ask Your Honour if we could first of all address that motion, that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. today, carried.

Does the Member for Ferryland wish to speak?

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This side, in order to expedite business and the bills, are willing to forego the Late Show, if that is in agreement with hon. members.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Late Show be foregone today, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my hon. friends; that will help to move the matter forward.

Mr. Speaker, I had a word behind Your Honour's Chair with my friend, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank, who is upstairs, I think, for a moment, making some phone calls.

The proposal for the day is that we begin with Order 39, and then we will do Orders 37, 36, 34 and 33.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, that's 39.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 39, which is a bill that stands in my name, and then we will do 37, 36, 34 and 33.

Assuming we get through those before midnight, I would ask that we go into Committee and deal with - we will not be dealing with Order 15, but deal with as many as we can of the bills in Committee. The hope is, of course, Mr. Speaker, that the House will come to the point tomorrow where we can adjourn and His Honour, I understand is available tomorrow, in the morning up until about noon, and then, I believe, His Honour has some commitments which he made, you know, some time ago in the course of his viceregal duties, so we will have to try - obviously, His Honour, will be available when the House needs him, but we will have to try to accommodate ourselves as best we can.

With that said, Your Honour, I would ask that we call Bill 64, which is Order 39 and stands in my name.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act, The Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Orders Act And The Support Orders Enforcement Act", (Bill No. 64).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of these bills where the text to the enactment is just about as short as the long title, if you wish.

The explanatory notes really set out what this bill seeks to achieve but I could say to the House that we have consulted with Chief Judge Luther of the provincial court, and we, in this case, I, have met with Chief Judge Luther and with one or two of his colleagues on the bench to discuss this amendment, and I can assure the House that it is eminently acceptable to them.

I can also say to the House that this practice that this bill seeks to sanction has been in effect for some time, particularly in Corner Brook. Judge LeBlanc and several of the judges in Western Newfoundland have been following this practice and particularly and specifically there has been no objection taken by any member of the Law Society of Newfoundland, who could arguably maintain that what has been going on may be - and I stress the words, `may be' - a breach of the Law Society Act.

As the House knows, the Law Society Act confers a monopoly for the practise of law upon members of the Law Society, that is the whole purpose of it. The three sections are essentially the same, there is a little difference in the wording between No.1 on the one hand and on the other hand, Nos. 2 and 3, but in each case, what happens, is an official of my colleague, the Minister of Social Services is being authorized to appear in court in respect of applications, for support applications.

These are matters where people are receiving social assistance and in the course of the evolution of the matter, an application is made that in behalf of that person or by that person for support from a spouse - almost always a husband, but not always - asking that spouse to contribute a fair share towards the cost of maintaining the applicant and her - almost always her, but not always - her children, the children of the marriage or of the relationship; so that's all it really seeks to do, Mr. Speaker. It is very straightforward and I hope the House will support it willingly and unanimously but, in any event, I move second reading.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I support this bill. I think it is sensible to allow Social Services personnel to appear in provincial court on behalf of social assistance clients trying to get maintenance.

I want to speak briefly, however, about the inadequacy of social assistance policy. Ironically, it is social assistance recipients who have been hurt by the improved enforcement of court orders for family support. It was, only with the establishment of the Department of Justice support enforcement agency almost six years ago, in 1989, that court orders for family support in this Province meant anything.

The support enforcement agency, in its first year of operation, from May 1, of 1989 until the end of that fiscal year, collected about $2.4 million in court ordered maintenance and child support. Year after year since then, the amount collected has increased. In the second year of operation, the amount was over $4 million, and a third year, over $6 million. In this fiscal year, it is estimated that the agency will collect and forward to beneficiaries of court orders, as the minister indicates, mostly mothers and dependent children, over $10 million; however, when the agency was created - and I was the minister when it was planned and when it started - social assistance regulations permitted social assistance recipients getting child support to benefit up to a maximum of $115 a month. Social assistance regulations up to October of 1990 treated child support and maintenance as allowable income, the same as income from a job, and that provided a net benefit to welfare recipients getting maintenance, and that is as it should be. It also offered an incentive to social assistance recipients to go to court and to try to get as much maintenance as possible.

The Wells Administration, when the current Minister of Works Services and Transportation had the Social Services portfolio, changed the policy and made maintenance and child support non-allowable, thereby subtracting any maintenance received dollar for dollar from the social assistance entitlement. So sadly and ironically, the support enforcement agency not only has not benefitted the people who need maintenance the most, namely, welfare recipients, it has actually hurt them because Social Services and Justice have not integrated their systems. There is a crack, and the poorest families in the Province are falling between that crack.

If a single mother with three children is entitled, by a court order, to $200 a month maintenance from the father of the children, and under social assistance policy is entitled to $300 a month social assistance, for a total of $500 a month, that woman has to budget very, very carefully. If the money is due on the first of the month, $300 from Social Services, $200 from the support enforcement agency, and the judgement debtor, the absent father, fails to make the payment, or is late making the payment, the first of the month comes and that woman doesn't get the $500 that she is expecting and that she had budgeted for; she only get $300 from Social Services. She has to make phone calls, and that is not often easy, to find out that the absent father has missed his payment to the agency. Then she has to go to her social worker and satisfy the social worker that the support money didn't arrive because it wasn't paid to the agency. The worker then has to manually prepare a cheque for the missing $200, so for the first week of the month, the woman is out money. Social Services issues assistance cheques twice a month, but I am using a hypothetical, simple example to illustrate my point.

The support enforcement agency, when it started, had a sophisticated computer system. The Department of Social Services, in the years since, I am told, has moved into the computer age and now has a computer system. Why can't the two departments connect their computers so that when the support enforcement agency misses a due payment from a judgement debtor, the Social Services computer is alerted and automatically issues a cheque for the missing money to the beneficiaries? And why can't the government restore the earlier policy, treating maintenance and child support as allowable income? That gives a meagre advantage to some of the poorest families in the Province, and it gives an incentive for social assistance recipients to try to get as much maintenance as possible.

Right now, and Legal Aid lawyers and social workers with Social Services will tell you, it is expedient for a social assistance recipient to take a path of least resistance. Social Services coerces applicants for social assistance to go to court for a maintenance order, but the reward system promotes only a token effort. If the social assistance recipient gets a court order for one dollar, that individual and that family is better off than if the court order is for $200. The incentive was taken away when maintenance was categorized as non-allowable income.

So, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, which formally authorizes Social Services personnel to represent social assistance clients in provincial court applications for maintenance. Legal Aid doesn't provide lawyers for maintenance applications on a routine basis. I am told Legal Aid provides legal assistance only when a maintenance application is contested. The individual deserving child support, or the social assistance applicant who is pressured, coerced and forced by Social Services to go to court, as it stands now, has the burden of initiating the court application and going to court. If it turns out that the party being requested to pay opposes or turns up represented by a lawyer, then the applicant generally can get a Legal Aid lawyer, but the current legal aid system is not satisfactory and that is probably for good Legal Aid reasons because Legal Aid doesn't have a big enough budget or enough staff to handle all the maintenance applications in addition to all the other workload.

I do agree with authorizing the Social Services personnel to do this court work on behalf of clients seeking maintenance, but at the same time as I am supporting this bill, I am urging the government to make other changes, specifically, number one, restoring the treatment of maintenance as allowable income so that social assistance recipients who get maintenance, will be better off, even if it is only $115 a month, which is the provision for income from a job and was the provision for maintenance prior to October of 1990. One hundred and fifteen dollars a month is not very much to the Provincial Government, which gets 50 per cent of it back from Ottawa anyway, but it is a lot for a single mother with three children who is expected to get by on only $500 a month.

Secondly, I urge the departments of Justice and Social Services to integrate their computer systems so that social assistance recipients, entitled to maintenance under court orders, don't end up worse off because of the support enforcement agency. Sadly, that's what has happened over the past few years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I take it that nobody else, other than the lawyers, is interested in this particular piece of material, so I will shortly move second reading after I make my speech.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to advise the House that there has been another of the famous consultations behind the Chair and the government will be asking the House to adjourn at 5:00 p.m. and come back at either 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m., as suits members. I am really quite indifferent, whether we come back at 6:30 p.m. or at 6:00 p.m., if it is more convenient for 6:30 p.m., then I am quite prepared to. But I just want to advise members of that and we will sit this evening until we finish the work I have outlined, which shouldn't take us long, but that is in the hands, of course, of the members of the House.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act, The Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Orders Act And The Support Orders Enforcement Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill No. 64)

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you please call Order 37, Bill No. 61, which stands in the name of my friend, the Minister of Health.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospital Insurance Agreement Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act". (Bill No. 61)

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

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

The nuts and bolts, if you like, of this piece of legislation, these amendments, were discussed somewhat yesterday in the House in Question Period. I gave the information in answer to a question or questions from the other side as to what this bill is about.

Very briefly, what it does, is it puts into place a levy system on automobiles insured by insurers in the Province so that the Province, in effect, can recover an amount equivalent to or greater than the amount that we now recover from third party liability claims as a result of having to take litigation on a case-by-case basis. The amendments and the levy system that we are putting in place are consistent with what is in place in most other jurisdictions including all of the Atlantic provinces. I guess, basically what has happened over the years, by virtue of third party liability arising from accidents, the Crown, the government, has had to establish the cases where they wanted to seek recovery from insurance companies under third party liability. They have had to initiate litigation and they have had to go through the normal legal process of recovering amounts that were deemed to be appropriate.

What we have agreed to with the insurance companies through their association, and what I might say they have readily agreed to as well, is to put in place a levy system of - I think it is $11.61 cents exactly, per each vehicle insured. This will return to the Crown an amount of money in excess of what we have been averaging over the past two or three years. Also built into it is an escalator clause to ensure that we will continue to receive at or above what we would normally receive by virtue of having to go the litigation route.

This saves a bunch of time for the government, it saves a whole bunch of time and paperwork for the insurance companies, it increases the revenue that the government will achieve, as opposed to what it would normally achieve through the old system, and there is no down side to it whatsoever. It is a win-win situation, as I said yesterday, for government, it is a win-win situation for the insurance companies. As a matter of fact, yesterday I did hear by accident, Mr. Forgeron from the Atlantic Insurance Bureaus Association, speaking to the piece of legislation and saying that it was something they were very much in favour of. He also said that it would not increase insurance rates, as far as he could see, for the people who have to buy automobile insurance in the Province.

Having said that, I think that covers the salient points in the amendments. The only down side in it is, I guess, people like my good friend, the Member for St. John's East will no longer have that piece of legal business out there as a possibility of work. The lawyers on Duckworth Street are going to get less work because of the changes we are making. With the greatest of respect and with all the sympathy that I can engender for that particular group, I would have to say for everybody else this is win-win, and it is the conventional and proper way to go. If there are any questions with respect to it, I would be glad to answer them, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked some questions of the minister earlier this week pertaining to some aspects of this, which I considered at the time a levy system that would try to recoup - the minister indicated at the time it would try to recoup the expenses that are being absorbed now, I understand, by our health care system, which should be paid by the liability insurance in claims arising from motor vehicle accidents.

I guess, overall, if it is going to eliminate, as the minister said, the legal costs incurred, and it is my understanding - and I'm not sure how much of that amount is absorbed by the system, but the minister did indicate earlier - that $2.6 million is what we are talking about. I asked the minister that previously, and he indicated that the levy, which I understand is $11.61, if I remember correctly, will be added to each policy.

Maybe the minister can answer a little later, too, if all of the court cases result in recovery. If there are cases where no established liability occurs, and if they are remaining within the system now, and being absorbed by the system itself, what is the percentage that we are recovering and getting back to the system there, in value? Is the minister following my question? I know it is hard to listen to two people at the one time.

I am wondering, of the $2.6 million recovered back through the system, what percentage of that is of the total amount that is sought by our health care system, by government, to get back? Is there $4 million and we collect $2.6 million? I am just wondering, is there money still left in the system that we are absorbing under our Medicare system? What is our recovery rate through the court costs and so on? And, that being the case, too, if we are going to transfer another little add-on onto insurance policies for consumers, on top of what consumers could be paying by the Insurance Bureau of Canada indicating the increased risk by not having motor vehicle inspections, another $11.61 topped on because of our health care system, they are saying, should now be paid by insurance companies and so on - I tell the minister, the consumers are still paying that. Whichever way they want to cut it, it is still being paid by the consumer, and there is no great saving to the consumers in this Province - maybe in legal costs, possibly, depending. I would like to have some indication, too, how extensive some of these are, and a little more information when the minister has an opportunity to close debate on that, if he has those figures, just for general information, to see whether the effort is well worth it, whether that $2.6 million is the net amount -

AN HON. MEMBER: John Efford?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I don't mean Efford; I mean, `effort', with a `t', not a `d'.

- whether it is worth it, and whether we are getting a substantial return on the system, and if there is more money that could be obtained as a result, Mr. Speaker.

I just make those points there for the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the minister have leave to answer the questions or is he closing the debate?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, we don't have any other speakers.

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

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I will take just a minute, Mr. Speaker, and answer the questions that were posed by my colleague from the other side.

First of all, I want to point out again to him, and make it abundantly clear for all who are listening, that this is not a premium that is being added to insurance policies. This is a levy that is being assessed to the insurance companies based on the number of vehicles that they insure. Mr. Forgeron, as I just said a minute ago, himself, said yesterday on CBC News at 1:00 p.m., that this will not add anything to the cost of insurance, because it is not a premium that is being passed along. It is a levy that is being assessed to the insurance companies, and the insurance companies are glad to be able to work in this fashion because it relieves them of all of the necessary involvement of book work and lawyers and legal fees that they have to engage on their side when we initiate a third-party claim, so I want that to be clear for the record.

With respect to the $2.65 million that we are anticipating to get in the first year, let me answer the question for the member in this sense and put it in this context: In 1991 we had gross revenues of $1.6 million, approximately, from these claims. It cost us $266,000 in legal fees to get them, so we netted out $1.379 million. In 1992 there was $2.6 million in claims. It cost us $437,000 in legal fees, so we ended up with $2.19 million - these are round figures. In 1992-1993, $2.653 million was the gross revenue. It cost us, again, $459,000 in legal fees to collect that, so we ended up with $2.1 million. This system will give us

approximately $2.65 million in the first year with provision for escalating rates in the future, depending on inflation and those factors. Of that $2.6 million that we will get this year there will be no legal fees involved. We will not have to engage lawyer services or get into litigation in order to collect that. It is a situation where we will really probably pick up an extra $500,000 or $600,000 the first year in real cash because we are getting out of this business of having to go through lawyers, and on the other side the insurance companies are saying it is going to save them time and money because they do not have to engage lawyers to deal with the claims.

Now, as to the claims that may be in the system now. There are some ongoing third party claims that are always on the go. We gave notice to the insurance companies back in July that we were going this way and they have agreed. Those claims will continue onto their normal conclusion, so there are a few claims out there to be cleaned up.

I want to conclude by saying that this will not add any extra new cost to the consumers, and it is again the way that all the other provinces, or most of the other jurisdictions have gone.

Having said that I move second reading of the bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospital Insurance Agreement Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House now, by leave. (Bill No. 61)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

My friend the Minister of Finance will now show us his wizardry by asking the House to read Bill No. 58 a second time. It is Order 36, Sir.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Reductions Of Pension Contributions By Employers In The Public Sector". (Bill No. 58)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you know second reading is debated in principle, and essentially the principle of this bill is that we institute conditions already agreed to in the collective bargaining process whereby there would be, for two years, specific reductions in the employers contribution to the public service pension plan. This bill simply allows government to do that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do not have any concerns with that. I think that is something that has been agreed to and discussed previously. We fully understand the intent and what the minister has accomplished. This has been reached through agreement, so we endorse that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Reductions Of Pension Contributions By Employers In The Public Sector." read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House now, by leave. (Bill No. 58)

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

MR. BAKER: Order 34, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act". (Bill No. 34)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act". (Bill No. 34)

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

MR. AYLWARD: This bill is basically a minor amendment to the Waste Material Disposal Act. Garbage is a word that has value, and it is becoming important in this Province to take care of it, and we are going to do that. This bill basically amends two sections, one, it deals with the directions by the court. It was found that it wasn't working very well when an offence was committed, and the court was asked and directed to provide for taking care of the matter. It will now be amended to provide for directions of the minister. It is basically just a change of wording, and it is felt that will work much better.

Secondly, Clause 2 of the bill will add to the act Subsection 24 (3) (1) to provide for court acceptance of a certificate of the registered motor vehicles respecting the last registered owner of a motor vehicle. There was some problem with that in the acceptability. In the court system it wasn't clear as to the ownership question. This amendment will also deal with that matter, Mr. Speaker. I would move second reading of the bill.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand in the House today and speak to Bill No. 34. Basically I can stand here and agree with the minister and what he has to say in respect to this bill. It is a minor bill and there is not much to it, really, but it will have far-reaching effects with respect to the towns and the municipalities in this Province. It will help the municipalities deal with offenders with respect to the dumping of garbage on by-roads and side roads and that type of thing, and with respect to the car wrecks also.

I think it will speed up the process with respect to getting at offenders. At this point in time the process is pretty time-consuming. If a person, say, goes to a side road down in Logy Bay or Torbay and dumps a load of garbage, we've had occasion that we would actually - when I was mayor down there - go pick through the garbage and get an address and go and give it to the police out of the garbage. We would try and get those people charged.

We've had occasion where people came down from central St. John's possibly to Robin Hood Bay on a Saturday, maybe at 12:05 when the dump was closed, and they just continue on down to Red Cliff Road or somewhere like that, dump the garbage, and go on. I remember a few years ago that in particular Red Cliff Road itself was becoming a garbage dump. We as a town council encouraged the junior forest wardens and that to come down and clean it up. I was out myself up on Red Cliff Road on a Saturday picking the garbage up. We did a good job. The town paid for the pick up of the garbage type of thing and to bring it to Robin Hood Bay. Within weeks the same thing was happening again.

We certainly support this bill. As I said, I think when we did make charges with the police to the individuals concerned on occasion it was very long in getting to court, a lot of problems arising from that. Now that the minister can have a say in that and where the garbage will be dumped and picked up.

Subsection (3.1), the purpose of it is to address the car wrecks in the Province. As we all know, drive around this Province - and it is improving. The former Minister of Environment and Lands brought in regulations with respect to the car wrecks in the Province. Then you ran into the problem of who owns the vehicle, the last owner. The section here will of course address the last registered owner. I did have some concerns about that first when I started thinking about it, but often times if a person sells a car it is the responsibility of both individuals to have that car registered. If I sold a car and I didn't send in that little form with my registration to have that car registered in the other person's name, then I am probably just as guilty as the person who would leave it as a car wreck, so it would probably help in that situation also.

This bill too I think will help clean up those car wrecks and put the responsibility and the cost maybe, if we get some regulations in place, that if a town council or the government, whoever, is responsible for a certain area decides to take away a number of cars and they could find out who was the last registered owner, would they actually charge that individual for the tow charge or the cleaning up of the area. That is something maybe that the minister can address. Basically I'm asking who would pay for the tow away. Would there be fines involved, other than over and above the cost of having the car towed away?

We know now we have businesses within the Province that come in here from outside that go up and take cars and squat them around and take them back to the mainland for disposal or what have you, for recycling I would imagine. I probably shouldn't have brought that up because the minister is going to get on that now with respect to the reciprocal agreements with the provinces, sobeit. With respect to any bill that we can bring into this House that would support our environment and clean up our environment, we could only support that on this side of the House. I believe that the people have to accept responsibility and if this is a way for the clean-up of our environment, if this certainly is a way to accomplish that, then sobeit.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have a lot to say other than that. As I said, it is a fairly short bill, Bill No. 34. With that I think I'm going to sit down and let the minister, if no one else wishes to speak, address the couple of concerns that I had with respect to the fines and the tow away cost. Thank you.

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

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the concerns of the member he has expressed. The tow away costs I'm not sure about. I will do some checking on that and see, and get back to you on that. This will make it easier to make sure that we can carry out what the intention of the act is, this will help do that, and the first part will also allow for the minister and the officials to ensure that a site is cleaned up properly and so on, so I will do a little check on that, there is supposed to be flexibility on that, on the fine side, there is supposed to be flexibility there because the fine was fairly high in the beginning, it is fairly high and it is only one fine so there is some flexibility supposed to be provided for (inaudible) so I will check on that for you and we will get back to you, but I think it is improving the present bill and it will help make more effective the clean-up of car wrecks and other sites.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, I move second reading.

On motion, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House, now, by leave.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we now come to the happy moment when I can ask my friend the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to introduce a bill, which I think has been before the House since June, and that is "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act", which is Order 33, Bill 32.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act". (Bill No. 32).

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker,

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I am going to be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to be the cause of spoiling any member's Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Tender Act was brought in in 1987 in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and since that time we, as a government, have not had the opportunity to review The Public Tender Act.

What this act does is very simple. It is to review the scope of The Public Tender Act and take out any of the weaknesses in the act that will ordinarily be brought in initially, it is like growing pains. You purchase something and after using it for a while you know the weaknesses in it. Just a couple of minor things I will mention and I am sure hon. members Opposite will have a few comments. Anything $5,000 or more would have to go to public tender; $5,000 or less you could get three prices.

In the new changes in the act, we now increase it to $7,500. $30,000 or more would have to go through the public tender for the purchasing of services. We have now reduced that to $25,000 instead of increasing - $30,000 or more for purchase services would have to go to public tender, we have reduced that, $25,000 or more so what we are doing now, over the experiences of the last number of years, in trying to give everybody an equal and fair opportunity with The Public Tender Act in the Province, we have found out some of the weaknesses in this act, and basically this is what we are doing; tightening up and refining the public tendering system to give the public a better opportunity in purchasing and doing government's business.

There are quite a number of housekeeping changes there and I am sure as hon. members make note of them and talk about them in a few minutes, then I will respond to any questions the hon. members put forth.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He did have a change of heart. I will tell this hon. member he has been visited by at least one ghost. He hasn't come all the way yet but he is getting there.

Regarding Bill 32, like the minister said, it is tightening up some loose ends. We know that over the years, $5,000 was years ago and will be $7,500 now. And there is no sweat with that.

In this bill, too, you are talking about more legal responsibility for the deputy ministers. Is that not right, Sir?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, they will sign up because you, as a minister, are politically responsible. The minister mentioned a couple of days ago here that he is responsible - Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, Sir?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: A couple of days ago you mentioned about you being responsible to state publicly what other departments are spending. This piece of legislation is not going to do that either. It is only putting more onus on the deputy ministers as well. The deputy ministers will be held legally responsible if they sign such legislation, will they not?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Okay, but this one here puts the legal responsibility on the deputy ministers. Thank you, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: It increases the amount.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, but that is an inflationary thing.

Most of what you see here is only housekeeping and, like I said earlier, is only tightening up the strings.

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

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

I read this bill, and I had a number of questions. I am going to refer to them clause-by-clause if the minister wants to make note.

In the explanatory notes itself it says: "Subclause 3(4) of the Bill would renumber subsection 4(3) of the Act as subsection 4(2)..." - and, this is the thing "...would remove the requirement for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to exempt certain leases by regulation." I would like for you to address that in your comments, and what the reasoning is for that.

In the bill itself, "Subsection 4(5) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:

(4) A lease for space that was originally publicly tendered that contains a provision for a renewal option, a reduction of the area of leased space or the renewal of the lease with a reduced area may be renewed with the approval of Treasury Board..." - and this is section (b) - "on terms more favourable to the government funded body where, in the opinion of the head of that government funded body those terms are consistent with the fair market value for that leased space".

Now I have concerns with that because I think that is too broad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: In the bill itself, section 3.(6) (4) (b), page 8.

The section there says, "(6) Subsection 4(5) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted..." The problem I have was, in the opinion of the head, that they would lease more space or renew a contract for the lease of space and would, in the opinion of the head of that department, or the deputy minister, whoever it might be, I have concerns with giving that much authority to an individual.

Those are two points I would like for you to address.

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

MR. HARRIS: I want to make a couple of comments on the act, but if the minister is going to answer questions -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, I am not trying to get the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation going, but I would, similar to the Member for St. John's East Extern, like an explanation of some of the parts of this act that seem to be major policy changes. Perhaps the minister can make note of these questions and refer to them in his final remarks.

I realize that we are dealing here with a fairly volatile situation, that we may end up in a big debate here if we don't watch our p's and q's, but I sincerely have a few questions for the minister as to what is being done here and why, and I would ask if he would deal with them in the manner in which I am presenting them to him.

Clause 4 of the bill, in accordance with the explanatory notes, now permits the change orders to public works that have been contracted, to change it from the Treasury Board approval which is now required, to the deputy minister and then it goes on to say that the deputy minister can delegate that power to somebody else. So all of a sudden it is gone from the Treasury Board - which is a fairly high political level of control of the public purse by virtue of change orders -now all of a sudden it goes from the Treasury Board - who I would assume, knowing the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would take a pretty careful look at these things - and all of a sudden it goes to the deputy minister who can then delegate it, presumably, to anybody he wants. So my concern here is what is happening? Are we going to be losing control over change orders? Now I don't - and I am sure there may be a dozen or two dozen change orders required in any contract and they may have no financial consequences, they may have none. They may just be a change because there is a need for a change and I am not suggesting that every minor change in a contract must go all the way through that bureaucratic route. What I am concerned about is the change orders that would result in increased costs.

I notice that there is another section here in the act and we have not really had a lot of time to analyze all this legislation but section 6 of the act is being repealed and that presently allows contract increases of up to 10 per cent of the original value of the contract to be allowed, that is being removed. Now does that mean there can be no increases in the contract or does that mean that the increases can now be more than 10 per cent? When I see two of those things in combination there it appears at least, that it is possible to go beyond 10 per cent of the contracted price -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh, I know. I know it has been deleted but if you look at clause 6, the explanatory note says, "Clause 6 of the Bill would amend section 7 of the Act to allow the deputy minister to delegate the power to approve change orders, extensions or increased cost." So what kind of costs are we talking about here? Are we talking about more than 10 per cent now being allowed because apparently the Treasury Board is now losing control over the cost of a contract.

You have your public tendering process that takes place, a tender is awarded on the basis of the lowest bidder presumably and then - after the contract is awarded by the minister, contract entered into - all of a sudden the deputy minister can delegate to somebody else within the department the authority to increase the cost by virtue of change orders, extensions or whatever and now it is out of control at the Treasury Board. To me, that does not make sense and I think that that is a fair question. That is not an attempt to get the minister or the minister's department but it is an attempt to understand why is it that the Cabinet, i.e. through the Treasury Board who is there to look after the public expenditure, is losing that power to approve change orders and not even the minister, it is the deputy minister who can delegate to somebody within the department the authority to increase - permit cost increases. At least when it was there before you could not go beyond 10 per cent. Now it seems that there is no limit at all, that the deputy minister can delegate the power to increase the cost of public tender. So I think there is something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It is now 5 per cent. Where is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is clause 6, is it?

MR. EFFORD: No, wait now. I was reading from the book itself.

MR. HARRIS: I don't see that in the act. All I see is that section 6 of the act is repealed by clause 5 and clause 6 then says that subsection 7(1) of the act is repealed and substituted by giving the power to any official in the department that he or she may appoint and unless that is an existing clause for existing section 5 of the act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The current legislation allows 5 per cent increase, does it? If that is the case we can't go beyond the 5 per cent but you don't have to go to Treasury Board. It can be done by a deputy minister's delegate.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) no ministers or anybody around, and there is a contract out there and you need a change order, the deputy minister can do it in that time of the year because of the circumstances, to give them the authority. Otherwise it would hang up a contract for months.

MR. HARRIS: But you can't go beyond 5 per cent.

MR. EFFORD: Not beyond 5 per cent.

MR. HARRIS: The other question that I had. The exemptions that we have now - I know the minister gets ragged every now and then about coming in with his big book of exemptions every fall because he has five or six months of exemptions to come in. These are exemptions, and I have to agree, the minister doesn't approve all these exemptions. He is required to report them, though. It is his responsibility, it is in his department. Because we get them in a big pile everybody looks through them. I look through them every now and then. You always find a lot of these exemptions are for what appear to be contracts that are - or that the requests appear to be written so that there is only one person or only one source that you can get it from anyway. You see that in the University. They are looking for a MacIntosh computer and they buy it from one person because there is only one source, which is MacIntosh.

Does the minister think that is really sort of getting around the public tendering act by instead of asking for a particular service - you know, like a computer that can do certain things - they specify a particular brand name or a particular type. The public tendering act is thereby avoided and greater funds are expended. I wonder is the minister concerned about this and does he see any way of doing it? Because these exemptions, they pile on, and when you read through them you get the impression after awhile that somebody is writing these purchase orders to meet their own personal desire to have a particular brand of equipment or a particular type of activity.

Obviously there is a need for exemptions in certain circumstances, but I also see in certain kinds of cases where for refits of vessels, for example, things that could obviously be foreseen - an annual refit - certain equipment is being bought and is being bought on an emergency basis, even though it is quite obvious that there could have been some plan in place that would have meant that these things could have been purchased. Is that something that the minister has any control over, or does he only come in after the fact and report to the House about this and take whatever lumps people are going to give him for it? Is there any control system where the minister's officials are watching these things and monitoring what is going on? Because I see a number of things. They are not worth a question in the House because they are not necessarily a big deal on each individual basis, but cumulatively they can add up to a lot of money. Perhaps the minister can comment on that.

I have no concern about the change in fifteen to thirty days. That is just a bureaucratic thing. But there seem to be a lot of examples of the spirit of the public tendering act being avoided. I don't mean in a mega-way - on the hospital contracts, now that is a major political issue - but in minor ways, on a day-to-day basis, on an ongoing basis, the spirit of the public tendering act seems to be being overlooked by certain departments and by some agencies. I wonder if the minister in closing his remarks could comment on that.

Perhaps he could also tell us the effect of removing the section - in clause 7, amends 8(1) by striking out the words "rejecting the preferred bidder". It is my understanding that there are two circumstances under which the reports have to be made to the House. One, when the preferred bidder is not given the contract, and number two is when there has been no tender called for specific reasons. I wonder what is the effect of that. Does that mean we are only going to have one report now and that we are not going to have any...? Because quite often you see in these reports, `No contracts were awarded to other than the preferred bidder for this period by the government bodies reported.' Now, are we going to no longer have reports about this? What is the effect of that amendment removing the words, "rejecting the preferred bidder", there? Thirdly, does the minister feel that there is some need to amend the process involving overriding of the act whereby the Lieutenant-Governor in Council now has the right to ignore the Public Tender Act where he feels it is expedient to do so.

This is what happened, obviously, in the hospitals case - the Lieutenant-Governor in Council decided that the act wasn't going to be followed. The act says the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can do that, and this is where we get into whether or not there is technical compliance with the act. Does the minister feel that policy is a good one, to maintain the right of the Lieutenant- Governor in Council to act in that manner, to override the Public Tender Act for whatever reason it deems to be expedient?

Does the minister agree that is a proper thing or should that be changed? My own view is that it would require very special circumstances for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to have the right to override the Public Tender Act. It would have to be a very strong demonstration of a public interest that would override the act on any particular occasion and I think the act should be amended to reflect that. Because, even if the government doesn't lose this case before the courts - and I don't know whether it will or not, that depends on the judge - but even if government doesn't lose the case, it seems to me to be wrong that government, if it wins the case, wins it by virtue of the fact that government can override the act because it deems it expedient to do so.

Lastly, and this a suggestion that I have to the minister, which I make based on my understanding of how easy it might be for departments to manipulate leases. If, for example, a particular department, whether it be Social Services or any department, for say, office space in areas of Newfoundland, because there are differences in properties - each property is different, different quality, different areas, different levels of desirability from time to time, different states of maintenance and repair, or different quality of premises - would the minister consider looking at a process whereby, instead of having just open tenders on space, where there is a variety of space...let's say, for example, the Department of Social Services required 20,000 square feet, would the minister consider a process which would say that the space be pre-approved - this is a proper quality - and have a two-round bidding system whereby on the first round you are asked to become what is called an approved bidder, so that the Department of Social Services, for example, would go in and say, yes, this quality of space is sufficient for our needs, or to say, yes, this space would be sufficient for our needs if you were prepared to do, x,y, and z, to bring it up to standard. Then if you have four or five qualified bidders, I say, then say, now we will accept your bids on price, so that everybody is then on a level playing field and you don't have a situation where there could be four or five different bids in but you are dealing with different quality of space and it is open to the department afterwards, or open to interference, not by this minister, but by any minister or by any government, interference on the basis of alleged preferences of a particular space or a certain space not being up to scratch.

If the minister follows what I am saying, this will be a two-step approach, qualified bidders and a qualified quality of space, and then an open competition on price so that you know that your space is okay, and if you want to beat the price and give the government a better deal, then you could do it without fear of being overlooked upon the basis of saying: Well, your space is not good enough so we went to someone else.

Those are the four points I wanted to raise, Mr. Speaker, because I think this area of public tendering is one that we all talk about, the deficit, costs, government costs and everything else, this is an opportunity in the Public Tender Act to ensure that the public is getting the lowest possible price. And, obviously, any dollar saved by this government or any other government is a dollar less to have to extract from people in taxes and a dollar more that can be made available in other programs on a social side, or any other side if government needs.

I ask these questions sincerely, Mr. Speaker, as part of my remarks in second reading. I would appreciate the minister's response on them.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just want a few words, Mr. Speaker. I've listened with interest to the minister and the Members for Placentia and St. John's East talk about Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act. I listened to the explanation of the minister, although the minister didn't say too much in introducing the act. I would say he probably said more about Bill No. 30. He talked more about Bill 30 but he didn't say anything about Bill 30. I believe the minister is going through a probationary period over there by the House Leaders.

MR. SULLIVAN: He will get his licence back after today, I think.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he will get this licence to practice legislation back after today. I think he got the sticker on the legislative licence plate. He has been pulled over by the House Leaders over there and a sticker applied to his legislative licence plate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty-four hour suspension.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was suspended for twenty-four hours from getting to his feet. Knowing the Government House Leader, I would say that he had to pay the Government House Leader $100 to be allowed to get back on his feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I said, knowing the Government House Leader, and knowing that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was suspended from participating in the House for twenty-four hours, had the sticker applied to his legislative licence plate - knowing the Government House Leader, he has charged the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation $100 for permission to get back on his feet, I say to you now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Plus interest.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Plus interest. We know the Government House Leader knows a lot about charging interest.

MR. SULLIVAN: He knows about it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He has the bucket now. He has his garbage can put right out in the middle of the hall over there. The minister is about ready now, to drive his two feet right down into the garbage container. He is going to recycle whatever is in it now in about thirty seconds.

I want to say to the minister, An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act - there is a lot of interest in the Province these days, Mr. Speaker, about the Public Tender Act and about the actions of this government when it comes to public tendering, or lack of action, I suppose you could say, lack of public tendering. The minister walks in now almost every week with a big armful of those documents, exceptions to the Public Tender Act -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) as the Tories had.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Tories (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the minister, he holds the record for exceptions to the Public Tender Act, this minister. Piles booklets on top of booklets of exceptions to the Public Tender Act. When you go through them, as some of the members have done - and hear the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay talk about the combine harvester over there. Can you imagine a man to go and make an exception to the Public Tender Act so he could go out in his district and get up on a combine harvester and get his picture taken.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did he get up on it?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He had a ladder.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, they hired a forklift.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They hired a forklift to get him up on the combine harvester so he could wave his arms over the district.

AN HON. MEMBER: It can also be used as a golf cart.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A what?

AN HON. MEMBER: A golf cart.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A golf cart? I plan to play golf this coming summer down in Frenchman's Cove, but I hope in the name of god I don't go out on the golf course and see him coming with the combine harvester, I say to him. I hope, on the Frenchman's Cove golf course, that is not what they do the greens with, the combine harvester, I say to the minister. But it's a bit of a rough game. You would need the chipping wedge all the time. I've heard tell of it all.

Then when you look into the screech-in certificates, was it? Screech-in certificates - then, you had to go off to the mainland and get them. The Premier banned screech-ins. Then you have the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation going to the mainland getting how much, $5,000 for screech-in certificates, exceptions to the Public Tender Act? No one in Newfoundland could make up the certificates for the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Tourism, look.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Tourism, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Screech-ins.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Screech-ins; had to go to the Mainland to get screech-in certificates done, I say to the minister, exceptions to the Public Tender Act, and the minister stands up here today like he is sincere about improving the Public Tender Act. How can you take this minister seriously, with what he has done in the last three or four weeks? My god, I think we should shut the House down tomorrow because if this minister gets another week, I don't know...I suppose we will be able to get home - or we will have to get a dog team or something. He will be out there with the stickers now, I suppose, before you get off the parking lot tomorrow. Someone said he was out there last night going around with a night-light, going out with a light, looking around, getting licence plate numbers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Burin Peninsula (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Put what down on the Burin Peninsula?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, why don't you saw us off at Goobies and let us drift over with St. Pierre?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We would save the boat fares over. Imagine what a booming economy we would have!

AN HON. MEMBER: It would save a lot of gas.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It would save a lot of gas; government would lose a lot of tax in gas, because they do pay gas on the tax to get over and back, I suppose, do they?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, tax on the gas.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No tax on the gas. No gas on the tax, I said.

What you have to remember is that people go to St. Pierre to burn gas to get the gas - get gassed.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think they are all aghast.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There are some very serious concerns. When you look at the Trans City situation now that is before the courts, a civil matter here, I say to the minister, and for the minister to stand up then and expect us to take him seriously on this matter about improving the Public Tender Act when there has never, in our history, been more exceptions to the Public Tender Act than since this minister has been in that office - never, never, never, getting worse by the month.

MS. VERGE: The fox in charge of the henhouse.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: As my colleague, the Member for Humber East says, putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The fox will be in charge of the henhouse.

And then, the Trans City scandal. He snarled up in that, too, for sure. He snarled up in that somehow, this minister. He has his way of getting involved in - anything that is a bit cloudy, he is in the middle of it somehow, this minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I don't care if the minister talks about pickles or vinegar or Bev's special dip or whatever. He is getting out the pickle book now, he is going to get up, or if he gets out the liquor book, or if he gets the book now with the motor vehicle inspections in it, or the .05, the portable breathalyser, or the stickers that he is going to have put on the licence plates when you are suspended for twenty-four hours, I couldn't care less.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) picture.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: His picture will be everywhere. I would say now when the inspectors pull you over, the first thing they are going to flash is the badge with the minister's picture on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am stopping you by order of the hon. John Efford.

MR. EFFORD: It would be some pleasure for me to stop every Tory in the Province.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There you go, every Tory - that's his problem. I tell you what the minister should do: Why don't you hire Tories to be the inspectors?

MR. EFFORD: Some chance!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Some chance!

AN HON. MEMBER: You would need more than two or three inspectors.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You would need more than two or three inspectors, that is true; I agree. But, I mean, the minister - what has he done? I would say even Purity Factories up there who turn out the syrup are worried about the minister. The next thing he will be doing is testing the syrup at Purity Factories. What is that minister up to? The minister can't be in his place day after day and do what he is trying to do with the people of this Province. He has to be taken to task for it.

MR. TOBIN: Who is going to do that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We are. We are not going to let him come here and ramrod things through and impose hardship with things he hasn't thought out. Someone down in the department for twenty-five years has been trying to get it up for twenty or twenty-five years, and what minister do they get to bring it in here? This minister, that is who is bringing all of this in here, never thought it out and I am so surprised that this minister - he swallows everything. He just swallows it down when they bring it up to him, `Minister this is a good idea, a good bill.' `Yes, give it to me. Is there any press in this?' That is all, any press in this?

AN HON. MEMBER: Crocodile tears.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The same as the old - god he is good with the crocodile tears, isn't he something? But the last couple of days -he has not been too frisky over there since he had the twenty-four hour suspension. I must commend the acting House Leader yesterday, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with advice from the Minister of Education and Training, he is acting in the capacity of advisor.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Push what? I am not pushing anything, I say to the minister. What is he saying, I am trying to push -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to go home for Christmas?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I am going to go home for Christmas. I tell the minister, I am going home for Christmas and I am going home tomorrow. Well I should not say that, I might not because I might not be able to get home but not because this place is open - not because this place is not closed. I might not be able to get home, I might need my skates and I can't skate that far.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman has been skating on thin ice for many years (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: And he has never gone through it yet.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I have to be the first to admit, I have skated on some pretty thin ice but I have always gotten across the pond, managed to get across.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I have skated on some pretty thin ice, no doubt about that, I say to the minister.

The other day, I want to tell the minister, last Sunday I left home, last Sunday afternoon I heard the forecast and I said to my wife I really need to be in St. John's for the morning. So I said I am going to leave early to try and beat the storm. It started to snow just as I left Fortune and from the time I left Marystown to St. John's it snowed pretty heavily. It really did, it got tricky, it got - my wife was with me. No, I am serious now, I am having a bit of fun. Do you know where I saw the first bit of equipment? Where would you think? On the divided highway. No, I am serious, that is where I saw my first piece of equipment. I saw seven to ten pieces from there until I got into the city.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is good is it, the minister says? See that is the problem, `it is good.' It was good from there in.

MR. TOBIN: No, no, you missed what he said. You said, `Do you know where I saw the first piece of equipment?' He said Roaches Line.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, of course, I know the minister - no, I did not want to say that to the minster. With all the controversy over the last couple of weeks on our highways I just wanted to tell that story to the minister not in jest or to be light. I want to tell you because it is a true story and if I was not on the highway myself I wouldn't know it, Mr. Speaker.

The attitude, everything is attitude. It doesn't matter because it is on the Burin Peninsula and my colleague and I represent the Burin Peninsula. That is fine that we got to slip our way in, up and down the peninsula, that is the way he thinks but, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted a few comments on the Public Tender Act and say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They don't listen, they don't care about public tendering. They don't believe in public tendering on that side. They believe in manipulation and proposals, unsolicited proposals for work, to construct facilities, that is what this government believes in, unsolicited proposals. Walk in, make a proposal and the first thing the minister would ask - what do you think the first question the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would ask if you walked into his office with a proposal for some capital construction or some facility? What do you think the first question this minister would ask you? Would he ask, have you lost your license in the last six months, twelve months? How many times have you been suspended for twenty-four hours? How many hundred dollars have we got out of your pocket? Would he ask you that?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he would say are you a Tory?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Would he say, have you got your car inspected? Have you been over .05 in the last twelve months? Will that minister ask you that, if you walked into his office? What do you think he would ask you? He would not say how many tickets do you sell to the $500 dinner? Would he ask you that? Who did you support in the last election and how much did you donate to the Liberal Party? That is what this minister would ask, I say to him.

MR. EFFORD: Stand up and be counted.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Stand up and be counted. My colleagues seem like they want me to sit down. So I ask the minister - windbag they call me now, windbag.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I will ask the Government House Leader, don't get confused with me and him. My colleagues don't call me anything worst than windbag -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are the Opposition House Leader, right?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and the Government House Leader looks over his shoulders.

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

MR. EFFORD: Just a couple of quick answers to the questions a couple of hon. members put forth.

I want to conclude by saying that The Public Tender Act has served the Province well over the last number of years. The number of changes that we make today, and the weakness - that will further enhance the value of the public tendering system. The Member for St. John's East mentioned about brand name products and exceptions to public tendering. In the new legislation in the spring, we will be bringing in legislation to deal with brand name products.

Mr. Speaker, the other question the Member for St. John's East Extern asked, the deputy minister cannot approve any lease that has been increased, only that which has been reduced. It states that very clearly: that which has been reduced. You don't have to go to Cabinet or an option to the leasehold so it is not that which has been increased.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, no, that is very clearly stated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Pardon? I can't hear what you are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Whatever.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: If there were, for example, 10,000 square feet and it was reduced by 2,000, it is in the tender that was approved. Let us say it was $15 a foot, you could not increase that to $16 a foot so it is definitely not in the public tendering.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House, now, by leave. (Bill No. 32).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, we will get moving right along. I will wait for some words from members on both sides whether we rise at 5:00, if they would prefer to come back at 6:00 or 6:30 and when I say I am indifferent, I mean I shall be here whenever.

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

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

I just want to say to the Government House Leader, maybe we could judge our progress by 5:00 and maybe there won't be any need to come back after, don't you think?

MR. ROBERTS: We are moving pretty good.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You know, I mean, we have tomorrow morning, a couple of hours at least and then - Let's see how far we get by 5:00 and make a decision then whether we come back at 6:00 or 6:30 or 9:00 tomorrow morning, perhaps.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you be good enough to put the House into Committee, please.

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

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett) : Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, let us start with Order 32 on today's Order Paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 32, Bill 57.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, given the (inaudible) nature of this bill.

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

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Bill 60, Order 31.

Your Honour, on this one let me advise the committee that my friend for Humber East asked some questions. I do not have a note here from my officials at present but I have spoken with them - I should say my former officials to be precise. The matter was discussed with the Rules Committee which included lawyers as well as judges, in additions to the Chief Justices, and the Rules Committee, I am told, have specifically approved these amendments.

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

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, (inaudible) which I do not yet have in my hand will come back in due course, so could we call Order 28, Bill 45.

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

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

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

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman.

Can I have something to say on this or is it over? Just a comment. Can I have a comment by leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I meant to have a few words a couple of days ago but in the interest of getting the House closed that day I did not bother to rise. But there is one thing in the bill that has bothered me, I guess, or I have been concerned about over the years when it comes to contraband goods, and that is the disposal. I see in this bill there is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is right; he is volunteering.

I note in the bill that there is a provision here, as I understand it, that the alcoholic liquor will be forwarded to the liquor corporation. That didn't happen before, as I understand it. The police seized the stuff and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I must tell the story about the person who really didn't trust the police officer. There was this person who really didn't trust the police officer, and the police officer was trying to get him up off the chair, before the breathalyser days, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The .05 wasn't in the book then. If you could bend down and pick up your keys in the dark, and all of that stuff, they would let you go. There was this person in the police station in Grand Bank, and as soon as he went through the door he sat on the chair. The police officer had taken a bottle out of the glove compartment of the car. Of course, a bottle of liquor store booze was a big loss back then, in those days.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was one sold that year.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that was one sold down there.

Anyway, the police officer was trying to get the gentleman up off the chair to see if he was impaired or not, you see. Of course, the carrot, the enticement, was that he told him he was going to pour out the bottle of booze. He said, `I am going to pour it down the sink', and the gentleman said, `And that you're not; put it in the toilet'. Of course, the officer proceeded to pour it in the toilet and the gentleman said, `Now, flush it; because, knowing you, you like it enough that you would drink it with a straw'. That is a true story, by the way. That is a true story.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) teaching?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) when you were teaching. That is a true story.

As a matter of fact, it used to be a big spectacle when they use to dispose of the bags and cases of booze. They would throw it in the old dump and beat it up, seriously - this is true - and sometimes, of course, some of it wouldn't break.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I was told, the same way as this guy told me about being on the chair and he would not get up.

Seriously, there have been people who have recovered - you talk about, I don't know if it is ironic or stupid, but the police, or customs, or whoever else, would go to the old dump and throw it down in the dump, and attempt to beat it up, and it wouldn't all get broken. You know there were people watching that, right? So here they were, seize contraband, go to the dump and supposedly destroy the contraband, and dump rats, we call them, scroungers, would be down there and they would end up still with contraband - this is true - so that always bothered me. I always said, well why don't they at least let the liquor corporation take the product and sell it, or at least recover something from it? I want to say that I think this is positive.

MR. WINDSOR: That is a portion of what is being lost on taxes on (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and I wanted to make that comment because that is something that has always bothered me. That is the only thing that has bothered me about the contraband (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible). Are you going to tell that one?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: The one you told me on the Salvation Army.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: My colleague wants me to tell the story about the Salvation Army, but I don't know if I should. It's not about the Salvation Army, but I will tell it. I won't take too much time, but I will tell you a little story.

Down on the Burin Peninsula, as our good officer down there would know, being a Burin Peninsula man himself, and having a bit of a soccer background himself - I am not going to suggest that he has a bit of a contraband background himself, for obvious reasons, but - the big event, of course, in years gone by for the soccer team was the annual excursion to St. Pierre.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) soccer team as well.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I could tell you a few stories about it if we had enough time, but some other time - in the spring, when I have more time. It was always a big thing, of course, when the team went to St. Pierre. Oh, God, it was a great event and, of course, when the French teams came in it was even more so. When the French teams came in, by the way, everything in the town would shut down in the afternoon, really. The french boat would come in with the flags and the stores closed down and everybody went to the - it is the only time you went to a soccer game in the afternoon, on our side of the peninsula anyway and I think it was the same in St. Lawrence, was when the frenchmen came in but going out - I will get to my story - there was this crowd who went out on the team - on the Grand Bank soccer team at this time there were a number of people who were playing in the Salvation Army Band - no, this is true, true story -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well I am not saying any names. But anyway they got out to St. Pierre and -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But anyway they got themselves in trouble, some jewellery was found to be missing from one of the jewellery stores and of course you know what a Kerfuffle that causes up there with the Gendarmes, I mean they just arrest everybody. They are not sensible like the RNC and the - I mean you are guilty out there, period. So of course they hung up the boat and they had everybody in this customs area, searching - I mean everybody was guilty. So anyway they went through them all and they found watches on some fellows ankles and up their arms - seriously, this is a true story - and anyway it ended up that the guys with the watches were members of the band, this is true. So of course, finally they sorted -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the right to tell time too?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Anyway, after they sorted it all out down at the boat, the captain of the boat, the skipper, was Captain Win Vallis, and of course they were rehashing this about - and Captain Win said, `thank god all the band did not come out because we would never get in out of it.'

MR. TOBIN: No, but Ed, do you know what happened? He was never allowed back in the Salvation Army since.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) this bill would allow us to sell seized contraband, assuming it has been - I have spoken to the liquor corporation (inaudible) they have a testing process to be sure that it is good product and all that. Cigarettes go back to the manufacturers. When we seize contraband cigarettes they go back to the manufacture and they are, I would say, relabelled or labelled properly. I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Not all of it comes from Canadian manufacturers is the answer but it goes back on - and remember, I say to my hon. friend, that we don't sell tobacco at retail but through the liquor corporation of course the government have a monopoly on the sale of alcoholic beverages at retail in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That is the thought - that is exactly what will be done with contraband from now on instead of this heartbreaking scene I have had described to me from time to time of people gathering - and you don't know what is flowing down the drain, whether it is tears or whisky or both.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, no, no, the liquor corporation have their ways, I say to my hon. friend. In case my friend is thinking of supplementing his retirement. Well I believe they do have their ways.

Your Honour, I say let's get on with the legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: We are on an issue involving the liquor corporation and sale of liquor in the Province. I don't see the Minister of Finance here, I know he has an interest in this but I would like a response from the government and perhaps the former Minister of Justice can have something to say but I think lotteries licensing used to come under his jurisdiction.

I note there was a lot of concern expressed when the government made its plans to allow these video gambling machines into bars and the excuse was that there were illegal ones running around and I see the Member for Menihek has perked up there. My comments are prompted by the story in the Express, a newspaper this week, where on Bell Island the bar owners are seeking to join together to agree to eliminate these video gambling machines from their premises. Now it is not for totally altruistic motives. It appears that the liquor sales in the bars are going down and the money being spent on video gambling machines is going up and they are not all as lucky as the Member for St. Barbe.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He has never played them, he does not need to play them any more, but what is happening - and the bar owners were not totally altruistic about this because part of their complaint was I guess they make less money on the video gambling machines than they make on the sale of liquor, but I suspect that the government probably also makes less money on video gambling machines than they make on the sale of liquor, but the cost to individuals who play these machines and they don't have to be addicted in the alcoholic sense of the word to waste a lot of money on these machines. Let's face it, the psychology of gambling is designed to extract the maximum amount of money out of an individual with the least amount of payoff and they know how to do it, Mr. Chairman, because they had people who went to university and studied all about Skinner and the rates of reinforcement.

I know the Member for Placentia knows an awful lot about psychology, he was telling about the theories of Maslow the other day, I am sure he also knows about B.F. Skinner and how you can program a machine to encourage a particular activity by reinforcing the response in various ways, but the question I guess to the government is, whether or not they are prepared to revisit their policy of allowing these video gambling machines in bars and not only allowing in bars but allow them to the extent that they have.

There is a serious concern throughout this Province particularly amongst lower income families that money is draining out of these communities, is draining out of the families and yes, there are people going hungry as a result of these video gambling machines, whether they are actually starving in the literal sense of the word, the Premier might quarrel with that but there are 50,000 or 60,000 people using food banks, they are not doing it because the want to resell the food to buy drugs or something, they are doing it because they need food.

It is a serious social problem. The community such as Bell Island is looking for solutions for their own communities; the government has the solution in its own hands and I want to ask the Government House Leader whether the government is prepared to consider or reconsider its policy on video gambling machines and find a solution that is less onerous on the families whose incomes are being destroyed by these machines. Would the minister care to respond to that, as part of this debate?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief.

With respect to the Bell Island story, I read The Express and so my knowledge is no more and no less than that of my learned friend from St. John's East.

The government has not received any representation as yet from the people on Bell Island. When we do, if we do, we shall deal with them on their merits and deal with it.

On the video machines themselves, there is little point going over a well-ploughed field but let me say that: 1.) the government has never regretted our decision to ban casinos in this Province. In fact, the more we hear, I think it is fair to say the more we believe we took the right decisions simply to ban them and secondly, on video lotteries, while we get a great deal of money, I don't recall the amount, it is in the Estimates but millions and millions -

AN HON. MEMBER: $90 million.

MR. ROBERTS: No $90 million is not all from video lottery machines. While we get a great deal of money from it, the government would like nothing better than to be able simply to ban these machines and my understanding is, we would ban them tomorrow if we thought we could enforce the ban.

With that said, for once I will let my friend from Burin - Placentia West have the control of this, and I agree, I am prepared to see the bill carried too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, it is Bill 46, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act."

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, Order 24, that's the EDGE bill and there is an amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "An Act To Provide For An Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises In The Province". (Bill No. 51).

MR. ROBERTS: There is a very small technical amendment to subclause 13 (2) of the bill. I believe my hon. friends have got it, I am told they have been distributed.

On motion, amendment carried.

Your Honour, clause 13, there is an amendment, in fact my friend, the minister, who cannot move the amendment which is why I am, tells me that the error was pointed out by my friend from Ferryland.

In subclause 2, of clause 13 the words full-time appear in the second line. They are to be deleted and I so move.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 13 as amended, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, Order No. 23, Bill No. 50.

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Bill No. 47, Order No. 22, please, Sir.

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Order No. 21, Bill No. 49.

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Order No. 20, Bill No. 33, please.

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

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, the House will recall that Bill No. 41 which is the Advanced Health Care Directives Act was referred to Committee. I understand from the Chair of the Committee that at least two people have come forward and asked to be heard with respect to it, so I will ask that the bill stand and we will deal with it at a later time.

Would you go on to Order 17, Mr. Chairman, which is Bill No. 31, and there is an amendment coming to that.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Clause 1 of the bill is to be amended. I move that Clause 1 be amended by deleting the proposed Subclause 81.l, Sub 6 and replacing it with the following words: "6. A driver's license issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under Section 46 of the Highway Traffic Act which contains a photograph of the person to whom it was issued should be valid and acceptable for all purposes for which an identification card issued under this section is valid and acceptable." end of amendment. I think the amendment speaks for itself so I shall say no more about it.

On motion, amendment carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, Bill 16.

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I wonder if it would be permissable to call Order 15, so we won't -

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried!

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, a number of bills were given second reading earlier this day, and the House gave leave to deal with them. I wonder if we could deal with these at Committee stage, beginning perhaps with Order 39, which is Bill No. 64.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 64.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak on this briefly because I wasn't in the House when the second reading was given. I have no difficulty in seeing that the officials of the Department of Social Services have leave to appear in court to be involved in the enforcement and seeking of these orders. It wasn't clear to me that there were differences between whether they were acting for the Province in one case and acting for the minister in other cases. Perhaps it has to do with how the parent act, if you want to call it, is written.

In any event, on the issue of the government getting actively involved in the enforcement of maintenance orders, I do have a few things to say. Any efforts, of course, by the government to get involved in the enforcement of these orders, I tend to approve of, except the one that has recently been proposed to make it a condition of someone's driver's licence being renewed, that there be no outstanding arrears of maintenance. I don't think that is proper.

I do want to raise the issue of the availability of social assistance to individuals who have maintenance orders in place. There still is a very substantial problem for social assistance recipients who, at the same time, have maintenance orders in place that are supposed to be enforced by the support enforcement agency in Corner Brook. What happens as a result of these enforcement orders being in place is that they have the amount of the expected payment deducted from their Social Services cheque, and often they don't find out until the middle of the month or later that their support that was supposed to come from Corner Brook didn't arrive because their spouse - their husband usually - had lost his job, or had changed his circumstances to the point that the money wasn't going to be forthcoming that month, or he absconded or left the Province or had gone somewhere else.

What happens is it takes an awful long time for that cheque to be replaced and for the individual to be reinstated to Social Services.

What I would like to see, Mr. Chairman, is an amendment to the legislation that would allow an individual who is in receipt of social assistance to assign the amounts received from the support enforcement agency to the Department of Social Services so that an individual who wanted to make sure they were going to get a regular cheque, would get their regular cheque on the regular day from Social Services. And if and when the support cheque came from Corner Brook, then it wouldn't come directly to the recipient, in fact, it would go to the Department of Social Services. So the Department of Social Services would be happy. They would be able to have that money to offset the cost of social assistance to the individual and, at the same time, the individual recipient of social assistance would get their regular cheque.

Now, this doesn't sound like a very serious problem unless you put yourself in the position of a single parent on social assistance with one or two or three children, who depends on that cheque coming on the exact day that it is supposed to come in order to be able to buy groceries, or pay the bills, or look after their family. I am sure every singe member of this House who has dealt with Social Services problems,has come across a situation where this happens, that the woman, the mother, doesn't get her cheque from support enforcement, but Social Services deducted that amount from their cheque.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Humber East said the same thing. But there is a very simple solution to that problem. All you have to do is provide for allowing the social assistance recipient to assign the proceeds of the support enforcement order to the Department of Social Services, and guarantee that they get their cheque on the day they are supposed to get it, and everybody is happy. Social Services can't complain. They are getting their money to offset the cost of social services, and the individual recipient gets their cheque on the day involved.

Now, I don't understand, Mr. Chairman - this problem was raised when the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was Social Services minister. It was raised when the former Speaker, the Member for Bonavista North, was Social Services minister, and we are now raising it again for the current Social Services minister, who appears in the House, and maybe if she came to her seat we could explain the problem to her. It is a simple amendment to this particular piece of legislation, and I suppose we could sit here and propose such an amendment. I hesitate to move an amendment unless there is some indication that the majority who sit in this House opposite have enough interest to even listen to the problem and perhaps provide a solution. I see the Minister of Social Services here in the House now and I will explain to her the problem once again, if I can get her attention.

If I can get the attention of the Minister of Social Services to this problem, perhaps the minister can indicate that she would ask her side to accept an amendment that would allow a social assistance recipient to assign the proceeds of a support enforcement order to her department so that she would get her cheque on the day that the cheques come out.

I know there may be some bureaucratic problems associated with this but this is a very serious problem for an individual who doesn't get his or her cheque from the support enforcement agency because the circumstances of their spouse has changed. They have lost their job, or they weren't paid, they've gone back on unemployment insurance, and therefore the amount has changed. There are all kinds of circumstances like that. It can be done quite simply by an assignment by the individual saying: The support enforcement monies will go to the department instead of coming to me, and I will get my regular cheque from the Department of Social Services and you can use that money to offset my payments.

It is a bureaucratic problem, but with the computers that we have today - I know the support enforcement agency has all kinds of computers - it should be very easy to have a system whereby the individual doesn't have to wait two or three weeks to get this sorted out and to get reinstated on social assistance because they have had that money deducted from their cheque, even though it doesn't come and they don't find out for two weeks that there has to be an adjustment.

There is an awful lot of hardship caused by that, I say, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps when I ask the minister whether or not she would be prepared to see an amendment made to this particular bill so that can be permitted and that - maybe it can be done by policy and the minister is prepared to get on her feet and say that she will look into that and see if it can be done. Because I think it could be done even under existing legislation if the minister had a will to do it.

I think she understands the problem but I would look forward to the minister rising during this debate in committee discussing the support enforcement agency and indicating that she is prepared to look into this, report back to the House on this problem and see if you can find a solution to it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, we will not be able to entertain an amendment at committee at this stage but I will undertake, on behalf of the ministry, including my colleague the Minister of Social Services to consider the hon. gentleman's point. If we come to the view that we share his view then we will take the appropriate action and my friend the minister will deal with it.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could - unless some other member wishes to speak - we could carry on and conclude the debate on the bill.

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

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

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, there is only one bill left and then my question will be that we adjourn and there will be no need to come back tonight. We will come at nine in the morning and be fresh.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, there are two left but I am going to ask the committee to deal with the next order, an amendment to the Public Tender Act, and there is one minor amendment to be moved and then I will suggest that we adjourn, we rise the committee and then adjourn. I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, alright, I am getting ahead of myself. We will do The Waste Material Disposal Act first, Bill No. 34.

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, let us call it a day, we did a good days work. Tomorrow we shall start first with the two bills that have not been dealt with at committee, that is Bill No. 44 and Bill No. 32. There are amendments to each of those, copies have been supplied to my hon. friends. We will then have to deal in committee with the sixth bill, Bill No. 63, this is supplementary supply. That should bring us to the point where we have only third readings left to deal with.

His Honour has sent word, we have been speaking to his private secretary that he will be available in the morning. So we will carry on with that.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend the Minister of Education and Training and the Minister of DITT for having, as it were, grease the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I will ask that the Committee rise and report considerable progress, and ask leave to sit in the morning, Sir.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to it referred, wishes to report tremendous progress in the passing of Bills Nos. 57, 60, 55, 45, 54, 53, 46, 50, 47, 49, 33, 15, 16, 64, 61, 58 and 34 without amendment, and Bills Nos. 51 and 31 with amendments.

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

On motion, amendments to Bills 31 and 51 read a first and second time, ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank gentleman and ladies on both sides of the House for their co-operation, and we will meet at 9:00 a.m. to see what the new day brings.

With that said, Your Honour, I move that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.