November 2, 1995             HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol. XLII  No. 48


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin with the routine proceedings of the day, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House of Assembly, on behalf of all members, fifteen Level II students from Point Leamington Academy in the District of Exploits. They are accompanied by their teacher, Ms Donna White and Mr. Ray Jenkins.

As well, we have visiting the House of Assembly today, thirty-five Grade VI students from St. Paul's Elementary in the District of Harbour Grace. Accompanying them is their teacher, Ms Lesley Forward, Wayne Martin and Geraldine Gaul.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, dealing with a demonstration that was held at the Confederation Building yesterday evening by the Newfoundland Association of Community Living.

Mr. Speaker, I attended that demonstration and was disgusted to find that these people, many of whom are confined to wheelchairs and many others who are physically and mentally challenged, had to stay out in the cold on the steps of Confederation Building to have a small, peaceful demonstration.

The steps of Confederation Building are nowhere close to Tiananmen Square in China or the streets of Los Angeles, so I ask the minister: Who made the decision to deny these people access to the people's building, and on what grounds was accessibility denied?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed individuals - and I have been around this House of Assembly since 1985, but I can't imagine that anybody would use a situation to make political gains in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: First of all, I, myself being responsible for the security of Confederation Building, I should have at least been asked could they have permission to come to the foyer of the Confederation Building yesterday evening at seven o'clock. I knew absolutely nothing about it until this morning at nine o'clock. And the hon. member, as far as I understand, knew full-well and he didn't have the decency to make a phone call to see if permission could be given.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, a personal attack on me doesn't justify the minister's actions.

I had calls, I say to the minister, from people from St. Anthony, Corner Brook, Gander, throughout this Province today concerning this issue. I was talking to people on the steps last night who requested permission to come into the foyer of the Confederation Building, Mr. Speaker - an organization. We are talking about human beings here.

As I stood out there last night, Cabinet ministers, government members, shuffled by as many people shivered in the cold. I say to the minister, nothing less than a public apology to this association and a commitment from this minister that this type of callous act will not happen again will be only satisfactory. I ask the minister for that today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The apology should come from the individuals who organized, or other individuals who knew about the planned demonstration in advance. All they would have had to do was have the respect of security for this building, knowing full well that the doors of this building are locked in the evening for security reasons, and that you cannot have them open to the general public coming to and from at any time. A simple phone call would have given an indication that I could have given permission to a group of people who wanted a demonstration. I will not take second place to the hon. member opposite, in working with the disadvantaged people in this Province. I have a record that I will stand up with anybody in this Province in working with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, the phone call did come requesting permission for that group to go into the foyer of the Confederation Building. The phone call came and they were denied access. I ask the minister again: Who denied it? And will you apologize for what you did?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will say to the hon. member opposite and all hon. members, and all people in this Province, I did not receive a phone call.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: As minister responsible for the security of this building, I have given strict orders that this building be locked after 7:00 in the evening! Anybody who wants access to it must ask permission, otherwise, they don't get in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You couldn't give a reply to it because you were gone to a cocktail party.

MR. EFFORD: I was going to what?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: An hon. member opposite just shouted across the House to a minister and said that that minister was to a cocktail party when he should have been in doing his work in his office.

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

MR. EFFORD: Yesterday evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

There is no point of order. I would remind hon. members that points of order during Question Period should be left until the end of the period.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. In this House last Monday in response to my questions regarding cutbacks under the Enriched Needs Program the minister said that there are three populations served by that program and I quote, `It is not only the seniors but it is the mentally and physically challenged.' We have not yet indicated a move to put in place limitations or revised policies with respect to the other two groups. I ask the minister, when do you plan to apply a cap to the other two groups, that is the mentally and the physically challenged?

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

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

The member correctly describes the answer that I gave and the facts are essentially the same. We have developed or redesigned the program for Enriched Needs that supports the seniors in the community who live at home. We are in the process now of doing essentially the same type of exercise to address the programming needs of the developmentally delayed and the physically challenged. While I cannot give him a definitive date as to when we will have new policies and new capitations, if that is what evolves from it, in place, I can indicate to him that we are trying to do it in as timely a fashion as we can considering the fact that we have to consult with these groups, as we have already done substantially and considering also that we want to make decisions that will meet their needs and also keep us within the $20 million budget that was put in place this year to address the home support needs for these two populations. One of the factors, I should point out, is that there are other programs in Social Services that also deliver various types of services to those two populations that are unique to them alone. Whereas the seniors is more of a homogeneous group in terms of the services they need, the other two populations have services provided to them that are over and above home support or enriched needs. So that is part of the circumstance we are working through.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In today's Telegram a Miss Howell who is physically challenged said, home support services are an essential part of disabled living. The Executive Director of the Newfoundland Association of Community Living, Miss Neary, called on government to maintain home support services for these people and not force them back into institutions. Now, will the minister assure this House that the mentally and physically challenged will not be the next victims of his callousness?

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

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

I think, if I were to again remind the hon. member that an indication of a callousness that this government has toward those and others but particularly this population is the fact that we have permitted a growth in a budget that started seven years ago from $300,000 to a budget of $30 million delivering home support services to these groups. If that is an indication of callousness then we accept that charge with delight but I also have to point out to the minister that growth in that particular program is disproportionate and is completely inconsistent with the increase in the number of people we are serving and the type of services that it was originally intended to provide. The program was never intended to make the person's home in effect another institution. There is not much benefit in taking people from one institution and creating, in effect, another institution, or institutional environment in which they are placed.

The circumstances are that we have put a budget of $20 million in place, and we are comfortable and confident that we can provide the appropriate services within that budget, and we are setting about to do so.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier, a question about ethics in government, a question about the Premier's ethical standards for his government and his ministers. Does the Premier permit his ministers to use their ministerial positions, their ministerial offices, to solicit funds for the minister's district Liberal associations from businesses that are regulated, or financed, by the minister's departments?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The Leader of the Opposition knows the answer to that. She knows we changed the practices in 1989 and this is not acceptable.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier indicates this is not acceptable. I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. Did you use your ministerial position, and direct your ministerial staff, using the Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture stationary, to solicit funds this summer for the St. George's Liberal Association from fisheries and farming businesses that are regulated or financed by your department?

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

DR. HULAN: No, I did not.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The supplementary is to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. How does the minister explain these documents? I have a set for the minister and another set for the Premier. A fax cover sheet on Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture stationary, indicating that the fax was sent by the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, the sender's name, Gail Parsons, another, the same, the sender's name, Gerry Reid, executive assistant, covering a letter from the District of St. George's Liberal Association soliciting funds for the St. George's District Liberal Association, signed by Gerry Reid, executive assistant to the minister, referring to the minister, and a fund raising barbecue in Jeffrey's, and then a separate date, a later date, a thank-you letter to a donor, signed by Dr. H. W. (Bud) Hulan, Minister. How does the minister explain these documents that were received by businesses that are regulated by the minister's department?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know the documents to which the leader is referring, but I will certainly take it under advisement and look into the whole matter.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary for the Premier.

I have just asked one of the pages to give the Premier copies of the correspondence to which I referred. I draw the Premier's attention to the covering fax on government stationery, sent by the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, and then the letter signed by the Minister's executive assistant with an advertising contract soliciting $1,000 for a centre page, $750 for inside cover pages, $350 for a full page, et cetera, and then a thank-you letter from the minister himself, saying: Thank you for the contribution you made through your advertisement in the District of St. George's Liberal Association booklet. The annual barbecue and fund-raiser was a tremendous success and was attended by many people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS VERGE: - including Premier Clyde Wells.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that she is on a supplementary and there is no -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A preamble is permitted on the main question, but supplementaries should have no preamble. I would ask the hon. member to get to her question.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the Premier is: Will the Premier fire his Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture for having breached the Premier's ethical standard which he indicated in answer to my first question?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will answer the last question first. No, I will not fire the minister at this time on the request of the member. I will take a look at this. As I read these things, they are written not on ministerial stationery but on stationery of the District of St. George's Liberal Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: That is alright; I will take a look at the whole thing, and when I have had a chance to take a look at the whole thing I will deal with it, but I will not deal with it in this precipitous way.

I should say, for the benefit of the House, I have endeavoured, ever since I have been Premier, to make sure that these practices that were commonplace prior to 1989 were stopped.

We've largely been successful except that I'm aware that members of the House do this on a consistent basis. I've seen the letters. As a matter of fact, they've come back returned. Sent out of the Opposition office. There are all kinds of them. So this is not an unusual - but we've tried to stop it. That doesn't make it right. I will take a look at the situation and when I've assessed the whole situation I will advise the House what I'm going to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Premier, when he investigates the conduct of his Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture will he find out to whom the minister's solicitations went? Will he find out that requests for funds for the St. George's District Liberal association went to fish plants that are on the blocks, that are waiting nervously for the minister's decisions about licensing, about licence cancellations? Will he find out that letters asking for money for the St. George's District Liberal association went to farmers, who are more beholden than ever on the provincial department since there have been federal subsidy cutbacks?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will do an assessment of this. I should tell the House what this is. These are blank pages, incidentally, entitled: Dear Sir or Madam. They appear to be sent from an address - 62 Halley Drive in St. John's is the return address on them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Just listen. I know members would like to make something out of nothing. Let me take a look at what it is. I just draw the House's attention to the fact that this is not what the Leader of the Opposition had represented it to be. It is a blank letter not addressed to anybody in particular: Dear Sir or Madam. Now, I don't to whom it was sent, if it was sent, or whether or not it was sent at all, and I don't know to whom it was directed or if any were sent to anybody or not. This is all a bit of a witch-hunt that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would like to start. Unfortunately for her, Mr. Speaker, I don't respond to that kind of proposal.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier indicate that the cover sheet is a Government of Newfoundland and Labrador form with Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture printed across the top, and an indication from a fax that it was sent on a Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture fax? Will the Premier on checking find out and report back to the House that these letters indeed were addressed to businesses that are regulated by the Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, and that the names and addresses were deleted at the explicit request of the businesses for fear that if their names were revealed to the Premier and the minister they would suffer reprisals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when I have something real to deal with I will deal with it. If this person has a complaint, come and see me and I will deal with it. I'm not prepared to make decisions condemning anybody or criticizing anybody on the basis of blank pages with different fax numbers, posted different ways. This one happens to be on the side, that one happens to be on the top. Whether it is fake, whether it came from the same source, whether it dealt with that or another topic, I don't know. I will take a look at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why should anyone trust the Premier's investigation of his minister? Will the Premier tell us what kind of an independent investigation he is going to set up so that the people of the Province can have some confidence in the findings and the outcome of the investigation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: When I get a valid complaint that appears to have substance, I will deal with it. I will not go and cause witch-hunts to be held merely on the basis of somebody putting in a fax sheet with a print across the top on this page but the fax sheet printed down the side on the other page. These two could not possibly have been sent at the same time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier.

Will the Premier not pause and examine the correspondence I have given to him, and confirm that there are two sets of correspondence, each consisting of a solicitation, on government letterhead, sent on the Minister of Fisheries' fax, and then later a thank-you letter from the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, what I just pointed out was that I do not know how valid, if at all, these are. Now they may be accurate, I do not know, but I am not prepared to act on the basis that they are merely because the Leader of the Opposition has made these accusations. She has made accusations in the past on many occasions that have not been substantiated. Now I just point out that on this first one she gave me - I have not had a chance to read them or to look at them; they were just delivered to me now a few minutes ago - I do point out, however, that on this first fax the Minister of Fisheries and the fax number is across the top. On this second page of the same fax it is down the side. Now I do not know of any fax machine that at the same time prints the name and address across the top on one of the sheets of the same fax, and down the side of the other.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier.

I trust the Premier will get an independent investigator to examine all relevant aspects of this transaction, the position of the fax printout not being the most important.

The thank-you letter from the minister indicates that the Premier, his wife and his mother-in-law attended the St. George's Liberal Association fund-raising event for which the money was solicited. Will the Premier indicate whether he, in fact, was at the function, and whether he saw the booklet containing the paid advertisements from the businesses that are regulated by the minister's department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am happy to confirm, Mr. Speaker, that along with a lot of other events, district Liberal associations fund-raising events and other things throughout the past year, I was at the one in St. George's. I am going to another one tonight, and I will go to another one on the weekend, and I will go to another one next week. That is part of my responsibility as Leader of the Liberal Party, and I do this on a regular basis. I do not recall seeing any specific books or particular books or advertising or anything on that occasion. As a matter of fact, I was only there, I think, about an hour or so, if I was there that long, because I had another function to attend at the time, as I recall. I do not recall seeing any booklet.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training.

On September 13th I wrote his deputy minister with regard to a school in Green Bay, Valmont Academy in King's Point. I have a constituent, a teenage girl, who used to attend that school but finds it impossible to do so because of the air quality in the school. I understand a study was done with regard to air quality. Nothing has been forthcoming since my letter to the deputy minister. I wonder if the minister would look into this. The girl in question right now is studying at home with a tutor on a full-time basis because she cannot go to the school. I would ask the minister to look into it with a view to improving the conditions at the school so that this particular girl could go to school.

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will gladly look into that matter for the hon. gentleman.

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

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

My question is also to the minister responsible for Education and Training.

The government commissioned a study that suggested maybe an approximate $8 million in cuts in school busing in this Province next year. The study incidentally was done in my district in June during the exam season.

The proposed cuts in Western Labrador is approximately $330,000. Parents in Western Labrador, Lab. City and Wabush are concerned that the proposed changes in our area are totally unrealistic. Can the minister confirm that children will have to walk to school from everywhere inside the 1.6 kilometre radius from the schools during the next fall and spring busing season?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite right. I did make public a document which shows that we can save between $8 million to $10 million in busing. As the report pointed out, there will have to be some major changes. For example, one of the changes will have to take place in the overall reforms of education where we are going to consolidate schools across denominational lines as opposed to within denominational lines.

The specific case that the hon. gentleman is talking about, that will be dealt with, with the board in the area and hopefully we will be in a position to have only one board over there as opposed to the two that we have now, and I would hope that we could save that amount of money, but if saving that puts unnecessary hardship on the students of the area, we will not be doing it; we will be looking at every single part of the question, Mr. Speaker. We might even be able to save more than $300,000 in Labrador West but we will look at every single board on its own issue. I could tell the hon. member that the estimates made in that document are conservative. I firmly believe that we can make even a more liberal savings than the report suggests.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, can the minister also confirm that the government is considering a triple-busing policy, and inclusive in that policy, will have four stops within a mile in Western Labrador which will probably have children leaving their homes about an hour before daylight during the winter busing season. Can he confirm that, that is going to be the policy for next year?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that that policy is in place now. In many places throughout the Province, triple bus runs are quite common especially in a confined area like Labrador West where there are very small distances and fairly large numbers of children.

As for the four stops within the mile, Mr. Speaker, that's a policy which has been in the Department of Education for the last twenty years. We haven't made any changes to that; it is just that there were some cases where the policy was not being enforced and we have been getting reports that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Yes, of course. We have been getting reports to us that buses have been stopping practically at everybody's driveway and this is where some of the busing contracts have gotten totally out of control, so there is nothing new about the policy of four stops within a mile. That has been there ever since the hon. gentleman's party was in power and it seems to be a reasonable policy, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, the minister is aware that the busing in Labrador City now and Wabush, makes more stops than what the average is on the Island or what they use as a norm here in this part of the Province but, Mr. Speaker, it was done for a specific reason, because of the extreme climatic conditions of Labrador. Now he is unaware of that of course, but I will point that out to him.

Now, will the minister reconsider this proposed policy and take into consideration the extreme climatic conditions of Labrador and put the children's fate first?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, we do that, Mr. Speaker. I think it is between November and April we make special provision for parts of Labrador. We do provide busing inside the 1.6 kilometres in special cases and we do consider the climatic conditions of Northern Labrador, Mr. Speaker, that is already being done.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a final supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, will he also consider changing the bus stopping, having more than four stops within the mile, because right now, they do not stop at every driveway, they stop in consideration of the children, they put the children first, not the almighty dollar that the minister is trying to save on children's safety?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that we certainly do put the children first. The top priority in the whole education debate that we are having now is for the sake of the children and our future, the Royal Commission, Our Children, Our Future. I do not know how more specific than that we can be.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that if the hon. member had such consideration for the children that he would stand in his place a few days ago and vote against the reforms we are trying to bring in, so quite the contrary. We do not have to take second place to anybody in this Province when it comes to putting the children first. Now, if there is a specific case that the hon. member is talking about, with our usual openness, our usual caring, our usual goodwill toward people, we will certainly look at that, however, we have to look at the whole Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition relevant to the department served by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. It is a petition from Little Bay Island signed by the teachers at the local school. It says;

We the teachers at H.L. Strong Academy, Little Bay Islands hereby petition the hon. House of Assembly to reconsider the upcoming changes in ferry schedules affecting Little Bay Islands and Long Island during the next two weeks. The revisited schedules will negatively affect our education system by the following; delayed departure for early morning trips will prevent us from attending in-service; changes to the ferry schedule will not permit us to attend government's meetings with regard to the Williams' Commission Report and the schedule does not allow for school board personnel to visit on the usual schedule.

The prayer of the petition also goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have experienced negative affects of a combined service in the past and we are not prepared to consider them even as a part of government's future plans. We feel that this is only a temporary measure for government's hidden agenda to cut services to outport areas. I guess the last section of the prayer, Mr. Speaker, is what is most relevant and most on the minds of the people in these two island communities in my district. A couple of years ago the government, as a budgetary measure, in the Budget Speech itself announced the combining of the separate ferry services for the two islands for six months of the year during the summer months. That was a very unfortunate experience both for the islanders and for the government. There was much protest, demonstrations, even police involvement and so on and the entire affair turned very sour, I think, in everybody's mouth.

We have coming up now for the next two weeks a sharing of services. Again, one ferry serving two islands with the other ferry being tied up. The following week after that the other ferry running and the other one being tied up but the bottom line is one boat serving two islands for a two week period. That is an inconvenience in its own right with regard to the citizens of those two particular island communities but I think what they are more concerned about, Mr. Speaker, that if the government does this as sort of a test case or a dry run, once the ice is gone during the winter season that the government may be indeed reconsidering instituting one ferry for both islands during the summer months in the upcoming budget year. I guess their reason for putting this to my attention and to the attention of the House today is to get some sort of reaction from the minister as to why they are doing this in the short term and some assurances that the government, his department, will not be doing this in the longer term next spring. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know where the Minister of Finance is for the moment. I am sorry the Minister of Finance - we were going to call a bill which stands in his name.

MS VERGE: He is out counting the temporary staff.

MR. ROBERTS: Could be, such as the temporary Leader of the Opposition, perhaps.

Your Honour, in the absence of the minister, I will introduce the bill. I don't know where the minister is and I can only tell the House I spoke to him a moment or so ago and he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Would you be good enough to call Order 8, please, Bill No. 12, the Gasoline Tax Act amendment?

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act". (Bill No. 12)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, this act is very straightforward. What it does is it changes the Gasoline Tax Act to make it consistent with our other tax acts by making it payable as a fixed amount of 3.5 cents per litre rather than as a percentage. For the benefit of my learned friend from Burin - Placentia West I will repeat. All the gasoline taxes at the pumps throughout the Province are now calculated as a certain number of cents per litre, be they for gasoline, diesel or what have you. The only exception to that was the gasoline for the operation of seagoing vessels or boats which up to this point in time have been calculated as a percentage of the cost.

Because that varies somewhat from time to time, and for ease of administration and calculation, it is now being changed so that it will be calculated as a number of cents per litre - 3.5 cents per litre - rather than as a percentage. It is revenue neutral, it doesn't yield any additional amounts to the Province, and I would recommend it to the House for consideration.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are things I would like to ask the minister. First of all, I really don't understand. I don't know how long ago it was - maybe fifteen years ago - that the previous administration changed the system from this fixed-rate system to the percentage system. The rationale for doing that at the time was first of all that you didn't have to come in with a bill every time you wanted to increase your revenues, alright, because you are now going to have, in this case, 3.5 cents per litre. In five years you might want 4 cents or 4.5 cents or 5 cents a litre. Everything is relative from an inflationary point of view.

So we changed it about fifteen years ago, I recall, to the percentage basis, which did two things. It eliminated the need to come to the House every time you wanted an increase, which you would have to do now. You can do it in a budget or you can do it at any time by introducing a bill. Secondly, it eliminated for government the embarrassment of increasing your rate. As the price of gasoline or diesel fuel went up the amount of revenue you received automatically went up with it. But you kept it in perspective because everything was relative because it is a percentage basis.

I for the life of me don't understand why this government has now changed it back. It seems to me to be a retrograde step. From government's point of view, both financially and politically, you are better off having it on a percentage basis. Because you get your increases automatically as increases are approved for the price of fuels; or as the petroleum companies increase their rates, so too increases the government's take from a tax point of view, unless the minister can give me some other reason, I don't see the rationale for it.

Secondly, in the amendment it says: "...other than pleasure craft...." Would the minister like to explain why the distinction between ocean-going vessels other than pleasure craft? Is there a tax rebate for vessels that are loading - do I recall that there is a rebate of taxes for vessels that are up taking fuels and going outside of the country or outside of the Province, or is there a higher tax for those? I don't recall now which one it is. Maybe the minister could clarify that. Other than pleasure craft, I assume that is just local craft in and around the Province. How about commercial craft in the Province, ferries and tour boats and this sort of thing? What tax do they pay, or is there a rebate available to these craft? Perhaps the minister can give us that information.

While we are talking about gasoline, maybe the Minister of Natural Resources would like to tell us what controls this government has in place and how close the monitoring is on gasoline prices in the Province, As you travel around this Province there is an incredible variance in the rates being charged for gasoline. I know it is a free market system and the companies are entitled to charge what they will. From a consumer point of view, surely the Minister of Natural Resources must be looking at this on a regular basis to determine whether or not the rates for gasoline being charged in the Province are fair rates, or whether or not we are unduly paying high rates for gasoline.

When you consider - and I don't have a card with me, but we do get it on a regular basis, a report on the fuel rates, a survey that is done. I find it very interesting to see the base rate - the tax rate obviously is a function of a government policy in the various provinces - but the base cost for the fuel companies doesn't seem to bear any consistency. It doesn't seem to be in relationship to the location of the Province or the degree of difficulty or the cost of shipping fuel to that particular province. It seems to be sort of haphazard. Very difficult indeed to try to determine a rationale for those prices. I'm just wondering, what work has been done to determine whether or not the rates that the petroleum companies are charging in Newfoundland, are fair, are consistent across the Province, with the exception of additional transportation costs that might be involved, obviously, in getting to the more rural parts of the Province? How do we justify the same rate being charged, for example, for Come By Chance petroleum where they have no transportation costs here? It is refined here in the Province versus gasoline that is being transported in from outside the Province. I would be interested to hear exactly just how the minister rationalizes some of those things, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. HARRIS: I have a few comments on this legislation. I, too, was wondering, along with the Member for Mount Pearl, why one would change to the 3.5 cents per litre, or a per litre charge as opposed to a percentage. Obviously, any increase would be transparent if there was an increase in the tax, but it matters not one way or the other. If you are going to claim 5 per cent of the total cost of gasoline it matters not whether you say it is a per cent or you say it is so much per litre, and if it goes up five or ten cents a litre you add another cent or two to the tax.

There may be administrative reasons for it and perhaps the minister can explain it. It might be easier to collect, or easier to administer, and that may be the reason. I would not necessarily want to encourage government to have a system that would automatically increase taxes without the people knowing about it, but it seems that there may be administrative inefficiencies.

I would like to ask, either this minister or the Minister of Natural Resources, perhaps this minister because it has to do with trade and commerce within the Province, what is the latest rationale of government, or what studies have government done, to see a justification for the kind of gasoline prices being charged in this Province as compared to other provinces? From time to time, and I do not know if other members receive this, but I receive in the mail once every several months a publication of some national petroleum organization which compares gasoline prices, taxes, transportation, marketing, and other costs throughout the country.

It does not seem as if taxes are the problem in this Province. The per litre taxes in this Province seem to be for the most part in keeping with other provinces. Some provinces are higher. I believe Quebec is higher and Alberta is probably lower. We are not on the high end or we are not on the low end, we are somewhere there in the pack, so taxes are not the cause of the high gasoline prices in Newfoundland. Yet, I recall that recently I was in Halifax this summer and I had a car which I filled up with gas and the gas price was fifty-four cents a litre in Dartmouth. I got on the plane and came home and filled my tank later that day, or the next day, and paid 60.9 cents per litre for gasoline. That is a difference of six or seven cents per litre between Halifax and St. John's.

Now, I do not know if there is any justification for that, the gasoline products that seem to be transferred back from one company to the other. You might get your gas at an Esso pump but it may well be Ultra gas, or vice versa, or it might even come from Come By Chance. There seems to be a lot of transferring back and forth and you are essentially dealing with the same product, yet as the Member for Mount Pearl has said, there is not a uniform price in Newfoundland that is sort of justified by saying transportation costs and distribution costs in Newfoundland are generally more expensive so we will spread it out and charge the one price for everybody.

That does not sound to me like the kind of thing that an oil company would do in any event. They being a competitive beast and not being particularly regulated by this government, as I understand it, one would think that they would try to keep their prices low where they can afford to do that, for competitive reasons, and one would certainly expect that the market in the St. John's area, by delivering petroleum products here, would be no different than in Nova Scotia or Halifax. There are refineries nearby here as there are in Halifax, and there does not seem to be any real explanation. If you look at those charts that are put out, the increased cost to Newfoundland seems to relate what is called marketing. They have this figure called marketing, and there is more money spent as a percentage of the litre price of gas on marketing in Newfoundland than elsewhere. Now I do not know what that is. Perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources has people who are monitoring this.

There is an inordinate difference, I would say to the minister, of something in the order of 8 per cent difference in gasoline prices in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and I do not know what the explanation for it is. I do not see transportation as being a big cost. There are no pipelines going to Halifax. The gasoline is transported by tanker, and we are always being told that bulk transport by water is the cheapest form of transportation in the world, and one would think that delivering gasoline to Newfoundland would be only marginally more expensive than delivering gasoline to Cape Breton or to Halifax or other parts of Atlantic Canada, or P.E.I. for that matter. It is a related question, because it has to do with the tax and the price of gasoline as is influenced by factors such as taxes. Perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources can tell us, when was the last time his department looked into this question, and what is the current explanation, or are we being ripped off? Is it just that we are being taken advantage of, because you don't see much price difference from one company to the next; they all seem to maintain the same prices, give or take a few tenths of a cent. Are we being ripped off? Are we being taken advantage of because the government is not prepared to be active in this area and put its foot down? Perhaps the minister could answer those questions in response, and explain why it is that it is advantageous to have a cents per litre tax as opposed to a percentage tax.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate. The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just on a few issues raised by the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, and the Member for St. John's East, the first issue, I believe, dealt with the change in policy from a percent to a fixed price per litre. Essentially, as the Member for St. John's East suggested, this is one of administration and also certainly in the budget process. I think the change initially from a fixed amount to a percentage amount was at a time when gasoline prices were rising and expected to continue to rise. They have stabilized substantially and, as members can appreciate, they fluctuate from time to time, but in addition to that we cannot always predict that they will increase. While the hon. member says, yes, we lose the benefit of an increase should one occur, we also would run the risk of a decrease should one occur.

Secondly, in terms of our tax planning, we can probably predict with relative certainty what the number of litres to be consumed in this particular part of the economy would be. It is more difficult for us to predict from time to time what the amount of gasoline prices will be either on a worldwide or, certainly, his second issue, what is charged in Newfoundland. So, all things considered, it was felt that from the point of view of physical certainty, knowing what the consumption was likely to be, we may as well just have a fixed amount of 3.5 cents per litre.

The additional item, from an administrative point of view, as members can appreciate, once you get into percentage calculations and you get variations of a tenth of a cent per litre, you get into very small amounts that make it difficult for companies and individuals who are selling - these are often small companies as well - to make that calculation and submit it. So in the interest of ease of administration and our own budget certainty we felt that the change was justified and for that reason we bring it to the Legislature for consideration.

The second concern that is identified, I believe, by the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, was: Why, other than pleasure craft? I am told that the sea-going vessels were the only ones where we retained for some period of time this whole aspect of percentage calculation. I do not know when it was done. All I know is that at this point there seems to be little rationale for retaining it. The pleasure boats, I suspect, at this point in time, are subject to the same cent per litre calculation as other areas of consumption of gasoline. Whether or not there is a rebate for seagoing vessels or boats I don't know for certain, I suspect that there may be under the federal transportation subsidy arrangement which often provides subsidy for the cost of goods. What bearing that would have on the calculation of our taxes as a percentage or a fixed amount, I think has little or no relevance. So I don't think it really, in the end, has much to bring to bear as to whether or not we should accept or reject this particular motion.

Thirdly, the other question that was raised was the high rates for gasoline. It is a perennial issue and one that this bill does not directly deal with, of course. I will just make a few comments seeing that it was raised. The Province did consider - when I held the Justice portfolio some years ago in conjunction with my friend, who was then the Minister of Energy and now the Minister of Natural Resources, as to whether or not we should implement a system to monitor and control prices. The conclusion at the end of the day was that it wasn't worthwhile, that where it does exist in Nova Scotia was probably the one we most closely examined. It hasn't worked very well. They, in fact, have discontinued it, the reason being that any time an application had been made, it was made as a result of a rise or decrease, and because these petroleum prices change very quickly, by the time that would be gone through, another set of factors would come into play. We believed at the time, and it is still our conclusion, that competition is the best element that would regulate prices.

One of the reasons, therefore, that I think you see a variation and higher costs in rural Newfoundland - there are several for them; I think the first is that there is less competition. Secondly, many of these stations have very little throughput and, of course, the amount that one would have to charge per litre to maintain sufficient cash flow to justify having a gas station there to start with is necessarily higher on the mark-up basis than it would be at a major urban station where you have a lot flow-through in the area of sales. Thirdly, what adds to the cost - I think transportation, frankly, does not add that much. I am told it is probably between a cent to two cents per litre of gasoline coming to the Province other than what it would be, for example, of a shipment to Nova Scotia. But in rural Newfoundland there is an added factor in that, the distribution point is often far from the location of service station. This is a factor in other provinces as well, but given our geography, I think it is more significant. This is not to say that I endorse or justify the prices at retail, I would like to see them much lower, to the extent that they might be held down by some sort of regulatory regime. I don't think it would be responsive enough to the type of market that would justify the administration that government will have in terms of (inaudible) in the fundamental cost to taxpayers.

All things considered, even to the extent that may be an issue, I believe it is an issue for another day, another department and another piece of legislation. That being said, and hopefully having addressed the concerns of members who have spoken, I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 12)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Order 9, Bill No. 17, my friend, the Minister of Finance's bill.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act". (Bill No. 17)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Essentially, this bill is fairly straightforward. It amends the sections of the Liquor Control Act that impose penalties for breaches of that act. As you read, subsection 2 indicates that where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection 1, the court may order that person pay a minimum fine of $250. That is an increase from a fine of $100 and it increases the maximum to $500 or in default, to imprisonment for a minimum term of two days and a maximum term of seven days. These are increases from the current levels of fine of $100 or two days in jail for first offence and a fine of $150 or three days in jail for each subsequent offence. The section 80 that is referred to makes it an offence to carry open liquor in a motor car. These penalty sections are always a matter of general public policy and it was felt that in this case, the consumption of alcohol on the highways being a matter of some concern to the public, it was appropriate to increase the penalty section from $100 at a minimum to $250, and $150 to $500 - increasing it essentially by 250 per cent to indicate to the public that we view this sort of behaviour with disdain and that a more substantial penalty was warranted.

Again in subsection 2 we are amending section 124 of the act, and also increasing the penalty there to $500 minimum and a maximum fine of $1,000, and default terms for a minimum of three months and a maximum term of twelve months. In other words, if a person didn't pay the fine that was levied, the judge, in his or her discretion, could impose a term of imprisonment not less than three months to a maximum term of twelve months. This refers to a prohibited sale of alcohol. The original ones were substantially lower than that. The maximum fine previously was $500 and the maximum imprisonment term was three months. So, essentially, the fine has been increased by $500 at the maximum level and the maximum term of twelve months.

Why these were chosen, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of art rather than science. I'm sure hon. members might suggest another term as being appropriate. In the end, all these do is set up parameters for a sentencing judge who will consider the sort of penalty that the Legislature has imposed as exhibiting the general tenor of the offence, and whether or not a more or less substantial penalty should be imposed. In the end, these would give to the judge some indication of that, and that judge would, in turn, exercise a discretion, having regard to the circumstances in which the offence took place, to tailor a sentence that would be appropriate both to the offender and to society at large to deter other people from doing it.

Other than that, I don't know that there is much else I can say about the bill. It is, I think, fairly straightforward and I would be interested in hearing the hon. member's comments as to the appropriateness of the penalties sought. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister has indicated, the bill is fairly straightforward from the (inaudible). (Inaudible) it announces more revenue for the Province, longer jail terms if - I doubt that there are too many people who don't pay the fine and take the jail term instead, but nevertheless. It is simply an increase in the fines for those two areas.

I wanted to ask the minister a question of definition of `motor vehicle'. That is the one that interests me here. What is the definition of `motor vehicle'? Perhaps if we had the whole act before us, we would see it. As I understand it, the laws relating to alcohol, certainly the consumption of alcohol, in motor vehicles apply equally to snowmobiles, boats and all-terrain vehicles. I think I might have related last year to this House the fact that the police now, the RCMP in particular, are now starting to impose these laws on snowmobilers.

I was aware of one gentleman in the Grand Falls area last winter who was back in the country up near Mount Peyton on his snowmobile, had had two or three drinks, certainly wasn't intoxicated, but he had two or three drinks. And two RCMP officers rode up on snowmobiles, stopped him and gave him a breathalyser. I guess he failed the .05 per cent and was forced to leave his snowmobile in the woods and was taken back, lost his driver's licence - because you lose your vehicle licence even if you are picked up on a snowmobile or an all-terrain vehicle or a boat or anything else - for twenty-four hours, had to pay whatever the fee is to get his driver's licence back, and had to get somebody else to go up and get his snowmobile in the country and bring it back.

I say to you, an RCMP officer would have to be on a pretty fast skidoo before I would leave my machine up in the country overnight. He had better be able to handle a machine pretty well and be on a powerful machine; otherwise, all he would see is taillights. I would be hard-pressed to stop, I think, and leave my machine back up in the country unprotected overnight like that. This is what happened, and there are many cases of that.

I know laws are put in place for good and valid reason, and obviously, persons who are heavily intoxicated are a danger to themselves, if nobody else, back in the country, and I'm not defending that. But if we are at the point now where you can't go up and bore a hole in the ice, sit there and do a bit of ice fishing in the afternoon and have a little bit of a toddy in your tea to warm you up, for fear that the R.C.M.P. are going to come along; and I will give you another case where a couple of snowmobilers were up again, it was near Mount Peyton, my friend has been there once or twice, Mr. Speaker, and they were stopped having a lunch and they had the little flask sitting on top of the seat of their snowmobile, like you would, and the R. C. M. P. officers came along and confiscated it. They weren't intoxicated but I think they were fined or had a warning ticket or something; I don't recall exactly what the penalty was, but that's taking it to the extreme, I would suggest.

I don't argue with the law, and it basically is to a point, Mr. Speaker, that I have been wanting to find an opportunity to say, for a long period of time, you know, we make laws in this Assembly, that's our role, we are elected to pass laws, to make the laws for the Province. RCMP officers or police officers generally, their role is to apply those laws, but we make laws on the basis that those who are applying the laws are going to use some common sense and that's where it falls down, not always do the police use good, common sense in applying the laws, and many times they do. I have seen many cases, too, where police officers will say: Well, get up - you have had a couple too many; take your time now you are only going right there. Go ahead, I will keep an eye on you. I mean, they will do that if you are not too far over the limit, if you are borderline or something.

Obviously, if somebody is completely intoxicated, then in the public good and for their own good, they should be taken off the road; I don't have any argument with the law per se. But sometimes, in the application of the law, the officers become a little over-exuberant and I think that's what is happening. I would like the minister to give us that definition. I mean, if somebody is out in his boat, if the Speaker is out in his boat next summer and he is not unknown to have a beer in his hand when he is going out the Bay of Exploits, or something a little better perhaps, it is not unknown for the Speaker to that, I say, is he literally breaking the law? And I think he is, but I doubt that there are many boats that leave Lewisporte and head out the bay, that there is not a toddy or two being had en route, and strictly speaking, if boats are included here, then they are breaking the law.

Now I know you can't write a law that says, you can't do this but you can do a little bit of it. All I am saying, I guess, is that there needs to be some discretion applied here. And I am suggesting, too, that there has been a little bit of over-exuberance. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation wants to get me going.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, Mr. Speaker, is largely responsible for this whole attitude of the police since he put in his silly .05, and the police are laughing at it and saying, you know, how can we possibly, we haven't got enough force in Canada to enforce that foolish rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: Motor vehicle inspection -

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Motor vehicle inspection (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Motor vehicle inspectors (inaudible). So, you know, Mr. Speaker, if these kinds of laws - when I say that the officers should apply the laws responsibly, then the laws also should be made responsibly, too. The laws should be made responsibly not something as foolish as the legislation the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation brought in last year, which has done absolutely nothing except make a fool of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but then he is very adept at doing that, anyway.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to waste my time with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation today, he is not worth the time of the House. Those are the questions I wanted to ask the minister. You know, I can't argue with the rationale for increasing the fines, it is a deterrent, I suppose. I don't know when these fines were last changed, I don't know how quickly they have grown but perhaps - I don't know how sale of alcohol fines have increased. I don't know what that is going to do to the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker. The fines on the sale of alcohol have increased from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $1,000.

This is going to be a major blow to the economy of the Burin Peninsula, I would say, a major blow, but it is an interesting question. We have had the question raised lately of the sale of alcohol in various stores and there is some pressure to allow supermarkets, for example, to sell beer and wine and perhaps even spirits. In many parts of Canada, and certainly in the United States, anybody who has had the good fortune to take a holiday in Florida, you can access alcoholic beverages pretty well in most drug stores and supermarkets and corner stores, certainly beer and wine. I am just wondering, maybe the minister would like to tell us, is there any consideration being given now to including - we have beer now in pretty well every corner store and every service station. Are we looking at including some wines in that as well? From the minister's point of view it is a great revenue generator, and increases the accessibility of it. And are we looking at opening it up to supermarkets, for example? What impact will that have on some of the present retailers? Some of the supermarkets are open now twenty-four hours a day. Would the minister be considering allowing supermarkets, the Sobeys of the world, for example, who have twenty-four hour stores in some locations, some of the larger urban centres, would they be allowed to retail beverages all night? Is that something that the minister is considering?

I am also tempted to get into it, but I am going to save it for another day, the Liquor Licensing Board and some of their activities. I have a good story to tell the minister about the Liquor Licensing Board, but I will do it in another forum, I think, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The Liquor Licensing Board, yes, I had an experience with them. The minister might like to have a look at them, and he might like to talk to the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Industry and see if - I can give him some examples where the Liquor Licensing Board may very well be seen as an impediment to development in this Province, let me tell you. Anyway, that is another story for another day, a part of a larger story that I want to tell the House at some point in time.

Mr. Speaker, with those questions, maybe the minister would like to deal with that for us.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that I find interesting in the debate from the hon. member opposite is that after the number of years that they were in government, and for all of the things that they messed up, it is strange now they have all the right answers, and all the ideas now that all the years they were in power they didn't implement one of those ideas, and no matter which minister brings things on this side, they have all the right answers.

I want to deal with a part of this bill, because the member just made a statement that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation made a fool of himself when he brought in the .05 legislation. For a member of this House of Assembly, what an irresponsible statement for anyone to make.

I just want to take a couple of minutes to give you some statistics on how the .05 regulation is working. Nobody ever said when we brought in those rules, that you couldn't drink liquor, that you couldn't drink beer, that you couldn't drink wine, or whatever you chose to drink. Nobody ever said that people should stop drinking, that people should stop socializing, that people should stop going to parties. Very simply, what was said was very clear. While you are operating a vehicle, a motorized vehicle of any sort, you should not be under the influence of alcohol, whether it be .05, .06, .07, .08, whatever it is. While operating a vehicle, you should not be under the influence of alcohol.

Statistics have proven, in the first eight months of this year, there have been 30 per cent fewer alcohol-related accidents - 30 per cent this year - 40 per cent fewer convictions under the .08 Criminal Code of Canada charges because of the .05 legislation. Now, you will ask the question, `How could that possible happen?' Well, under the .08 - Criminal Code of Canada, there is a tolerance of 1.2, and if the RCMP or the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary stopped you and you had .08, .08.5 or .09, they could not charge you because of the tolerance. With the .05 legislation, they can automatically take your licence right on the spot. In other words, they are not only taking the people who have .05, .06, .07, .08 and .09, you see, they are taking those people off the road right on the spot, which they could not do in the past.

As a result of that, you are now controlling drinking and driving. I have said a hundred times over, that an individual under the influence of alcohol, while operating any motorized vehicle, is just as much danger to the general public as pointing a twelve gauge shotgun or any weapon at somebody. You are not responsible while you are under the influence of alcohol and you are operating a mechanical machine. How many times have accidents been reported and when it has been investigated, the individual was not in control of himself or herself while operating that vehicle, which caused the death of somebody?

All we are saying to people is that you have to be responsible. Here are the reasons why and it is simple to understand them. The one thing, Mr. Speaker, that you can be proud of, is that the most responsible people in following the law of safety driving on our highways, drinking and driving, are the youth. The hardest people to deal with are the middle-age generation. The young people are adhering to the laws to highway safety. What they will do is have a designated driver or they will get a taxi cab, whatever they can do to avoid actually owning and operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, but try to change the middle-age people; they do not want to adapt to change.

The only way you can do it is to bring in the laws, increase the fines, and make it such a deterrent that they have no alternative. Statistics proved during the first eight months this year that there were fewer fatalities, fewer alcohol\injury-related accidents, fewer motor vehicle accidents, and fewer charges under the .08 Criminal Code of Canada, and for that, Mr. Speaker, it was a responsible thing for this government to do.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Carried.

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

No, it is not carried, I say to the Government House Leader, as much as he would like to have it carried.

MR. ROBERTS: The story of my life.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The story of your life. I know, you are always disappointed.

MR. ROBERTS: Almost persuaded.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Almost.

MR. ROBERTS: That's (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I sure do. David Houston, `Almost Persuaded.'

First, I want to say to the Minister of Finance that I have had a strong lobby from the Burin Peninsula, that they really don't want me to speak in support of this legislation. They have lobbied to ask my support in having the Liquor Control Act abolished altogether, I say to the minister. They would like to do away with it altogether, and as my good friend and colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl said, this is going to be devastating to the economy of the Burin Peninsula. But, having said that, it is in a light note. We are on a finance bill so it is pretty wide-ranging debate.

I listened with interest to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who believes so strongly in what he did. He really believes what he did was necessary and I can appreciate that, but the minister could have taken the same provisions under point .08. He didn't have to reduce it to .05. He could have done the same thing with .08 and I think he would have had the same results. Now, no one supports or encourages drinking and driving. There is no doubt about that.

MR. CAREEN: The minister is interested in points because he has points on his shoulders.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, you know, the minister believes in what he did, but on a curious note to the minister, I wonder if he was geared up this morning with that little bit of white stuff we had? When I looked out my window this morning, I wondered how many cars were going to be off the road, and I wondered if some of this new money, that the Minister of Finance is trying to get by increasing those fines, if some of that is going to find its way to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation?

MR. EFFORD: A lot of it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A lot of it, the minister says. Now, does the minister know that now or is he hoping? I am wondering if the minister is optimistic that some of this money the Minister of Finance is going to get here will go to his department, and we will see safer conditions on the highway, we will see more snow-clearing and icing equipment, more modern equipment? Maybe we will see the wingmen put back.

MR. EFFORD: Not a chance.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not a chance, he says. Well, I say to the minister, if I were him, that I would not be too cocky.

MR. EFFORD: Well, I am here.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I know you are here now but you may not be here tomorrow. He may join the old scud missile himself, the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. He may be joining the old scud missile who is gone now, flying low, trying to find his target before he strikes. He may be in the same position as the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture; he may not be here tomorrow noon, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Why is it you people just like destroying people's lives?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, we don't enjoy destroying people's lives, I say to the minister, but I have to ask the minister quite sincerely, since he is the one who brought up about destroying people's lives, why isn't he more responsible when it comes to snow-clearing equipment and icing in the winter, if he cares so much about people's lives?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, sometimes you do, and there are other times you deserve to be criticized, I say to the minister. The minister knows full well - I called him last year after giving a road report to Bill Rowe on the way down over the Burin Peninsula highway when things weren't all that pleasant. He remembers very well.

What I was going to say to the minister is, you know, he seems pretty convinced that the actions he is taking with the snow-clearing equipment, particularly the flyers, where he has removed the wingmen, that he is convinced what he is doing is right. I'm not convinced that what you are doing is right, I say to the minister, and I want to say this to you very sincerely. A lot of the people who are out on this snow-clearing equipment are out sometimes eighteen, twenty, twenty-two hours when conditions are bad, by the way - the minister I'm sure knows this - continuously working. Oftentimes in winter they get four and five hours sleep and they are back at it again. They have to go back in. They have to try to keep the roads open and keep them iced and so on. And they get tired and they get sleepy.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I'm telling you, I say to the minister, it is very real. I know operators who have been out twenty hours straight. They get tired and they get sleepy. And when they have a buddy there with them in the truck it helps them stay awake.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. The minister doesn't want to listen, you see. The minister doesn't want to listen to what I'm saying to him, but it is real, I say to him. They get tired and they get sleepy; they get fatigued. Sometimes the wingman keeps the driver awake or vice versa, I say to the minister, if you've been out twenty hours. If you are up at 4:00 in the morning and don't get in bed until 4:00 the next morning, you get tired, you get sleepy. And having that other person there besides using the wing blade to clear the snow, keeps the driver awake, and the driver keeps the wingman awake. But now, with only one person in that machine, do you know what you are going to find, Minister? They are going to refuse to stay out that long. They aren't going to stay out for eighteen hours or twenty hours straight because they are concerned about the safety of the public and they are concerned about their own safety.

MR. EFFORD: All we will do is put somebody else on then.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say to the minister, that is his attitude. Put someone else on it. I hope the minister is right and I hope I'm wrong, Mr. Speaker, but if we have a harsh winter this year, my prediction today is that this minister is going to be taken to task.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, you can be (inaudible) if you try.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I won't try, I will. I'm giving the minister fair warning today, Mr. Speaker, that if anything happens on these highways this year as a result of those wingmen being removed from those trucks, that minister is going to have to answer. I only hope that nothing happens to any pedestrian, nothing happens to any motor vehicle, or the driver or the passengers, or to the operators of any of those machines, I say to the minister. I just hope and pray that nothing happens to either one of them, because if it does, this minister is going to have to answer.

I just wish that the minister was a little more... I don't want to say conciliatory, but not quite as strong about it. Because when you are overly strong on an issue it is kind of hard then to back off a bit.

MR. EFFORD: I don't back off.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I saw that today again, Mr. Speaker, when the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes asked the minister about the situation last night outside the door here, when we had forty or fifty mentally and physically challenged people, some of them in wheelchairs, who were very cold and shivering out there, who wanted to come in.

MR. EFFORD: There was no need of that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, there is no need of it, I say to the minister. And there was a request made, by the way, to -

MR. EFFORD: Not to me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, not - I mean, every group that wants to come in the lobby of the building shouldn't have to call you. You have people paid, you have security people, you must have a Chief of Security, or whatever the name is you have on them.

MR. EFFORD: They have been given strict orders: Do not let people in after hours.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, then, it is you who wouldn't let them in.

MR. EFFORD: I didn't get called.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It makes no difference whether you got called or not. What you are telling me now is that you would not let them in.

MR. EFFORD: I said that today! I left strict orders for nobody to (inaudible)!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There you go, now we have the answer. If I recall, the minister, today, said -

MR. EFFORD: Oh, you'll check Hansard now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have Hansard coming now in a minute, I say to the minister. It will soon be in to me now, not only to check what this minister said, but to see what the scud missile minister said, to check out what he said.

MR. EFFORD: Who?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The scud missile, the low-flying scud missile, who has gone around the East Block and the West Block, now, trying to zero in on his target. He has gone to wing, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

I thought the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation today said - now perhaps he said he did not get a call; perhaps that is what he said, `I' did not get a call requesting to come in, but I tell the minister, as the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes said, that indeed, a call was made, as I understand it, to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, it's your Chief of Security. I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No - John who?

AN HON. MEMBER: John (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, maybe it was. I thought it was somebody else. Anyway, there was a call made and it was denied, on strict orders now, I hear, from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, that no one under any condition is to get into that lobby after 7:00 p.m. Now, why would that provision be put in place?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There is no problem, I say to the minister. I don't promote rowdy demonstrations, or dangerous... I am concerned about the safety of members here.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am. I am concerned about the building. I am very concerned about the safety of the Premier of the Province. I can understand why they would tighten security a bit. I can understand why people would be concerned about the safety of the Premier and the ministers, the way thing are going in this Province today, I say to my good friend, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. If I were a minister, I would be concerned, too, about my safety.

MR. MURPHY: I can't run.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I know, that is why you have to have such strict security regulations, I say to the minister. I can understand that. They must feel awfully insecure when they go out into the night now. At 5:00 it is dark when we finish here, and they have to go out through that door under the cover of darkness. I would say the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation feels pretty insecure.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance, when he gets up - I don't think the Minister of Finance is listening to me.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Because it is directed to him, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Direct it to me and I will answer it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no, I am not directing it to you; you might give me the answer. I don't want the answer, I want to ask someone who can't give me the answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) what you already know.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. I have a feeling that the Minister of Finance and the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island now are talking about the Cabot Corporation. I would say they are having a little chat about the Cabot Corporation.

MR. ROBERTS: Not a bad subject.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not a bad subject at all these days. I would say the Minister of Finance now is going to withdraw funding from the Cabot Corporation.

MR. ROBERTS: Why would he do that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There is a lot of suspicion about that, I say to the Government House Leader. Over the last couple of days I happened to be listening, in the morning, to CBC Radio when I was driving to work here. I must say, it was interesting stuff. I see the Minister of Tourism over there. I heard the Minister of Tourism on -

MR. ROBERTS: I was here at the office. You were only driving in.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, you were here a few minutes before me, I say. You know that. I called you yesterday morning, or the morning before. You said, `You are up early', and I said, `Well, you must be up early because you are already in there but I am only on my way.'

MR. ROBERTS: `Loyola' left (inaudible) car outside.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is an old trick that one of my former colleagues used to use, I say to the Government House Leader. Every time I would go by Confederation Building, or go out the main entrance to get in my car, this colleague's vehicle was always there, and I would say: How diligent that colleague is - it was a minister of the Crown - always on the job, until I tried to arrange a few meetings with that particular minister, mid-morning or mid-afternoon, and he was never available, so it was a neat trick. I guess the vehicle was left there to give the impression that he was on the job. That is not the case of the Government House Leader, because I know he is here. I speak to him in the morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Whether I accomplish anything is another story.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that is debatable but I would say the Government House Leader keeps himself pretty busy.

But, on the Cabot Corporation, it was quite interesting, I say to the Government House Leader, the last couple of mornings, to listen to the story on the Cabot Corporation. And the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, now, is over there making out he doesn't hear me. He was over there - I heard him this morning, actually, talking about some concerns he had with getting information. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation was on reacting to a request - Freedom of Information, that they weren't given information, and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation was very concerned this morning that the information wasn't given. I wonder how sincere the minister really was? How sincere were you this morning when I listened to you talking about this request under the Freedom of Information not being given? You made the people believe that you were concerned about it. The public doesn't know the minister as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, because I could see right through it. Once he hung up that phone he laughed to himself: I got rid of him again, he said. I could see right through him, Mr. Speaker, it is amazing.

MR. EFFORD: He sounded sincere enough.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, anyone who did not know the minister - well that is like the 7,000 or 8,000 teachers in the Province when he was President of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, Mr. Speaker, he had them hoodwinked until he got out on the steps out there and broke down, he wept openly. All the people of the Province saw him cry because he couldn't get any more for the teachers of the Province. He used up a full box of Kleenex. He broke down and the tears ran down his face and he said, `I can't get you any more, I'm sorry.' What did he do then? He walked in here and became a minister, and he froze their wages and rolled back their wages and he asked, `Well, what choice do I have?'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) - they've been crying ever since.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They haven't stopped crying since - the minister - unbelievable!

MR. SULLIVAN: And he got his fingers rapped in Central Newfoundland for what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the best pension.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who? Got me the best pension?

MR. SULLIVAN: MHAs got the best one in the country.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Be quiet. Excuse me, could you be quiet, please?

The member is not recognized, Mr. Speaker. There are some things I would prefer the member not talk about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Especially now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Especially now, especially at this stage in my life. There are some things I would rather not talk about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Talk about losing delegate's support. That's why the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is being the way he is. He is being so smooth and so sincere, appearing to be sincere, saying yes, `I am so concerned that this information was not given.' And he has given the orders, Mr. Speaker, not to give the information.

MR. MANNING: Can we get a tarpaulin for the new Speaker?

MR. SULLIVAN: Don't be insulting the poor new Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would like to welcome the Member for LaPoile to the Chair. I would like to welcome you there, he looks good there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Call them to order, Mr. Speaker, they are not listening to me. I hate speaking when no one listens to me.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, if I may? I would agree with my hon. friend that perhaps not everybody in the House is listening to him at this moment but I would remind him that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits cruel and unnatural punishment, so I suggest his point of order has no merit to it.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there is no Point of Order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A good ruling, there is no doubt about that.

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I want to ask the minister, when he gets up: I am just wondering what - obviously, he must be able to project what extra revenue will be derived from increasing the fines that he is proposing here. He must have some idea. They won't get much from my area of the Province, I say to the Government House Leader; he has all the money cleaned up down there with his increase in fines.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Grand Bank. Well, I used to be, I say to the Government House Leader. I used to be a regular customer there, yeah.

MR. ROBERTS: Now you have seen the light.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. I am not saying that but I am not going to tell the Government House Leader now what I bought or didn't buy at the liquor store, but there are some things you know you couldn't get elsewhere so you had to go to the liquor store. You couldn't get it all you know, Mr. Speaker, you had to go and get some things at the liquor store, but I just wonder if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board could tell us how much revenue he hopes to derive from the increase in fines and would he consider giving it to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation so we can have some good snow-clearing equipment this winter, some good ice control.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put the wingmen back on.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well I asked the minister you know and he dug in again, wouldn't hear tell of it, not while he is here, he said, not while he is here, he won't replace the wingmen and I told him that if anything happens -

AN HON. MEMBER: That won't be long now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What, before something happens?

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't be long before he goes, to put the wingmen back on.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But I never thought about that, I never thought about that, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know if anyone else on this side wants a few words, it is a wide range of debate as you can tell, not very restricted. That ought to be relevant. I see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is over there smiling, happy -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations told you a dirty joke. Oh yeah, I see.

I wonder if the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island has filled him in on his concerns about the Cabot Corporation, I say to my good friend and Member for Mount Pearl. I was telling him about the program CBC radio has done the last two mornings on Cabot.

MR. WALSH: Is this déjà vu because I feel I have heard this already?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, you probably heard more about it than you want to hear, the way you squirmed this morning on the radio, squirming.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was very polite.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I must say you were very direct actually, I have to tell you. I thought you were very direct; you answered to a point which I liked. You weren't like the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture who pretended to be sincere that he was very concerned because this information wasn't given under freedom, but I would say he gave the order not to give the information. That's the difference in the two members, and then it was quite interesting to hear Mr. Moores call in this morning, Mr. Doug Moores. I am sure the member heard him defending the corporation, a great defence of the corporation this morning, very articulate, very eloquent, very, very articulate, very eloquent but here we are now, we are increasing fines, yet, we have an organization in this Province, a corporation that is accountable to no one.

A corporation that is accountable to no one, I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and here he is now, increasing fines, going to drag more revenues into the provincial coffers and we have a corporation in this Province that has a budget or is going to spend something like $17 million, accountable to no one; don't know how they are spending their money, where they are going, not going to leave any legacy whatsoever, as I understand, nothing is going to be left behind, $17 million going. Hopefully we will have a big celebration, a great year, we will have lots of people coming back to the Province, our own people are away and people from outside the Province who will be first time tourists whom we will get back after, we hope we do that but they should be accountable to someone, I say to my -

AN HON. MEMBER: Good for hospitality homes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Good for hospitality homes, the Member for Mount Pearl says and I know there is no conflict of interest in his statement there, I know he is very sincere, Mr. Speaker, but they should be accountable to someone, they should be. I am not suggesting they are doing anything wrong but at least, be accountable; they should answer to someone so I hope the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board will tell me how much money he projects he is going to derive from this -

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Economic Recovery Commission.

MR. WINDSOR: They are on the budget of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and they answer to him.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh. Is that right? Oh, but they are not answerable to anyone either, then? They are not answerable to anyone either then. The Economic Recovery Commission, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, they are in his budget but they answer to the Premier. Could the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology explain how that happened? I see the minister is trying to ignore me over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh now, I would say to the Government House Leader, I wouldn't get too flippant like that. I know he puts up a big front, feels confident, but deep down inside he is a very worried gentleman, the Government House Leader. They are all very worried people over there, on very shaky ground, that group of people over there. Not much security in the front benches of the government these days.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would say over half are going to be retiring (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You will soon see an exodus of them now. Right behind the Premier. As soon as the Premier goes there will be a trail - you would think it is the Pied Piper. They will all be going behind him. A big exodus of the House. I say there will be more by-elections in the next twelve months in this Province than any twelve months before in our history, I say to my friend the Member for Bonavista North looking over at me quite curiously when I start by-elections and things. He looks over as if wondering if I know something. Who has he been talking to you? I can see the look on his face. There are going to be a lot of by-elections within the next twelve months. There is going to be a mass exodus from the government benches, a bolting, leaving of the sinking ship. There are going to be a lot of them go.

What new faces are going to be over there inside of twelve months? Then of course, inside of twenty-four months there are going to be all new faces on that side.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, on this side.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, well, but the faces will be new to that side, I say to my friend. There will be a few faces that were over on that side before that will be back there. A few faces from this side will be over there that were there before, but not too many. I can go through the whole line of them there in the front. There are a lot of them who won't be running again, will be going, especially if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board gets too sharp with his pencil. Gets cutting a little too deep, whittling away at things that a lot of us are sensitive to. I would say you are going to see a lot of people going to see Mr. Speaker. I have a feeling they will be going to see Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Member for Bonavista North muttered something as if: I won't be one, or something.

AN HON. MEMBER: Running for cover.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, running for cover. Protection of the chair.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know if I'm going to get to the point today, I say to the Government House Leader. I might never get to the point. Are they invoking closure? Has the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board heard what I've said?

MR. DICKS: Not a word.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not a word. He is honest. At least the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is honest.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I know. I heard the minister's explanation. I'm just wondering if he has any idea how much money he is going to derive from the increase. Nothing from the Burin Peninsula. As I've said, you've got out of the Burin Peninsula what you are going to get. Fines have been increased, horrendous fines, taking people's property, homes, vehicles, snowmobiles, boats, motors. There is nothing left to take on the Burin Peninsula, so you aren't going to get much money from them.

I wonder are you going to give the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation a few dollars from your new revenues to improve the snow clearing and icing of the roads and put the wingmen back to work? That is the big question, Mr. Speaker. Or is this now a big increase trying to - I don't know when it is coming into effect. When is it coming into effect? Could the minister tell me when it is coming into effect, he hopes to have it into effect? Is he going to get it in now within a few days, trying to reduce that big deficit? Over $50 million now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, way over, the minister says. It was amazing to watch the minister in a couple of days though, right? He didn't quite know, didn't know what the deficit was going to be, and then the Member for Mount Pearl kept at him, and he was going to release it later in the month. Then I watched the news last night and then the - more than $50 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, more than. Out of control, ballooning. The deficit was ballooning, the news said. I don't know if the minister can confirm that but the -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I can't. I wouldn't know where to look for that. Look under P? Would you look under P for that? I do not have a dictionary.

MR. ROBERTS: (inaudible) under `p' of any kind.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No doubt, looking for the definition.

Mr. Speaker, I think some of my other colleagues here are chomping at the bit because they have some very important things they want to say about this.

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

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments of my friend for Grand Bank, the Opposition House Leader, first of all let me just say that before introducing the bill I asked the Department of Finance to carry out a financial analysis to see its impact on the Burin Peninsula and I am pleased to say that it will not result in the total bankruptcy of the businesses on the Peninsula but it may substantially effect the economy overall.

Mr. Speaker, there were a few points raised. I think my friend for Mount Pearl asked about how much more revenue we would get. That would be a very soft figure and I think it would be offset to any extent by the cost of keeping people in jail in default terms. It is not seen, of course, as a revenue raiser and I am pleased to say that it hopefully will not be a great impairment to the public.

Speaking of impairment my friend for Mount Pearl asked about the definition of motor vehicles and immediately encouraged my friend the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to re-enter the chamber and listen intently in what he had to say about the problem with skidoos being over-policed in the Central Newfoundland area. There is no doubt that it is sometimes an inconvenience for people who may have had a few drinks to be brought to a police station and checked, but that is the type of society in which we operate. A friend of his, or an acquaintance, at least apparently lost his license for twenty-four hours, and I think the intent of his question was whether or not the liquor laws applied to certain types of vehicles, and the answer is, of course, yes, they do, motor vehicles or anything, I presume with a motor in it.

There have been court cases as to whether or not it can actually move from one point to another. Certainly, the view of the law is expansive rather than narrowing that definition to give full effect to the liquor laws, but certainly at this point in time it includes snowmobiles, skidoos, ATVs and the rest of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: I yield to you.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister.

I just wanted to point out to him that it has been brought to my attention that recently there was an incident in Halifax where a gentleman in a wheelchair was actually arrested but the judge had the good sense to let him go. Again, that is the point I am making, this is carrying things to the extreme.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Many things have happened to me in this House before but I greatly resent the Member for Mount Pearl stealing my thunder. I was going to carry on to point out that the law is very expansive and in fact there was a case, if I can believe what I read in the paper, that a man in a wheelchair was arrested for impaired driving last spring and recently fined $300. I suppose for operating on the highway. I guess in that case he was operating under several disabilities, one being impairment.

I just wish to point out that the .05 law, of course, is not affected by this. My friend the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation brought it in with a great degree of enthusiasm, that was less well received by the hospitality industry, I am told, and I leave others to judge its merits. I might add as well that boats are considered motorized conveniences and ones that are subject to our general liquor laws as well.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have just outlined the impact of the new increases in fines and in default periods. Other than that I just recommend it to the Legislature for approval and move second reading.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole on tomorrow. (Bill No. 17)

MR. ROBERTS: Order 10, Bill No. 15.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act." (Bill No. 15)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are two essential clauses to this bill. The first allows the Minister of Finance to remit, or forgive, taxes payable, or to approve settlements in amounts of less than $5000. I believe the current amount is $1,000. It was thought expedient to increase it at this time because there has been some passage of time since the early amount was set. Things being what they are, $5,000 probably is a more reasonable amount to allow a minister to exercise his or her discretion.

I will point out that this does not include interest penalties that might also accrue with respect to taxes that are considered to be due and owing. In fact, the minister from time to time remits penalties and interest that exceed this amount, so this affects really only the base amount, and in effect the minister exercises discretion over much larger amounts in the nature and way of interest and penalties that may have accumulated.

The second is a more arcane, for general public purposes aspect of public financing, each year the Province contributes to a fund a portion of its budget each year in what is called a sinking fund. What that does, in effect, is set aside an amount each year to redeem bonds that the Province has issued in prior years. Most of our borrowing is the issuance of twenty to thirty year bonds from major lenders in North America and elsewhere in the world, places such as Switzerland and Japan in recent experience. A portion, when we pay our interest, we also set aside a certain amount. That amount right now is in the vicinity of $1 billion that is kept invested by the Province from time to time. It is invested primarily in securities which are the bonds of other provinces, the Government of Canada and so on, in fairly, I would say, conservatively managed investment vehicles since we need to ensure that those funds will be on hand to redeem our bonds and obligations as and when they come due.

The words that are to be deleted are `at maturity of that issue'. What that in effect does is allow us, should we have an excess of funds in the sinking fund beyond our obligations to redeem the debt in respect of which those funds have been set aside, to bring those back into general revenue. In other words if we have a bond, for example, of $100 million that is coming due in the next little while, we have set aside funds and our accumulations on it now yield us a figure, for example, of $102 million when we need only $100 million, we would then have the right to take those funds out prior to the bond in respect of which those monies have been set aside becoming due. In the current fiscal year a budgetary figure in excess of $40 million was realized from a surplus that had accumulated in the sinking fund. What this does is provide for the right to government, in any given year, to remove any excess funds from the sinking fund in order to make more efficient and better use of those funds for general public purposes.

That is the intent and effect of section 2 of this, which is an amendment to section 40 of the act. I believe it is a reasonable thing to allow a prudent government that is acting in the best interest of the Province to do so from time to time, and I would commend it to the Legislature for consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are three points that I want to make in this particular piece of legislation, the first one being I think the minister said that the first clause increases to $5,000 the minister can write off. That is not the way it reads, and I am not aware there is any amount at the moment that the minister can write off. I am under the impression that there is no provision in the act for a minister to write off anything, not even $5.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the recommendation of Treasury Board.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: On the recommendation of Treasury Board.

MR. WINDSOR: On the recommendation of Treasury Board, exactly, but this is now the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

MR. WINDSOR: It is still upon the recommendation of Treasury Board, this one is?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, okay, but at the moment there is no provision to write off any taxes, except uncollectible amounts. When they are deemed to be uncollectible –

AN HON. MEMBER: The same thing.

MR. WINDSOR: No, when they are deemed to be uncollectible then the Cabinet can write them off, or Treasury Board writes them off, I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: Treasury Board.

MR. WINDSOR: Treasury Board. Treasury Board then goes to Cabinet. It is done by Treasury Board, but Treasury Board Minutes go to Cabinet for approval afterward, ratification, so this is really giving the minister a power that ministers have never had before. I am not concerned about giving this minister or any future minister power, because from an administrative point of view it probably makes a fair bit of sense. My concern here is opening up the floodgates.

I know when I had the privilege of occupying the minister's seat there were many people who came to my office wanting to have amounts written off. I have to say, it was a great comfort to be able to say: I am sorry; there is no provision in the act for writing anything off. The minister is really making a rod for his own back here by opening it up this much so that now he does have that flexibility, with Treasury Board approval, as my friend points out quite correctly. But if somebody came in with an amount of $800 that was owing and the minister recommends it to Treasury Board they are going to approve it, most likely, unless it is something really outlandish but I don't see the difference here. That is there now; the House Leader indicates to me, that Treasury Board can write it off, government can write it off but to this point in time it was kept on the books for many years before it would be written off.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, that is right. We have debts here on the books for many, many years as collectibles that may never be collected but there are some that somewhere down the road, that person collects, wins a lottery, gets an inheritance or something. The principle always being that people - let me say this, I've said it before, let me say this to the minister, my experience is that people don't mind paying taxes as long as everybody pays their taxes fairly and equally. The problem people find in paying taxes is that there are loopholes, there are those that are getting away, there are those who are playing games and not paying their fair share of the taxes. If everybody is paying fairly and equally then, assuming we are spending the money properly, then people don't object too greatly to it but it is the unfairness and the inequality that is of concern to people. So I would be concerned here, Mr. Speaker, that this is giving the minister a power that he may not want. He would probably be much better off without it because the doors will open very quickly and there will be lots of people lined up looking for amounts to be written off. On the other hand, there have been cases, I had them myself, when there were items before you that were really just a nuisance and it made all kinds of sense - and it needed to be written off, more of an anomaly than anything else.

With respect to Clause 2, Mr. Speaker, all this is, is putting into law now what the government did last year, that they did not have the legal authority to do last year, which was to transfer money from a surplus of a particular sinking fund to current account and this is what they did last year. They transferred $70 million - if I am not mistaken, if my memory serves me correctly - $70 million from the sinking fund surplus and that was on the recommendation of everybody. We went through that debate. So this now changes the law. They had to come in with a special bill last year to do that. Now this bill says that sinking funds, surpluses can be transferred on a regular basis. We don't have to wait until the maturity. I am not sure of the wisdom of that. I suspect now we are going to be taking little bits and pieces from every sinking fund, whatever it might be this year, technically in surplus. Do we have a guarantee that that surplus will remain next year? If the variance of interest rates is not possible that next year we might be in a deficit position and therefore we will have to replace what we took this year. That is something that I would be concerned about.

The question here, Mr. Speaker, is that money was allocated in capital account to pay off those sinking funds and now you are going to take it back and put it in current account. I have the same concern with the sale of capital assets, Mr. Speaker, the sale of Crown corporations. The minister now is in the process of - and he is going to tell us very soon about the sale of the Holiday Inn buildings, the Hotel Building's Corporation and he is going to realize some money. Now all of the money that went in there went in on a capital account. It was a capital expenditure that was put in there yet he is going to sell these buildings and he is going to take the money and put it into current account. It would seem to me if the expenditure -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we don't have current account.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, you do but if it was already spent on capital and it is being gained back from the sale of capital, it would seem to me to make sense to put it - I realize you can put it in current - but it would seem to me to put it into capital. It is going to balance the budget either way unless you took it and applied it against other debt.

MR. ROBERTS: That would be really balancing the budget.

MR. WINDSOR: That would be making sense, if you have built up a surplus but it is a way of - I mean I call this the cooking the books clause because that is what this does. It allows the minister to play with surpluses and sinking funds now. This is giving the minister a new oven, a new microwave that he does not - it does not take him so long now. He does not have to bring in a special piece of legislation every time he has a surplus and he wants to take it out. Now he can do it at any time, take that surplus out of the sinking fund and apply it to his current account and this is what he is going to do. This is why he is so anxious to get this bill through today, I say to the Opposition House Leader. Well he wants this through because he has this big deficit that he has to deal with now over the next week or two. He is afraid to tell us what it is. He knows what it is but he is so embarrassed by it that he is now changing the law here so that he can slip out little bits of other sinking funds, now he does not have to wait.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, no.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, last year he had to come in with a special piece of legislation to do it but now he won't have to because this changes the law so that he can do it at any time. We don't have to wait until the sinking fund matures.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just wonder if the hon. member would -

MR. WINDSOR: Absolutely, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: - give me permission to inform the House of the questions that we have for the adjournment debate at 4:30 p.m.

The first question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Education and Training re: my question on Memorial University's budget. That is the hon. Member for Kilbride.

The second question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation re: my question about accessibility of the Confederation Building. That is the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

The third question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board re: my question about budget projections. That is the hon. Member for Mount Pearl.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've just about completed what I wanted to say, but the point is here that that is what this is doing now. It is giving the minister an opportunity when he gets into trying to decide how he is going to deal with this growing deficit that has been building up there that he is so afraid to tell us about. This is just one of the ways, I suppose, that he is going to find a few million dollars to try to make that look a little better. I hope when he gives us his statement he will tell us if there are any changes in the amount transferred from sinking funds over what was budgeted and what now actually is being proposed by the end of the year.

I say to the minister, we will be watching at the end of the year to see just how much was transferred from the sinking funds, to see when he comes up with his final revised budget at the end of this fiscal year, when he comes in with his new budget. We will see what the new estimate is of how much is going to be transferred.

That is all this is. It is giving the minister a microwave so he can cook the books any time at all in a few seconds all during the course of the year. He doesn't have to wait for his budget. He can shove his numbers in the new microwave, the piece of legislation here, and cook up some numbers very quickly and transfer a few dollars from the sinking fund and try to eliminate the embarrassing deficit that is going to grow. From a government that said there would be no new taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never said that.

MR. WINDSOR: That is what they said in the Budget. I will never forget the former minister standing in his place immediately opposite. He was so proud to say that this was a budget with no deficit, no new taxes, no increases of any kind. Then on the next page he said: But we are going to have a $20 million dividend from Newfoundland Hydro. Now that is not a tax on people. That is cooking it, isn't it?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) federal money for the ferry service (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, (inaudible) just going to borrow from the ferry service, when we had one minister commit that the money was going to be put in trust for the people of the South Coast. That is the kind of trust you get from this government, right? In one hand, out the other just as quick as you can get it. Gone. Fast. Quick as a wink, Mr. Speaker, spent. In trust. That is how good it is. Unfortunately nobody trusts this government any more, and that is why. How can you trust a government? One minister says: We will put it in trust, another minister said: Sorry, I just spent it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They should set up a (inaudible) trust fund.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. Their idea of a trust fund - we found out some letters (inaudible) the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture this afternoon, that is their trust. That is how he is building up his trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, we will see how the minister deals with that when he comes in with his great statement now sometime next week, hopefully. We will see what he does with the revenues that are generated from Hotel Holdings. Of course, he won't get those for a little while anyway, so that is not going to help his immediate problem, I wouldn't think. I will stop there, Mr. Speaker, that is (inaudible).

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is right with regard to the first provision. There is no provision for the minister to write off taxes under the Financial Administration Act. The minister does have power in the Retail Sales Tax Act to write those off. But section 19 does provide for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is of course the whole Cabinet, to meet and decide and to write off those taxes.

The member suggests that it is better off for the minister not to have that discretion. I agree with him to a point. It invests the person who is the Minister of Finance of the day with the task of trying to discriminate as between taxpayers and which ones should have a write-off in what circumstances. I think that it is a sound thing to do provided there is a set of criteria established that is equally applicable to all taxpayers. If there is something I've tried to do since I've been in Finance it is to discern in this particular area, where we now already have jurisdiction such as in retail sales tax, remissions for penalty and interest, to make sure that the decisions we make are comparable and fair to all taxpayers and that frankly is not always easy, and in many cases you have to refuse to remit taxes because those have fallen into a category that is presently allowed even though you think there may be some merit to what people are saying and I think, the thing about any of these sorts of remittances is a whole element of fairness and the fact that every person will be treated similarly in the same circumstance, but having said that, I do believe that in these circumstances it is fair for the government to retain a right to (inaudible) taxes, and ultimately it just depends on where that authority is vested. At present, it is in the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. I think it is probably not advisable to have the Cabinet consider tax remissions under amounts of $5,000 and less and that threshold seems to me appropriate, therefore I would recommend it by legislation to this House.

With regard to the sinking fund, I think the hon. member was making a case that government could finagle the books in some way, take monies out, balance our books this sort of thing. I would point out that, first of all, the Auditor General audits the books of the Province each year. The minister and the department, the government are all accountable for transactions of this sort, were the government of the day to act contrary to fiscal policy and do something that was not warranted by the current state of the sinking fund, then that would be unveiled and revealed by the Auditor General.

I suspect that any Minister of Finance, if it were the hon. member, myself or others would not be party to such a - I am trying to think of a neutral term, I wouldn't say fraud - but such an improper tactic, such an indefensible -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, and I know the member wasn't but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I think the hon. member is suggesting that perhaps a decision to take it at the time might seem right and then circumstances, whether it be falling interest rates or currency exchanges may dictate that that later looks to be not the right decision to make. But the two points that had to be made was, first of all, if one acts imprudently, inadvertently doing actions that are not, later defensible, the Auditor General will very quickly pick that up and I think government would be loathe to act in that fashion.

The second thing of course is that, the more general point being the government's books are all one and the same whether you distinguish between capital and current, your rating agencies consider your total obligations not only your current account deficit but also your obligation to pick up your past debt, the millions and billions of dollars in fact that the Province has issued over previous years and the fact that you have set aside provision for that. It is the same thing with pension funds, so when the fiscal state of the Province is looked at, the assets which the Province holds, liquid and fixed are held against the debt, so even if one takes it out of the sinking fund and applies it elsewhere, all that you do is, you reduce the debts and the assets accordingly. It is just a matter of how they are accounted for.

I do share his concern that one shouldn't take from your future debt provisions and your debt retirement funds, monies to finance your current account but I think it would be apparent in the general view of the books of the Province what the total financial position is. In the end, I don't think that would form any significant danger although there may be disagreement from time to time as to what a prudent amount to subtract from the sinking fund is.

I should say as well that the Province is in the hands of auditors, also trustees who administer the pension funds. We are also governed by people who make investments. I think there are a whole series of persons in a trustee relationship to the Province who would recommend against any imprudent course of action. Having said that, I think that a Minister of Finance would recommend to his colleagues withdrawals from a sinking fund only in circumstances where all the concerned individuals would be of one mind and it was a proper and prudent course of action. So having said that, and taking a fair view of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, I would recommend it to the Legislature as being an appropriate thing to do to amend the Financial Administration Act in this regard.

I therefore move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 15).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we have made remarkable progress, a tribute to my friend the minister and to members Opposite alike. It is now 4:10; my suggestion would be that we deal with a small bill, Bill No. 34, which is Order No. 17 on today's Order Paper. Then, by that time the Scouts will, I hope, have found my friend, the Minister of Environment. I do not know how it is that members seek to get elected to this House and then that is the last they ever see of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Mount Scio tells me that he is available, if need be, and I appreciate that.

Let us deal with Bill No. 34, Mr. Speaker; it is quite a short bill.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act". (Bill No. 34)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say that this bill is inscribed in the name of my friend and colleague, the Minister of Social Services, but in fact this Statute is one for which I have ministerial responsibility and accordingly I stand to move it.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is a very straightforward enactment. It seeks simply to add to the list of those who have the right to apply to court to obtain custody or access to a child, to add to that list the phrase `a grandparent of the child'. Now the effect of this, first of all, I should say, applies only in a situation where the provisions of the Divorce Act of Canada have not come into play.

Members will be aware that divorce and marriage are by law, or by the constitution, the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada in the legislative sense. That phrase is found in section 91. The responsibility for the solemnization of marriage - the legislative authority with respect to that - rests in this Legislature by the provisions of section 92 of the Constitution Act. Parliament has exercised its authority by passing the Divorce Act. I think that is the current name of it. It has been changed a number of times. The last time I had occasion to look was when I was involved in a proceeding as a party, which is not a matter in which I had any expertise while I was in practice, but I did appear, or I was a party to a divorce and had some knowledge in that sense.

Now Parliament has occupied the field and in the exercise of its authority under the constitutional powers granted to it by section 91, has made provision for custody and access in maintenance matters, and in the case of a divorce, or a proceeding under the Divorce Act, the court has the authority to deal with custody matters and with access matters and with maintenance and what have you. That is the ancillary power flowing out of the power vested in Parliament to prescribe the conditions when a divorce may be granted.

Members may remember, before - I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) is a power in the court, not in the act, I say to my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, it is a power in the section 96 court. I am not sure why he and I are saying that to each other -

AN HON. MEMBER: And I have no idea either.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by the Divorce Act is not the only jurisdiction that is exercised by courts in connection with matters of custody and access. There are situations where the Divorce Act does not come into play, and this legislation addresses those situations and those situations only.

First of all, the point I want to make drawing out of that analysis is that this amendment will apply only to matters that fall within the provisions of our Children's Law Act as opposed to matters arising out of provisions of the Divorce Act.

Secondly, that said, these provisions mirror comparable provisions found in the Divorce Act of Canada. That is what I am told. My learned friend from St. John's East may have more knowledge of these matters than I do. If so, I would gladly ask him to correct me, but my sources tell me that the Divorce Act of Canada already allows a grandparent a statutory right to make application to the court.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, this amendment is aimed at addressing a distressing problem that does occur from time to time. A marriage comes asunder. Now, not in a divorce sense. A marriage comes asunder. There are children - i.e., minor children - involved. The parents fall to fighting. The harsh reality of it is that often in those situations the children become objects in the battle. The battle between the parents is visited upon the children. An equally harsh truth is that often grandparents become drawn into it, and a parent with custody sometimes is moved to deny grandparents the right to see their grandchild. We believe that grandparents should have a right to come to the court, to ask the court to make an order to allow them access, or even custody in the appropriate circumstances, to their grandchild or grandchildren.

That is all this amendment does. It does not change - and I want to stress this - the basic test that must be applied by the court. This is the same test that is applied in matters under the divorce act. It does not change the basic test, which is the court must make a determination as to what is in the best interest of the child. If the court decides that it is in the best interest of the child to allow a grandparent access to the grandchild under such conditions as the court....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: When my friends are ready I will carry on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) might take some time.

MR. ROBERTS: That may take some time, I agree. Before my two friends from Ferryland are ready, my two friends from Ferryland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I have only one friend in Ferryland; he is the one behind me.

Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make to the House is that the amendment will not change the basic requirement that the court, in making its determination, shall be influenced only by its decision as to what is in the best interests of the child, or children. That will not change, nor should it change. It is a fundamental cornerstone principle of the law.

I'm not sure how often this section will be used, but it is our judgement that there is a case from time to time, or there is a situation where -

MR. DECKER: If it is only used once it will be worth it.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend the Minister of Education and Training says if it is only used once it is worth it. I would agree with him. I would hope the House would accept the principle of the bill by giving it second reading, and I commend it to the House on that basis. Thank you, Sir.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to spend a few moments on this bill at second reading, An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act, by adding the right of a grandparent of a child to be a party to a proceeding for custody or access.

As the minister has said, it merely codifies for statutory courts, in particular the Provincial Court in Newfoundland, the right that already exists in the Supreme Court either under the divorce act or under what is known as the inherent jurisdiction of the court to deal with matters having to do with children.

In this Province before the introduction of the Children's Law Act and on cases outside of the divorce act the court had an ancient procedure under habeas corpus. You would actually bring an action of habeas corpus to the court in order to have the court decide what would happen to a child. Habeas corpus is usually used in criminal law to get people out of jail who have been wrongfully incarcerated or wrongfully arrested. But in this jurisdiction that is what was used. I will give you an example why sometimes it is necessary to spell these things out.

At one time, not too long ago, ten years or so ago, I represented the father of a child who was seeking to have custody determined of his child, a child of him and a woman with whom he had been living but not married.

MR. EFFORD: There is nothing wrong with that.

MR. HARRIS: There is nothing wrong with that I say to the Member for Port de Grave. If people want to make that choice that's their choice, but if the minister is prepared to listen I will tell him the story. The child actually had the name of the father. It was registered in the father's name, the birth was registered as the child of both the mother and the father, but with the father's last name, and when the father sought an application in the court to have the issue of custody decided by a Newfoundland court, the mother, through her lawyer, actually made an argument that the father had no right under the law to seek custody of this child because he was not married to the mother.

That was the application that was made. It did not last very long but it will give you an idea of the kind of arguments that are sometimes made in courts when you do not have a legislative support for what is by most people agreed to be a proper way of dealing with issues having to do with custody and access. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland already has, whether it is a divorce case or not, the right to decide issues of custody and access to a grandparent.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I do not know if that is true. You can make any application you want I say to the minister, under the inherent right, under the habeas corpus provisions of the common law, the right to have the court and the jurisdiction that relies on the court to deal with children under what I referred to as the (inaudible). It is the Latin for the parent of the country. The judge of the Supreme Court has that right.

There are lots of circumstances where a grandparent might have reason to go to a court to deal with issues having to do with a grandchild. It may be because the custodial parent, or parents, are not capable of looking after the child and that a grandparent would want to have a decision made. It may be that the child was left with the grandparents and the daughter or the son went off somewhere else and the grandparent had been raising the child for one, two, three, four, or five years, and the daughter or the son came back home and wanted to take their daughter and the grandparent generally believes that it is not in the best interest of the child to be taken away from the home they have known for four, five, or six years, and that they may believe that even their own daughter is not capable of providing an adequate home for the child and just wants to take the child out of some misguided notion, or some spite, or some kind of ownership, but not based on the best interest of the child.

Circumstances like that arise all too often, I say to hon. members, and all too often there are circumstances where a child having been born may be abandoned to a grandparent for several years while the son or daughter goes off to do something else. There needs to be an opportunity for grandparents to have as a right, written down in a piece of legislation, as a right to make an application. Now some might say that this is not necessary. If one reads the section that deals with it here, all the section talks about is who may be party to an application. It mentions such other persons who may have an interest and grandparents could be included in that. I think there is a desire here for greater certainty at least, to spell out that grandparents under The Children's Law Act, have a right of their own to bring an application or be party to an application that may be already brought, by asking to be added as a party or by intervening to have their say and to have perhaps a separate order made to suit them.

It sometimes occurs, Mr. Speaker, that a couple who is splitting up, sometimes the custodial parent may be reluctant to give access to the parents of the non-custodial parent, the in-laws, let's say. There may be a fear that the in-laws would try to control the circumstances. There may be a dislike for the other side of the family but on the other hand the courts, in the best interest of the child, will often recognize that a child indeed has a right to have a relationship with the grandparents, to know them and to have, within the bounds of the best interest of the child, an opportunity to know and appreciate both sides of a child's family. So it may be just an access issue. On the other hand, it may be as important as custody and lots of circumstances arise where the grandparents may have something to say or may want to ensure that included in an order is provision for them to have access.

It may be, for example, the parents of a son whose child is the one involved in this, that the son and the daughter-in-law split up and the son goes off somewhere else, goes to the States or goes to Alberta. He does not bother to make an application for custody, does not bother to make any provision in a separation agreement or otherwise to ensure even his own access to the children. The parents of the estranged husband or father may wish to continue to have a relationship with the child of their son and the daughter-in-law or the mother of the child, as the case may be, may be resisting that. There may or may not be legitimate reasons for resisting that but the question is whether or not the grandparents in those circumstances have the right to have the court decide whether or not it is reasonable for the mother of the child, for example, to be resisting the grandparental relationship with the children.

So there are lots of circumstances, I say to the Member for Port de Grave, lots of circumstances where a provision is required to allow grandparents to play a role in the bringing up of their grandchildren. As I look around the House, Mr. Speaker, I see a number of grandparents. I am sure if the circumstances arose whereby a grandchild of a member was, for some reason the mother or father of that child was preventing a member or an individual from having an involvement with and a relationship with a grandchild, they would want to have the right, at least, to have it independently determined, as to what exactly the rights were for the grandparent with respect to the child. I guess I should not say the grandparent's right with respect to the child. I should not say that although it is quite often written that way. It really is the right of the child. The right of the child to have a relationship with the parents and the right of the child to have a relationship with the grandparents. It is really the rights of the child that are being determined here. It is only the right of the grandparent to make an application so that the rights of that child can be determined.

Those are all the remarks that I would have on this section. I think it deserves support. I think it is necessary to ensure that the law is well understood and that grandparents who find themselves in the circumstance would have it spelled out that they have an absolute right at least to bring an application and have that application heard by the court so that they might, under appropriate circumstances, have an order to which they are a party and spelling out the rights of access that would arise in the circumstances. I see -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is 4:30 p.m.

MR. HARRIS: - that the time is up and I would adjourn debate.

Debate on the Adjournment

[Late Show]

MR. SPEAKER: It is Thursday, 4:30 p.m., and we commence the debate for adjournment. I call on the hon. Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Friday morning in the House I had asked questions to the Minister of Education and Training regarding potential cutbacks to Memorial University, a 10 per cent to 15 per cent cutback that could amount to $17 million to $25 million. A very serious issue dealing with potential services, potential course offerings, and in fact the very integrity of Memorial University as we know it could be in jeopardy.

The minister responded in the House that day that he could neither confirm nor deny it, but outside the House indicated that due to a lack of transfer payments coming from Ottawa, the nature of decentralization, federal spending power being decreased and passed on to the provinces, that this may in fact happen. He did not confirm the actual per cent or the actual amount of money that would be hauled back from Memorial.

Since that time, that same weekend, the president of the University, Dr. Art May, at a convocation address indicated that Memorial University would face some serious times ahead in terms of its financial stability if it intended to offer the courses and if it intended to provide the same services as it does today.

In responding to, and having my question on the Late Show, it gives another opportunity I guess to further debate what the future holds for Memorial, and what it holds for thousands of students who intend on pursuing a post-secondary education, furthering themselves in a hope to gain a better livelihood in the future, to further get more skills that would put them in a more advantageous position than those who do not. Over the last week we have seen in this gallery student leaders and students in general from Memorial coming here, listening to debates, listening to questions asked, listening to questions being answered. We still today as the House of Assembly, as members in it, have not had any serious debate on the future of Memorial University and what the future actually holds.

There have been calls from the student union last week to the government to put in place a task force that would look at the future viability of Memorial. What does it hold? What offerings, what courses, can it provide? Will it be a smaller institution? Will the number of degree programs that we now offer, will that number decrease? Will there be a satellite campus at Sir Wilfred Grenfell? Will there be a satellite campus at St. Pierre for the French school? Will there be a satellite campus at Harlow in England? These are the questions that many students and many administrators, I say to the House and to members opposite, and to members on this side, are asking.

There are indeed challenging times ahead. There are members in the House who have taught at Memorial, who know the system there, who know what it is like to be in administration, who know what it is like to be professors, who know what it is like to deal with students first-hand, and people who have offered themselves and taught great skills to teachers who are now out in the school system teaching.

I guess the real question that must be posed to the government in terms of the pending cuts to Memorial is this: What will the University look like two to four years from now? Is government going to take a more activist role on behalf of the people of this Province who have much to lose in terms of trying to help determine, to be a partner in determining, what Memorial will look like? Not a director or a producer role should government play, but will they be a partner in assisting Memorial administration, faculty, staff and students, in determining what courses they will offer and what services they will provide as compared to what they did provide over the last ten years? Has the government seriously considered that?

In today's paper the President of the University called for a very similar sort of approach. He talked about asking the government to spread the pain of the funding cuts over a three-year period to give Memorial time to look at itself, to look inward and decide what type of university they wish to be. He has called for students, faculty, staff, everyone at Memorial, to come to the table with a view: forget what Memorial University looks like today; forget about the courses it offers today, and let's talk about what the future holds, what type of university - pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I would just like to conclude by saying: What type of university will it be? What courses will we offer? And will we still be able to offer to the students of this Province, to people who wish to avail of courses at university to get post-secondary education, will accessibility still be available to them?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to create an issue where no issue exists. He starts talking about the $17 million, $20 million, $25 million that the President was supposed to talk about in one of the speeches that he made. I have here in front of me the speech that Dr. May made at the convocation, the speech in which Dr. May was supposed to say we are going to lose $10 million. Let me read the words. Here is Dr. May.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the minister wishes to be factual then he certainly would know that I did not refer to Dr. May saying there would be a cut of $10 million or $17 million. I did not say that, and the minister knows that.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: Of course, there is no point of order; he just can't take the truth; that's all it is.

Mr. Speaker, here is what Dr. May says: `I would not normally stick my neck out to predict what our grant from government would be in the next fiscal year, and I am not going to do that now. What I am going to do,' he said, `is give some "for examples" - for example calculations.' He says, `Let us consider, for example, the consequences of a reduction of 10 per cent.' He didn't say there would be a 10 per cent, but let's consider the consequences. `Given the fact that our operating grant from government has been stable, or declining for the past several years, and that we have not yet been able to make the kinds of internal adjustments necessary to accommodate further reduction, we have not yet learned how to grow smaller. We could only cope by a combination of one or more of the following scenarios.'

He goes on to say: `If there were a 10 per cent cut, what could we do? What we could do is increase fees by 50 per cent. That would fix it, as simple as that. It is very simple, isn't it? Or, we could cut the salary of all the employees by 12.5 per cent. Or, a faculty and staff reduction of about 400 from the current total of about 3,000 would also do it.'

Listen to the next sentence, Mr. Speaker. `None of these alternatives are acceptable or even workable in the short time frame we would have. Yet, some combination of them would have to be the major means of accommodating such a shortfall.'

Mr. Speaker, this speech was made by a person in whom I have absolute confidence. He knows the reality. He knows, like the hon. member, he looked at the front page today and saw the declining enrolment. A few years ago Memorial University had 17,453 students, today 15,302.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: A little over 15,000 today. If the present trend continues, by the turn of the century there will be somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 students in Memorial University.

This year, there are 8,700 who will graduate from Grade XII. A few years ago 11,000 were graduating from high school. So the reality is that we have declining enrolment in the school system as well as in the post-secondary institutions. That has to be dealt with. Now, coupled with that is the fact that transfer payments from the Federal Government to Newfoundland are decreasing. Coupled with that, we are in difficult times ourselves, because this administration has been six years trying to clean up the mess that we found. Just think, Mr. Speaker, what we could have done, if we had $25 million which will never be paid off in our lifetime, which was wasted and blown in Sprung, think what $25 million could have done for the students at Memorial University, Mr. Speaker.

If we had the cost of this Cucumber Recipe Book which the previous members printed when they were in power, the cost of that Cucumber Recipe Book, Mr. Speaker, could have provided at least one university course. Think what we could do with the $530 million in interest that year after year for the next 150 years, the people of this Province will have to pay. We give Memorial University $100 million a year - $110 million a year; we are paying $530 million on a debt which was run up by political patronage, paving roads to cabins up in the woods, Mr. Speaker, looking after the neighbours, taking the hospital plane and flying furniture from Deer Lake to St. John's for a certain member.

Mr. Speaker, after seventeen years of misuse of government money, we are left to deal with that mess and try to clean it up. If the hon. member's party hadn't wasted so much money and practically put this Province into bankruptcy - we got here in the nick of time to save this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rose today in Question Period and posed a question or questions to the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on what I consider to be a very serious issue. The minister made light of the issue, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker. He brought out his arrogance and definitely the full length of his capabilities in dealing with the issue. I say to the minister, time and time again, I have watched in this House your arrogance but you certainly beat all bets today when you stood up to answer the question that I put forward to you today.

Mr. Speaker, the request to use the foyer in Confederation Building did come to the people in the minister's department. I can't understand why the minister would expect a phone call to come to him personally, I mean, that's what you have people employed for, I say to the minister. A request came, and the request was denied by Mr. Conway. Mr. Conway denied the request for those people to come, Mr. Speaker, into the foyer.

I was out last night in the cold, Mr. Speaker, and it was hard to take the cold out on the steps of Confederation Building last night but the minister couldn't take the heat here in the House of Assembly today when it came to putting this question forward. Mr. Speaker, these are concerns that were brought forward to me by telephone today, by people from all over the Province. The minister can laugh, sure, the minister finds everything funny and he stands up then in the House of Assembly and says: Compare my record with your record.

I have no problem to follow your record. I wouldn't want to follow your record, I say to the minister - a dismal failure from day one, a dismal failure, I say to the minister. He had to get down on his hands and knees to the Premier after a couple years of disgrace.

I say to the Minister of Education, your record is not very good either, so don't you talk.

Mr. Speaker, I put forward the concern today because I was looking - if the minister had been a man today and taken this issue seriously, as I wished he would, he would have got up, admitted that somebody within his department made a mistake, and apologized to those people. He took off first and blamed me. I didn't know about the rally until I watched the news yesterday evening, I say to the minister. Then, when that didn't work, he took off and blamed the organization. Right here in Question Period today, he blamed the organization, those people who stood out there last night trying to get a message to this government that wouldn't listen, he blamed the organization for the fault in not making the phone call, when the phone did come to the minister's department, the request was denied by Mr. Conway and those people were told to stay outside on the steps of Confederation Building and get their point across.

Now, the minister is going to get up in a few minutes and he is going to ballyrag me, he is going to take me on personally; that's what the minister is going to do when he gets up, he is not going to deal with the issue. I know what the minister is going to do when he gets up, I have seen here for the past two-and-a-half years what the minister is going to do. But I say to the minister, this issue is serious. It deserves serious consideration by a minister. It does not deserve the callous attitude that the minister displayed here in Question Period today, I say to all members opposite.

There were people from my own district out on the steps last night who could not believe they were left outside. Then the minister gets up and tries to look for somebody to blame. There is no one to blame for what happened last night only the minister himself, for the strict orders he gives. He has people working for him who are frightened to death, I say to the minister. They are frightened to death, they can't bend a little. And the minister expected a phone call straight into his office, when that is why you have people working for you, I say to the minister.

I ask the minister again, in all sincerity, to stand up and admit that somebody within his department made a mistake. Be a man, I say to the minister, not a wimp, be a man, get up, admit that somebody in your department made a mistake, apologize to this organization and assure us that as long as you are the minister this will not happen again to this organization or any organization of that kind. That is a simple, straight question I ask of the minister. Stand up and be a man, I say to the minister, and not a wimp.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I apologize for, and I apologize to this Province, for us on this side allowing some of those Tories over there to be elected. That is the only thing I will apologize for, because we need to apologize to the Province for that. For the hon. member to get up here in this House this afternoon in Question Period and then come back this time in the afternoon not accepting the answer I gave.

The answer was very simple. We have a security policy in place in this building, that after 7 o'clock in the evening, all doors in the building are locked. That means, for anybody except those people who have permission through employment and have passes to get into the building, a phone call in advance, while planning to come to the Confederation Building, would have been sufficient for us to make an exemption in this particular case if they needed to get into the building.

AN HON. MEMBER: A phone call was made.

MR. EFFORD: No phone call came to my office or to my Assistant Deputy Minister, in advance, except while it was in action, after they appeared here on the steps of the Confederation Building, and my Director of Security followed the rules we have set down, that there are to be no demonstrations by the public without prior notice being given.

The hon. member knows that full well, and if he was aware of this in advance he should have had the decency to advise people or make the phone call himself. All he wanted to do was play small time politics with it. All those individuals know full well that all they had to do was phone me and I would have given them permission. Simple as that, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going to debate it any further. Just let him go away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a wimp, boy!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I was going to debate with the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board the issue of the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're shirking your responsibilities!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: The minister and I have had some conversations -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I've recognized the hon. Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: The minister and I have had some conversations on what he is doing and when he proposes to come in with some information. In view of that I would like to withdraw the question. I don't want to debate just for the sake of debating. It would be much more productive when the minister has his information put together.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I take it the question has been withdrawn and all that. Before we adjourn let's look at the business for tomorrow.

We will carry on with Bill No. 34. That is the Children's Law Act amendment. We will hear I assume the point of my speech from my learned friend for St. John's East. He had twenty minutes but had not yet got to the point, so.... We will carry on with that bill. If we conclude that we will go on with Order No. 20, which is an amendment to the waste material disposal act and the summary proceedings act. My friend the Minister of Environment will deal with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Order No. 17, Order No. 20, and should we be so fortunate as to get on through that we will deal with Order No. 11, which is the tobacco control act amendment. My friend the Minister of Health will deal with that. Should we get through all that we will tackle what is to date the largest bill on the Order Paper, at least in number of pages, and that is Order No. 19, Bill No. 28, the consolidation of the credit union act. That will no doubt give people like my friend for Ferryland the opportunity to dazzle us with his knowledge. Does my friend for Grand Bank have note of those four bills?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: We will finish Order No. 17; then do Order Nos. 20, 11 and 19 in that order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty, 11 and (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: And 19. Should we get through those, that is a bridge we will cross when we come to it. We will not of course ask the House to sit beyond noon tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday we propose to ask the House to deal with the regulatory reform bill, and that is Order No. 7 on today's Order Paper. That is a bill that the Premier will introduce into the House on Monday afternoon.

With that said, Mr. Speaker - the record should note that my friend from Burin - Placentia West is absent and accordingly there is no badinage today. There is nobody to feed me straight lines. Byrne seconds is in the wings but he has awhile to wake yet, Mr. Speaker, before he can (inaudible).

With that said I will move the House adjourn until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

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