November

18, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 64

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Premier. Back in July, in fact, on July 9 1991, the Cabinet issued a directive

identified as Minute-in-Council 106691 - I have a copy here if he wishes to see

it - which concerns the financing of capital projects such as the construction

of public buildings.

Now, according to that Minute, Cabinet authorized lease

financing for capital projects: `Where it is available at an equivalent or lower

cost than the Province's capital market cost.' I would like to ask the Premier,

is he familiar with that Cabinet directive and is that still the policy of the

government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will take a look at the full Cabinet

directive, Mr. Speaker, and provide an answer.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. I suspect when the Premier

gets a chance to glance at the Minute it will probably come back to him. The

second question, therefore, that I would like to ask the Premier is: Was this

directive followed with regard to the lease financing arrangements for the

health care centres at St. Lawrence, Port Saunders and Burgeo?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me answer his first question first.

Whether or not this is the policy or it remained for how long the policy I can

only determine by examining the records of Minutes since that time. Whether it

applied to the health projects, I would have to ask the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board. He knows the answer. I could ask him to tell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

will recall, no doubt, that the tenders for these three health care centres were

awarded on 13 November 1991 which, in fact, was only four months after Cabinet

had set the conditions on leased financing arrangements.

Now, I ask the Premier: Did any of the lease arrangements

proposed by the companies that tendered on these health care centres meet that

criteria? In other words, were any of the leasing arrangements tendered at an

equivalent or lower cost than the Province's capital market cost?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I know the method of the

Opposition to laugh as though it is intelligent comment on an issue. I can only

say to the Leader of the Opposition that my recollection is at that time a

committee of Cabinet dealt with all of these issues, of which the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board, I believe, was a member, or the chairman - I don't

know which - a member, so I am quite happy to let the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board answer the question, because he knows the answer - I don't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this issue hasn't exactly been a

low-key issue, so I would have expected the Premier to be a little bit more

familiar with it, and have a better recollection of the situation. The fact of

the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the leasing arrangements, in our view, weren't

followed, and I will tell the Premier why.

The former Deputy Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation wrote to the then acting minister on 13 November - that very day

- 1991, and in that letter, a copy of which I have for the Premier, if somebody

would be kind enough to pass it over to him, she told the minister: `I have been

advised consistently by the Department of Finance that the financing costs of

these proposals are higher than the Province's borrowing rate, in other words,

not equal to nor lower as per the Cabinet order.

I would like to ask the Premier, as the leader of the

government: Why did the government then proceed to award tenders for these

health care centres when the financing arrangements proposed, in fact, by all

bidders violated Cabinet's own directive?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, there are a number of comments that need to be

made. There were a couple of different Cabinet directives related to that, and

they all had the same thing in common, that was, any arrangement that was made

must be something that was similar to, or better than what the Province itself

could do in terms of financing. They all had the same thing in common. The

arrangement that was ultimately reached, indeed met all the conditions of these

Minutes in Council, every single condition. In terms of the letter to which the

hon. gentleman refers, and I know that is what added some confusion here, the

deputy minister at the time was simply mistaken in that comment, but the advice

from the Department of Finance was not that all of these proposals were higher

than what the Province could do.

The Province, over the past number of years in terms of its

long-term borrowing, has had to pay anywhere from I guess ninety-five to 135

basis points above the Bank of Canada long-term rate, and that varies depending

upon the circumstances. The deal that we ultimately reached was 100 basis points

above the long-term Bank of Canada rate which was better than we could have done

ourselves at that time, so our rate varies, sometimes it is as high as 135 basis

points above the Bank of Canada long-term rate, so one of the proposals that was

submitted did in fact fit, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating of

course, the deal that was ultimately reached was better than the Province could

have done at that point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

wonder, would the minister proceed to tell us which one was found not to be

breaking the Cabinet directive, which proposal is he talking about?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: As the hon. gentleman knows, the deal was done

between government and a group called Trans City Holdings.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answers fly in the

face of other evidence that is available and he knows it, he is aware of it. The

fact of the matter is that you accepted a financing arrangement for these

centres that exceeded the government's cost of borrowing at the time. That is

the reality and the minister won't be prepared to - so, Mr. Speaker, I want to

get this on the record and accurately. Is the minister saying that the Province

will not pay more to lease and purchase those facilities than it would have paid

if government had borrowed the money and built the centres directly, no extra

cost at all as a result of the deal they reached? No extra cost over the

thirty-year life of the lease on those three properties? Is that what the

minister is trying to convince us of here this morning?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, and I can only

tell the truth. In terms of the proposals -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the minister who is to my

immediate left.

MR. BAKER: In terms of the proposals the effective

interest rates, and I will not name the companies but I will just read them out,

were 11.35, 11.2, 11.375, 12.95, 11.174 and another one at 11.35. We ultimately

did a deal at 9.41 per cent interest rate which at the time was better than we

could have done ourselves.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: I have just a couple of final short questions.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain, because it was his deputy minister that

wrote this letter, she did not just make a mistake on one occasion, her quote

is, `I have been advised consistently by the Department of Finance, that the

financing costs of these proposals are higher than the Province's borrowing

rate.' Why would she be advised consistently of this fact by the Department of

Finance?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman himself has

been in government and he must realize that human beings make mistakes and an

error was made. An error was made and that can be easily proven. It is simply a

matter of going back and checking and seeing what the Government of

Newfoundland's borrowing rate was at the time and the hon. gentleman can do

that. Go and check and see what the borrowing rate was at that point in time and

if in fact the government's rate was lower than 100 basis points above the long

term bond rate, a thirty year rate, the Bank of Canada rate, then he would be

right but in fact our spread was greater than that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We shall see as we

probe this issue further. What I would like to ask the minister to do is table

for us any correspondence or any memos that were put in place by his officials,

back during that time when they assessed these proposals, where they said either

that it was not consistent with the Cabinet directive, that it would cost more

or where they told him in writing that it would not cost more. I would like him

to table those documents if he would and tell us if he will table the documents.

Secondly, I would like to ask him: the Premier referred to a

Cabinet committee, it was a Cabinet committee that dealt with this matter.

MS. VERGE: Was Tom Hickman on the committee?

MR. SIMMS: What I would like to know from the minister

is, who were the other three ministers, who were the other three Cabinet

ministers who sat on that committee with the minister? Either the Premier or the

Minister of Finance could answer that question.

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

MR. BAKER: If I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, it was

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the Minister of Justice, the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and myself.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the minister responsible for wildlife

and I guess I am addressing this as the Member for Green Bay and also as the

industry critic for the Opposition.

In my district I have a local company, Newfoundland Souvenir

Manufacturing, run by Gerald and Daphne Foote of Beachside. They are in the

business of making souvenirs from cured moose antler. That business came into

being with much assistance from government. It was financed by ACOA based on

assurances from the Wildlife Division of this provincial government that there

is sufficient raw material for them to produce their product for the market.

The crafts division of this particular provincial government

promotes the products and advertises them in its crafts magazine that they send

around to fairs, etc., and actually went to work and got orders, even overseas,

as far away as the United Kingdom for this particular company, Mr. Speaker.

Having detailed such an intimate relationship between this company and

government I ask the minister responsible for wildlife why his officials charged

one of the principals, Mrs Foote, with having illegally obtained moose antler?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This case is before the courts. It is a legal matter. The law

was broken and it will be dealt with through the courts.

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

MR. HEWLETT: It is good to know that the minister has

already prejudged this matter. The fact of the matter is, as I pointed out, that

this government actively fostered this company into being and supported the fact

that moose antler was going through their shop for years without any particular

permits, so I am asking the minister when he is going to act to put this company

on a legal basis so that they can buy moose antler through regular channels

without having to worry about being harassed by officials of your department?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, right now it is illegal to buy

or to sell big game animal parts. It is illegal to buy or sell big game animal

parts. It has always been and until the law is changed it will always be. I will

give an example for this year. Our wildlife officers in the woods south of

Gander Lake this year found three black bears, side by side, probably butchered

because someone wanted some big game parts. This year in the woods of Central

Newfoundland we found a huge bull moose with nothing gone except his antlers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame!

DR. GIBBONS: We cannot have our big game animals

destroyed because people may be out there buying and selling. Right now that is

the law. We do not buy or sell. In the meantime, if people can get by legal

means moose antlers or caribou antlers or other things by legal means, then this

company can continue. In the meantime the situation is before the courts and the

courts will decide the case.

MR. HEWLETT: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, moose antler

can be obtained through legal means, through jumping through a whole bunch of

bureaucratic hurdles which make it very impossible for anybody to be into a

commercial business. Let me put my last question to the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology. His department fostered, sponsored, breathed the breath of

economic life into this particular company and helped it go, using so-called

illegal moose antler for a better part of five years. I would like the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology, the one supporting small business in this

Province, to say just what he thinks of this mess that this government has

gotten these people into.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite

straightforward. We promote business, we don't promote breaching the law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

address a question to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Did he

consult with the auto insurance industry before he decided to do away with

mandatory inspections for private vehicles? Did you say to them, sir: Here is

what we plan to do. Will insurance costs increase if we do it?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: No.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister able

or prepared to assure the people of this Province that auto insurance will not

go up as a result of his decision?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to

prejudge what auto insurance companies will or will not do over the next year,

but I can say this very clearly. In the Province of Ontario, with a population

of between six -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: In the province of....

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, Mr. John Nolan of the Insurance Bureau of Canada

said in a media interview that insurance rates will go up as a result of the

minister's decision, because there will be more accidents in this Province. He

said there will be more unfit vehicles on the road, leading to more accidents,

that will lead to more claims, that will lead to an increase in premiums. He

denies everything the minister said, and condemned it.

Will the minister postpone his changes until he and the

people of this Province are fully informed of the impact it may have on safety

and on insurance costs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: No.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the

Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Now that the government has finally selected a site for the

construction of the Cabot 500 building, would the minister confirm to the House

today that this long drawn out process, this foot dragging by government, has

already cost the taxpayers of this Province in excess of $150,000; and would the

minister table in the House the expenditures thus far?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

question from the hon. member with respect to the issue.

It was only, I think, a day or so ago that along with my

colleague, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, we announced

publicly that we have now secured a new site for the proposed Caboto Centre, the

legacy building that we are trying to put in place to commemorate 500 years of

the discovery of our Province by the white European community and so on.

With respect to work that had been done before in a previous

selection process, all of these things, as hon. members opposite know and

everybody understands, do require the expenditures of some money for planning,

consulting, some design work, and those types of things, and the initial budget

that was approved for that for this year, because we knew we were going to

undertake these endeavours, was a budget originally of $150,000. I will check

and see exactly how much of that money has been expended, and for what purposes,

and I will undertake to do that.

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

Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, now that the site has been

selected, when does the minister foresee the letting of tenders for the removal

of the old buildings in the Fort Townshend site, and the letting of tenders for

the design of the new building? Will there be swift action by this minister to

ensure that the tendering documents are prepared as quickly as possible so that

work can soon begin?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The process is under way even as we speak today in terms of

now looking at exactly how we can make this triple complex fit into the block of

land on which it will be hopefully located. The decisions will be made by

government once we have a report back from our consultants and our design group

in terms of how to best utilize that piece of land, and what kind of structure

can be placed there.

It is not determined yet, and we don't know at this point in

time, how many of the existing buildings will have to be removed - one, some or

all of them. That work is ongoing, and as soon as we are in a position to do

that, there is another step, I might advise all hon. members, that we have to go

through yet before we go to tender and so on, and that is for us to have the

final discussion with the federal government as to the arrangements for funding

for this particular complex in terms of... The range that has been in the public

domain before is that the whole thing would cost somewhere in the range of $40

million, hopefully less, and that it certainly wouldn't be inordinate to budget

$150,000 or maybe even more than that, to do some careful planning to make sure

that we get the best value for the money that is going to be spent.

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

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the 1997 celebrations are

drawing nearer each day. This government has been lax in their efforts to secure

a site for this facility so that Newfoundland and Labrador can take full

advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity.

I am sure that the construction industry in this Province

could have this building ready for 1997 if the government has its house in order

with regard to design and engineering.

Recent reports have shown that government does not believe

that the facility will be ready for 1997. Mr. Speaker, where there is a will

there is a way. I ask the minister today, are you serious about this, sir, and

if you are will you pull out all the stops to assure the completion of this

facility, by 1997, so this Province can take full advantage of this opportunity?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I think the inference

should be put in context so that we do not try to play any political games with

this issue either in terms of rushing or blaming us for dragging our heels or

those kinds of things. Maybe if I could answer the question by referencing in

this fashion that we are trying to put in place a structure that will be a

lasting legacy for the next hundreds and hundreds of years that we are here to

celebrate the fact that we have already had 500 established years of history.

The objective is clear, we would like to have the structure

completed and ready for 1997 to commemorate that 500th year but it is not being

built just for that 500th year in 1997. It will serve the needs of the archives,

the gallery and the museum for years and years into the future. We will do the

best possible job if everything can come in place and it can be built, finalized

and opened by 1997, some time in 1997, that would certainly be the preferred

course, that is what all of our energies to date have gone into trying to

accomplish. If for some good reason 1997 is not an attainable date and the

structure itself is not completed and not opened until 1998, 1999 or the Year

2000, then I think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would still be well served

at any point in time that we can secure this new structure to put those three

facilities together for the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. The question relates to the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program

for 1995-96 and what is asked, primarily as a district question, certainly has

relevance to all municipalities throughout the Province. Can the minister advise

the House as to the date of the announcement of the approved projects for

municipal applications submitted under the second phase of the

Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program and include the total value of all

the applications and also the amount of money which is available for the second

phase?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The total number of applications to date run almost upwards

to $200 million. The amount left in the program is less than $20 million. I have

to say less than $20 million because I am not sure if it is $10, $20 or $15

million. The problem with that is that a number of projects are coming in way

over budget. I guess with the amount of work that was offered to the

construction industry in the Province this year and the engineering firms,

because of the amount of work that is out there, prices tend to creep up and

that is true we found all across Canada.

The second phase and when it will be announced, Mr. Speaker,

I have a personal problem in my department insofar as last year, if you

remember, we allowed a number of communities in the Province - I think it was

something around 114 - to make arrangements with us to pay down their debt to

the Newfoundland and Labrador Financial Corporation. Out of the 114, I believe

there were something like 108 that actually made agreements with us. As of

today, out of that 108, a large number of that group have not fulfilled that

commitment to the Province in taking care of last years NLFC debt. Therefore, it

is the wishes of my department - and I have also consulted our federal

counterparts on this - that we will hold off until the end of this year,

December 31, so that we will have a better idea of what communities in the

Province would qualify for the second round.

I am going to stick to that because basically there has been

commitments made to the government and to my department that that would be taken

care of. We still have a month-and-a-half left in the year and I know there are

going to be communities rushing when they hear this, to pay this debt. Hopefully

we can get all those commitments honoured and then at that particular point in

time, we will make a decision. So you are looking at early 1995 before the

second round will be announced.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he

would remember comments made at the time of the awarding or the decisions on

Phase I to the effect that he assured those municipalities who did not receive

their fair capita allocations in Phase I - for example, the Cities of Mount

Pearl and St. John's - that they would be treated more equitably in Phase II. I

know the minister made similar comments to other municipalities. I'm wondering

if the minister can comment on, and give assurances to these municipalities,

which did not receive their fair per capita allocations of phase I, that they

will be treated more equitably in phase II.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't make that commitment,

The projects that are applied for will be run through the system of environment

and health and all the other criteria that we use. In the end, when we sit down

and make a decision on where we are going to put money in the Province, it will

be based on need. I can't say that I'm going to give Mount Pearl or St. John's

or anywhere else in the Province preference. I don't think that any of the

larger communities demand any more than any of the smaller communities, but I

will admit to you that there were areas of the Province that based on population

probably got less money. But the criteria of the old program were certainly not

based on population.

The hon. member knows full well that there are communities

around this Province that don't have a drop of decent drinking water. What is

more important to the hon. member or to me? I would rather see a decent drinking

system, water system, or sewerage system put into rural Newfoundland before I

would go and spend money on who knows what in other rural or urban areas of the

Province. I think the hon. member understands that. He was born in a rural

district, he understands that. I can appreciate the fact that he is trying to

get those few extra dollars for his district, Mount Pearl, and we all I suppose

ultimately try to do the best for our own districts. Thank you.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I'm merely repeating the

commitments that the minister made to those member municipalities when he said

that he would undertake to treat these municipalities more fairly in the second

phase of the federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program.

Given the fact that we have between $12 million and $20

million left - I'm led to understand it is nearer to $12 million than it is to

$20 - therefore I want to ask the minister: Will he undertake a commitment to

further increase the provincial capital works program so that next year we will

have a return to the municipal capital works program the level of funding that

we had previously? I say that meaning the provincial share of the capital works

program for municipalities. Only $12 million left, that is not very much.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me say that there was $147

million announced last year through the infrastructure program which was

basically made up of three components. We like to refer to it as $150 million

because we round it off at $50 million evenly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: What did I say? Out of the $150 million

program, Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure that my hon. colleagues on the other side

understand, the provincial government will be, it looks right now, responsible

for up to $100 million of that $150 million. A large number of communities in

the Province cannot afford to pay their share towards this, so the Province is

picking up, over a two-year period, of approximately, could be up to as much as

$100 million. Which basically means, if you divide that both ways, it is $50

million a year. A capital works program of $50 million a year is not too bad

when you consider that it wasn't until 1989 that the capital works program

almost doubled. In 1988 it was $25 million. This government moved it up to $56

million in just that one year and have been going up ever since.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I will say to the hon. member that we are not

in a position yet, and we won't be in a position until we start the budgetary

process in my department, and I guess overall in government, to discuss whether

or not this government will put, on top of the $50 million we have to put next

year into that program, more money for capital construction. When that time

comes I'm certainly sure someone around the table, be it me or some other

minister, will discuss that option. Until we get into the budgetary process I

can't make that comment and I can't make that commitment to the hon. member.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

House sixteen students from Academy Canada on Kenmount Road, accompanied by

their instructor, Mr. Kerry Olinskie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have here the official or

final report of the 1993 Electoral Boundaries Commission dated June 1994, and I

rise to table it in the House in conformity with the requirements of the

legislation. I have only one copy - of course, the report was made public

shortly after it was received, every member of the House has been provided with

a copy and copies have been made available to the press and to anybody who wants

it; so I rise simply to conform with the legislation.

May I have just a moment to say what has happened with the

report because I know members are interested. Members will recall that the

report recommended a House of forty-four seats and then went on to make

suggestions which the Commission said they would recommend were it not for the

terms of the legislation; there was a fourth seat for Labrador and a number of

other changes in Grand Falls and the Humber Valley area and a several other

areas throughout the Province.

The government have instructed Mr. David Jones, who was a

lawyer in the Civil Division in the Justice Department and was counsel to the

Commission, seconded at the Commission's request, to take the Commission's

recommendations and work towards implementing and to see what could be done to

implement their recommendations. Mr. Jones, yesterday, briefed the members who

sit on this side, and I have offered and the offer has been accepted, to ask Mr.

Jones at some time convenient to my friends opposite, to provide the same

briefing to them.

The government have taken no decision as to what form a bill

should take but we believe it is in the best interest of all concerned to share

the information with the members of the House so that members can have that as

part of the decision-making process. That is where the matter stands, but I

officially table the report in accordance with the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The model that Mr. Jones has developed to

implement this requires forty-eight seats.

MR. TOBIN: How many did the Commission recommend?

MR. ROBERTS: The Commission recommended forty-four plus

one for Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: One?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. And then, if you get into, for example,

trying to deal with the situation on the Burin Peninsula where you had two quite

large seats, to put another seat down there - you know, I am not going to try to

describe what is in this model, he will come and speak for himself, but we did

find that forty-eight seats is the fairest and most effective way to do it.

MS. VERGE: You botched this the way you (inaudible) in

the House.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady, the Member for

Humber East is shrill and loud -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: - but that doesn't make her right, or

intelligent.

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

We are presenting reports.

MR. ROBERTS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to treat this

very seriously. If the hon. lady wants to try to take the House into some sort

of bear pit, she is -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Here she goes again now, shrill and

shrew-like.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. the Government House Leader is presenting

a report.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, much to the disappointment of

members opposite, I would like to carry on with Bill 30 and the amendments to

the Highway Traffic Act.

PREMIER WELLS: Did he call Answers to Questions?

MR. ROBERTS: Oh yes, I am sorry, he has called Answers to

Questions.

May we have leave to revert?

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have leave to revert to Answers to

Question for which Notice has been Given?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

PREMIER WELLS: Pandemonium! I didn't hear Your Honour

call for Answers to Questions.

Yesterday, Your Honour - I have forgotten who it was - a

member opposite, the Member for Bonavista South, I believe it was, asked me if I

would enquire into the matter of the dismissal of Mr. Mallenby and instead,

dismiss the Minister of Social Services, and I undertook with the House to

enquire into the matter and advise the House.

I have met with the deputy minister and reviewed the record.

I have not reviewed in detail all of the correspondence, it was too voluminous,

but I did indeed review a

summary of it, and what I found is, in the brief

period of Mr. Mallenby's employment - and I have forgotten when he was employed,

I believe sometime in 1992 or early 1993. I will just give a quick

summary;

these are notes that I have made from what I saw in the file.

Prior to 23 September 1993 there were numerous incidents and

discussions relating to the performance of duties or relationships with staff.

On 23 September 1993 co-workers formally wrote and complained of negligence,

with a recommendation for suspension. On 20 October 1993 there was a formal

letter of reprimand to Mr. Mallenby. On 5 November 1993 there was a letter from

the supervisor of Mr. Mallenby containing a request for Mr. Mallenby's

termination. On 26 September 1993 there was a meeting with Mr. Mallenby and an

agreement with him to extend his probationary period for a further three months

to give him an opportunity to correct the defects that his supervisors were

aware of in the performance of his duties, and that agreement was entered into

with Mr. Mallenby.

By 10 March 1994 there had been no problems whatsoever in the

intervening three months. There is nothing in the file to indicate any

complaints or any basis for problems, so Mr. Mallenby's appointment was

confirmed. That, it appears, was a mistake but the real mistake was probably

back in November. Immediately after the confirmation deterioration set in again

and there are numerous incidents, numerous incidents, recorded in the file.

On 13 April 1994 there was another letter of reprimand and

after 13 April there were continuing complaints of negligence. On 27 April 1994

there was a formal letter to the supervisor complaining about the negligent

performance by Mr. Mallenby of his duties. On 22 July, 1994 the director and the

assistant deputy minister responsible reviewed the matter entirely and came to

the conclusion that they had no alternative but to suspend Mr. Mallenby. That

suspension went into effect and I believe he has been subsequently terminated.

My review of the file has been sufficient, not absolutely

thorough, but it has been sufficient to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If the member would just wait a minute.

My review of the file has been sufficient to satisfy me that

if there was an error on the part of the senior civil service in the department,

their error was in not terminating Mr. Mallenby back in the Fall of 1993 when it

ought really to have been clear that he was not a suitable employee to carry out

that task, however, they gave him another opportunity and gave him the benefit

of the doubt.

Now, the member's specific complaint, and the basis for the

request for the termination of the minister's appointment, as I understand it,

was that the minister made certain statements about the reason for the

termination of Mr. Mallenby. I can only say that in circumstances where Mr.

Mallenby has written a formal letter and send copies of it to all of the media,

to every member of the Opposition, or at least to the Leader of the Opposition,

he can hardly expect that a minister will not stand and defend the reason for

the termination and make the matter public.

It was Mr. Mallenby who made this entire matter public. My

own assessment of it, and I will say no more than this, is that the minister

takes full responsibility, as she ought to, for the performance of the entire

staff of the department, and she has done that, but my full examination of the

entire matter indicates that I should give the minister a medal instead of her

termination.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Order 13 which is

Bill No. 30, the amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: We will continue with second reading of Bill

No. 30.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a

few words on this particular piece of legislation. I had occasion to hear

reports of the minister's approach in this issue, which, because the Opposition

are asking some questions on the matter, has been to suggest somehow that the

Opposition supports drunk driving.

AN HON. MEMBER: Drinking and driving.

MR. SIMMS: Drinking and driving. Well, that is untrue,

and he knows it is untrue, and he should not use that kind of an argument

because that is false and misleading. The reality is, what we are trying to do

is get the minister to provide some answers to some concerns and questions that

have been raised legitimately by certain groups and individuals.

Now, I don't know if the minister is aware or not, but we

certainly recognize, all the members on the Opposition side certainly recognize,

that drinking and driving, certainly drunk driving, results in a needless waste

of life. We agree with that. We support that, and we support any effort by any

government, and government policy, that could make a positive impact in this

area, and any effort to curb drunk driving. We support that strongly. So for the

minister to call Open Line shows, or to talk somehow in public and suggest the

Opposition supports drunk driving, or drinking and driving, that is crazy.

Nobody believes it, and my advice to him is to try to stay away from that kind

of nonsense and rhetoric, and maybe try to stick to the issues.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the minister has had an

opportunity to see one of the reports that was put together by the hospitality -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lounge owners.

MR. SIMMS: Well, Hospitality Newfoundland more precisely,

I believe, which is more than lounge owners. These are people in the hospitality

industry.

We had a chance to be briefed by them as well, as a caucus,

and to hear what their concerns are and what their issues are. They made it very

clear they support efforts to curb drunk driving and so on, but as you read

through the report there is reason enough to ask the minister questions, because

the studies that are in that report from all over the place - York University.

Just to mention some, let me just try to remember, if I can. I noted some of

them.

MR. EFFORD: Surely, you're not supporting drinking and

driving.

MR. SIMMS: No, we don't support drinking and driving, so

you can forget that. That is the only argument the minister has been flicking

out, so I said to him earlier: `Get off that nonsense. It is silly. Nobody

believes you when you say that. I mean, who is foolish enough to stand up and

say they support drinking and driving? Why don't you respond to the substance of

the issue?' The reason he doesn't respond is because he is not very well briefed

on this matter. That has become obvious more and more every day.

The Traffic Injury Research Foundation in Ottawa is one group

that has done it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they say?

MR. SIMMS: Well, he knows what they said because he told

me he read the report. I will tell him what they said. They all say the same

thing. I will tell him what it is in conclusion afterwards.

Dr. Avis, the Province's chief pathologist, you know what he

says because you said you have the report there. He also points out the

situation in Newfoundland, which the minister carefully brushed over and tried

to give a wrong impression of, the statistics and the report and the comments of

Dr. Avis. I will get to that, too, in a moment.

Mr. Speaker, in other jurisdictions, the minister knows,

there have been studies done, including one done by the Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety. In the Scandinavian countries, he knows, there have been studies

done, in Sweden specifically, in Maine and Minnesota in the United States. He

knows the comments from the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. He knows

what she said. He knows the comments of the communications executive and former

president of MADD in Canada, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. All of these people,

the director of the Centre for Research in Crime and Justice at New York

University, all of these people are saying the same thing. They are saying that

the lower BAC, blood alcohol content, is not going to be effective in saving

lives. That is the point that all of these people are making.

Now, surely, all of these people who are involved in the

issue in one way or another, the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, traffic injury

foundations, people who have extreme concerns about the useless loss of life as

a result of drunk driving, have all said the same thing, and that is that you

have limited resources to begin with, and if you start stretching those

resources to try to go after the people with the lower blood alcohol content

rating, then the problem is, you are not really attacking those who should have

the larger enforcement, more enforcement. You are stretching out your

enforcement capabilities. This is what all of these people and all of these

studies are saying.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, in St. John's, Dr. Avis, the

Province's deputy chief pathologist and an assistant professor of forensic

pathology at Memorial, said in Newfoundland and Labrador there were in 1993 a

total of eighteen deaths resulting from single motor vehicle accidents.

Twenty-seven per cent, just over a quarter of those, who were involved in fatal

crashes had been drinking, but 100 per cent of those registered blood alcohol

content levels above .15 per cent. One hundred per cent of those who were

drinking in those fatal accidents, every single one of them was beyond .15 per

cent.

Mr. Speaker, the only real point I want to make this morning

to the minister - and it appears he is not prepared to listen in any event. It

appears as if the minister has made his mind up on it and he is not going to

listen to anybody, and therein lies one of the problems. Once again, the

government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister is not even paying

attention to you now.

MR. WINDSOR: Order, Mr. Speaker, order. This is

disgraceful. The minister is supposed to be listening to the debate on this

bill.

MR. EFFORD: I apologize (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: So you should.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, therein lies one of the problems

with this particular piece of legislation. The point I was trying to make to the

minister - it is very difficult to make it when he is turning his back and not

even listening. But the point is, there are a number of people who feel there

was little consultation on the issue.

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct.

MR. SIMMS: The minister can tell us that when he stands

to close the debate on second reading. There was certainly no consultation with

this particular industry group, the Hospitality Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador. There was no consultation with them, absolutely none. The first they

heard about it was when he announced it, Mr. Speaker, so, to suggest there has

been lots of consultation - perhaps the minister can tell us with whom he

consulted, when he consulted with them, and give us a list when he closes the

debate. We will see. We will make our own judgement if there has been lots of

consultation. My suspicion is he will avoid that topic totally when he closes

the debate. I can almost guarantee it by the smile on his face.

I say to the minister, I plead with the minister, to pay

attention to some of the issues that have been raised. Never mind the rhetoric

and getting on, saying the Opposition supports drunk driving and all that

nonsense. That doesn't wash. People don't buy that anymore. That is foolishness,

it is absolute foolishness. The concerns expressed in all of these studies by

people who have concerns - Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the traffic injury

research institute - all these groups have done research into it and their

suggestion is that the problem is your resources will be stretched to the limit

and it will not be effective in saving lives. The best example is one that Dr.

Avis himself, the pathologist, gave, which you read in the report.

Of the eighteen accidents in 1993 in Newfoundland and

Labrador a quarter of them, 27 per cent, involved people who were drinking and

drunk. Twenty-seven per cent of those eighteen accidents. Fully 100 per cent -

every single one of those - were found to have a BAC of .15 per cent.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, it has a lot to do with it. Do you see,

Mr. Speaker? There is the problem. The minister isn't listening. He says he got

this report, he didn't read it - obviously he didn't read it. He couldn't have

read it. If he read it then he would understand what these people are trying to

say, that you are going to be stretching your resources to the limit to attack

and to go after those who won't - it won't have any effect on saving lives,

according to these people who have done studies.

MR. EFFORD: That's ridiculous!

MR. SIMMS: The minister can say it is ridiculous. We are

not necessarily debating with him whether he thinks it is ridiculous or not,

what we are trying to do is pass on some concerns that we have heard and I am

sure he has heard. I am going to be interested in hearing him close the debate

because I want to know - I would like to see a list of all of those individuals

and groups that he, the minister, consulted with, I would like to hear that. His

assistant up there in the gallery - who is there ready to run and get that

information for him - will run now and get that information, a list of all the

groups and individuals that he, the minister, consulted with on this issue.

The only point I want to make to the minister is not that we

support drinking and driving, that is nonsense. What we support is the right of

people to have some input into legislation that will affect their lives, there

is no question about that and more interestingly, that maybe the government may

be making to fast of a move or making a mistake because you are taking your

enforcement away from the real problem. The real problem being those like the

example of 1993, in excess of .15 per cent, taking all your resources away from

that, unless you are going to put in a lot more enforcement people. Well maybe

you can tell us that when you close the debate but I personally think some of

these concerns that have been raised are worth at least listening to and the

best way for that to occur, I would suggest to the minister and to the Premier,

the best way that this could occur - and there is no reason for this to be

rushed today or by December, by January, there is no reason for that to occur

unless they don't want any information to get out or they don't want people to

have a say or anything else, Mr. Speaker, or unless this is an attempt to simply

get more revenue.

Maybe the minister can tell us, how much revenue does he

anticipate as a result of this move by the government? I am sure that is in his

Cabinet paper, perhaps he could tell us. We would like to hear the amount of

money projected by his department - when he closes the debate - of revenue they

anticipate as a result of this measure to the Province's coffers. I am sure that

is in the Cabinet paper, I am sure. I have not seen it but I am sure.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Listen now, let the minister answer the

questions when he gets up, don't just say that is not an issue, that is nonsense

and they are in favour of drunk drivers - I mean that is foolishness. Let him

offer some substantial commentary on this significant piece of legislation. It

is important I say to the minister, it is important.

Let me ask him this in conclusion and then I am going to sit

down and let others, who may wish to participate in the debate, have a few

words. I would like to ask him this, can the minister tell us why he would not

be prepared to recommend to the Premier, to the Government House Leader, that

this piece of legislation after second reading - maybe he is prepared to do it,

I don't know, he has not mentioned it - to send it to the appropriate committee,

the legislative review committee that we have? I mean after all, this is the

number one priority of the government in this session. The first bill that they

wanted to raise and bring to the House, on the floor of the House after the

House had been closed for nearly five months, six months or whatever it has

been. This was the first order of business, the first priority. So it is

important obviously, to the government, this piece of legislation. Why would the

minister not recommend, why would the Premier not consider - as we have done on

lots of other legislation that perhaps is not as significant, as a matter of

fact, not as interesting, not as important.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. So did the committee deal with it?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Who refers it to the committee? The Government

House Leader. Listen Ed, I say to the minister, you know better than that. Now I

mean that is an easy way to avoid it, try to find some argument. What is the

problem with putting it to the Social Legislative Review Committee? What would

be the problem with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: They have not had it. They have not dealt with

it. That is nonsense and he knows it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, perhaps he can tell us he is going to

consider doing that. Oh you are not going to do that. You would not give it to

the committee to look at it?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not necessary.

MR. SIMMS: Not necessary? Well, Mr. Speaker, I mean all

we can do is ask. All we can do is plead with the government to listen to the

people, to listen to the public. You would have thought they would have learned

their lesson long ago on the way they dealt with Hydro and numerous other

issues, not listening to the public, not consulting. I mean most people did not

hear this. It is alright to say the bill was tabled since June but there has not

been any discussion, public discussion on this or consultation on this. That is

the ministers list of those he consulted with, is it? It is a small note.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I can see where the words are falling on deaf ears. The

minister seems to be hell-bent and determined to proceed and that is it. He is

not going to listen to any of the concerns. He is not going to give the public a

chance to hear what this legislation is about.

Because that is one thing that the committee process does. It

at least gives the public a better understanding of the government's reasoning

for it, and a chance for the public to have some input into it. That is the

reason I make the suggestion and ask the minister to consider it. If we had a

sensible and reasonable Government House Leader, like the former Government

House Leader, the Deputy Premier, I would almost be willing to bet $100 that the

Member for Gander would be prepared to give this legislation to the review

committee. Let the review committee have it for a couple of months. What is the

big deal, what is the big rush, what is the urgent panic all of a sudden?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) finished.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I'm sure you will - when you are finished

all you will have said - you will speak for thirty-five, forty minutes. All you

will have said in the end is: I'm shocked the Opposition is in favour of

drinking and driving. That is all you will hear, Mr. Speaker, by the time you

cut through all of the nonsense and rhetoric. There will be no substance to his

argument, no argument. There won't be. I'm willing to bet that is what you will

cut out of it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If he doesn't support drinking and

driving why doesn't he have zero tolerance?

MR. SIMMS: That is another good point, and that is made

in the report, I think, or one of the jurisdictions. Sweden. Was it Sweden or

was it Maine? One of the jurisdictions. The minister can tell me because he read

it as well. One of them, they have a zero tolerance. But the research they've

done in that jurisdiction where they have zero tolerance - the minister can

correct me, I believe - is that the one where the research that was done showed

there was in fact a 7 per cent increase in the drinking offenses that occurred.

There was actually an increase when they went down to zero tolerance. I think

that is the one that is in this - you don't - that is in the report. Or does he

know?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He hasn't read the report.

MR. SIMMS: I would say the minister probably hasn't even

read it. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'm beating my head against the wall here

obviously, because he just keeps shaking his head and he is not interested in

listening or hearing. All he wants to do is get up and attack the Opposition and

try to paint us as some people who supports drinking and driving.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, yes. See? There you go, look.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Len, he hasn't been the same since he

ran into the moose.

MR. SIMMS: No, I think something must has happened to the

minister. Because this is a serious issue. He knows it.

MR. EFFORD: You got that right (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. It is too bad the minister wasn't

listening to me when I was making my points instead of turning around and

yakking away to his colleagues. We had to get the Speaker to intervene to call

the minister and the Premier to tell him to turn around and listen to what

people were saying. That is his problem, he doesn't listen. You are not

listening to what people are saying. That is your problem. Put it out to the

committee, let the public have some say in it. Then come back as the great white

knight, and the minister, you put it out to the people, the people had a say,

everybody understands what you are trying to do now, and they are prepared to

support it and move on. Boy, what a great minister you would be seen as. Instead

of ramming it down their throats. Like the Hydro issue. Don't listen to anybody.

Just move on. Because we know what is right and we are going to do it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I will, but there are other colleagues on this

side who want to have a few words. The minister shouldn't rush, needn't rush.

Lots of time.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Relax. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, we've a lot of

speakers on this side yet.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought that I

would take the opportunity to rise and make a few comments on this particular

piece of legislation. I take it very seriously, I say to the minister, and I

think he should take it a little bit more seriously, and not use the same line

back and forth across the House of Assembly insinuating that we support drinking

and driving, or anybody in this Province supports drinking and driving. He knows

that is political rhetoric. He knows that.

The whole truth to this is - when the minister first of all

says that, makes that statement, in all sincerity he knows he is smiling on the

other side of his face. Because the truth is, when he says we support drinking

and driving, when he supports .05 in this legislation, isn't that drinking and

driving? We could really say you support drinking and driving. But that is no

more true, I saying that he supports drinking and driving, as he saying I

support it.

The truth is, nobody supports drinking and driving, not even

the people who drink and drive. Nobody supports drinking and driving. If you are

going to say you don't support drinking and driving then I ask the minister to

come full steam ahead on it and say zero tolerance to drinking and driving.

So with the rhetoric he throws back and forth about drinking

and driving the minister is really contradicting himself. A lot of things in

this bill, and the initial response that I had personally when I heard about the

bill, was good. There are a lot of things in the bill. I say to the minister

that I wholeheartedly support anything that you can do to stop the main problem

of this drinking and driving. The word we have to add is drunkenness and

driving. That is the connection.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few statistics here that we have. We

have a lady here by the name of Candy Lightner, the founder of MAD, Mothers

Against Drunk Driving, who does not think that lowering the BAC will save lives

and that we should concentrate our resources against the high blood alcohol

content driver. Now, to me that makes sense. Somewhere along the line I really

believe, after listening to the minister, and I was so shocked when I heard the

minister get up, because I was looking forward to the minister getting up and

taking his full hour. As a matter of fact we would give him leave to go on and

explain the bill.

Until I first saw it and looked at the stats my initial

reaction was, yes, anything we can do to stop the dangerous people on our

highways drinking and driving, I am all for it, and I support it. I say to the

minister in all sincerity that I support it. I know people who personally have

been affected by situations and accidents. The situation that happened last year

with the car in the garden, and the different things that happen, affect people

in the Province and they will never forget. I am sure their focus would be on

the people involved in these situations who are actually the problem, Mr.

Speaker.

Let us get to the root of the problem and let us not linger

around outside of it. Let us go right into the heart of the problem. That is

what I am asking the minister today when he thinks about this legislation. The

Leader of the Opposition also brought up that maybe we should have a review

committee where we could actually sit down and discuss it. When I heard the

minister give his introduction on this legislation it was obvious to everybody

in this hon. House, and I would say it was obvious to his own colleagues, that

he did not have his homework done on this bill, that he did not give it a lot of

thought. A lot of people who call in, or a lot of people who speak to you ask

where he got the advice, who was giving him the advice. Was it the minister, who

happened to talk to a very small group of people, who made a hasty decision here

on a piece of very important legislation?

Now, the intent of the minister is right. He is going after

anybody who drinks and drives and has a dangerous affect on society. That is the

right intent of the legislation, but if he stops for a minute and lets people on

all sides have their say he will be a minister that the people of this Province

would applaud. They would jump up and say that the minister is going to listen

to people in the Province. Just listen to them and then the minister will

finally realize that he did make a hasty decision and he really never thought

out the process.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, the initial response to this was

good. I am glad to see that this government and this minister are going to take

it upon themselves to correct a problem that affects so many people in this

Province, and I am very serious when I say that, but the truth is what we are

doing is corralling a group of people into a situation where there are not the

prime source of the problem. If the minister has the gall and the guts to do it

he should step back from this, and we all know him to be a reasonable man, step

back from this and say: hold on now, let us have anther look at this.

It does not have to be Tories, it does not have to be the

public, but maybe he should even listen to a few of his colleagues, I say to the

minister. Just be reasonable about this and step back for a second. There were

8000. This is a statistic. It is a fact. We are not fabricating this, a word

that is so proper over there, but we cannot use it on this side, we are

fabricating this. There were 8000 people who were stopped with levels between

.05 and .08.

Now, what is the real issue here? I look to the Minister of

finance and Treasury Board, I wonder what is the real, real issue? Is it a money

grab on these people who are between .05 and .08? I would ask the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board to respond when he has a chance, maybe he will stand

up and give us his thoughts on this. Maybe somebody on the other side of this

House will stand up and give us his real comments on this and maybe, just maybe,

offer the minister a few suggestions, just a very few light suggestions I say to

the minister. Any minister, any colleague of his, please stand and give us your

input - because we are looking for an input from both sides and from the public.

I just wonder where is the real problem here. Is it the .05,

the .08, the person who has a glass of wine or two with his dinner? Are those

the ones they are bringing in? I say to the minister, you should have another

serious, serious look and I ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, what

really is the crux of this if we are talking about the 8,000 people who were

stopped last year from .05 to .08? There will be more people stopped, I say to

the minister, and he can move around the words and put them however you want but

the $100 for the reinstatement of license is a fine; it is dollars, dollars,

dollars. I don't care what way you put it or what words you put it in, so it is

a very serious issue that we are talking about, the safety of people, but

minister are we actually looking at a dollar sign behind all of this? What is

the real intent of this legislation?

Now if the minister is ready to bring in legislation that

goes to the education, the training, the enforcement, those are the issues that

I would like to look at so that stronger, tougher laws apply to the people who

actually go on the road and have very high levels of alcohol in their blood when

they take the wheel. Now that is the problem, Mr. Speaker, on which we should be

focusing. I am sure if we went in to statistics a little bit further and saw the

number of accidents - I do not have them in front of me, but I will just make a

wild guess, maybe the minister will correct me on it but we are somewhere close

to it.

Of the sixteen accidents that were in the city last year,

that were related to drinking and driving, of the sixteen accidents, I am pretty

sure that is the number that were in the city last year and the minister can

confirm this when he speaks. All of those accidents that were alcohol related

were above .15. Not one of them had to do with anything .05 to .08 so, really,

what we are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker, is to ask the minister to use that

golden phrase that is so often left out of government's policy, common sense.

Let us use our common sense and say: hold on a second now,

are we really targeting the people who are the problem? Are we really going

after the root of the problem, but, Mr. Speaker, somehow I doubt that. Yes, here

it is, Mr. Speaker, in this report it says: In St. John's, in 1993, 27 per cent

of drivers involved in single vehicle crashes had been drinking. Of these, 100

per cent of those tested registered blood alcohol levels of .15 and above. Not

even one. Now, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to see is the full statistics for

the Province again with that same situation. How many accidents in the Province

are related to alcohol, fatalities, accidents and how many of those were between

.05 and .08.

Mr. Speaker, what we seem to be doing here and what I implied

to the minister is that, what we are doing is corralling a group of people with

alcohol content, who have had a glass of wine at dinner or one drink and

becoming .05 to .08, they are corralling them into a group of people who drink

heavily and get behind the wheel of a car, and I say to the minister in all

seriousness: why are you corralling those people? .08 is in the Criminal Code of

Canada and we should be following it and if the minister believes that there

should be no drinking at all and driving, then he should go for a zero

tolerance. I say you are just as guilty as when you say to us we are supporting

drinking and driving, you know that is hogwash. We all know this.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about zero tolerance?

MR. SHELLEY: If the minister, I said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: If the minister who is bringing in this

legislation believes what he keeps saying, that you support drinking and driving

and he looks across this House of Assembly and says to us we support drinking

and driving, if he believes that, if he is supporting .05, he is supporting

drinking and driving. Isn't that correct or are we missing something on our

mathematics?

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't be half pregnant.

MR. SHELLEY: No, Mr. Speaker. The truth is the minister

knows full well after stepping back and hearing some of the comments we on this

side of the House had to give so that the minister would stop and think about

it, is that he is really focusing on the wrong group of people.

His intent is good and I applaud him on that, and so does

every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, but what he should be focusing on is the

education and training, and the enforcement, and tougher laws, lobbying

federally for tougher laws on drinking and driving, the people who cause deaths

because of high alcohol content - high alcohol content - and that is where the

difference comes in.

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion here that everyone on this side

of the House and his colleagues should be giving to the minister is to say:

Minister, just hold on for a second. Just step back for a second. Let's have a

better, closer look at this. Let's get an open-ended discussion on it. Let's go

to a review committee, and let's really listen to what people have to say.

I think the minister, if he sat back and instead of babbling

across the floor, if he could not be too proud to fold his arms and say: Yes,

maybe the public is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the Minister of Health, I have had

calls, and I am willing to bet that the minister and other people have had calls

on it.

We are not saying to change anything yet at this point. We

are saying, let's put it out to the people and let them make some suggestions, I

say to the minister, because I am all for your intent on this legislation. As I

said in my initial response, we support a lot of things that are actually in the

legislation, but the question has to be answered: Is there a dollar sign behind

all of this, because if it is, it is the wrong approach. If that is really what

is at the root of this legislation, then that is the wrong approach, I say to

the minister, because when he tries to stand in the media of this Province and

say we are going to get at drinking and driving, that is wonderful, but if there

are dollar signs behind the real reason, then that is not so wonderful.

If you want to get at the real root of the problem, let's

focus on the real problem, which is the drunken driver, the person who has a

high alcohol content. Let's be serious about this. If the minister brings in

that, and he wants this whole Province and everybody in this House of Assembly

to help support him in lobbying the federal government in tougher rules for

these particular people, and not the people between .05 and .08.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, and I say to the

minister, please - and I ask the minister to listen to the people who have some

concerns about this.

MR. EFFORD: What people?

MR. SHELLEY: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Tories.

MR. SHELLEY: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

They may very well be Tories. As a matter of fact, most of them are probably

Tories by now, even all those who were Liberals. It is hard to find any Liberals

now, but still you should give them a few comments, too.

We want to keep a serious side to this, and I am going to be

looking forward, I say to the minister, to the minister who missed out on a

golden opportunity, in its first hour of this introduction, to stand up and

really show us that he did his homework on this.

If he says he has some statistics, I have been trying to find

some myself; I know everybody has. Even some of his own colleagues are trying to

find some, trying to find some information which supports it, and I can tell you

that if the minister, when he stands and has his time to do that, has statistics

to back it up that .05 and .08, that group of people that he is about to focus

on, if he can show us that is in fact true, that there have been fatalities and

accidents -

MR. EFFORD: You are wasting valuable time (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, at least I took the time. The minister

didn't even bother to take the time, which bothers me a lot.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to the minister standing up

and giving us some facts, not emotion. We are talking about some facts, where he

says that .05 and .08 yes, this is the problem. This is how many caused

accidents last year. This is where we had fatalities. This is where the problem

is. I can tell you that I would stand in this House of Assembly, if he can show

me these facts, and support him wholeheartedly. We would applaud him on this

side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, we are not opposed. Don't get the wrong

idea, the minister keeps shouting across the floor about us opposing it. We are

not. We are just saying to make sure. If we are going to do the job, let's do it

right. I guess that is what we are trying to say. If we are going to crack down

on drunken drivers, which we are adamantly against - and me, personally - I say

to the minister, you have our wholehearted support and we would line up behind

you to support it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are all

Newfoundlanders, and we all support the idea that drunken driving is a problem

in this Province. I am not going to stoop to the minister's level here now and

make a joke of this. We are very supportive of that type of thing - we all know

that - but what I say to the minister is that if he can stand in this House of

Assembly, when he gets the chance to conclude, and he keeps tapping his desk and

talking about statistics - I mean, we have some here. We got them from all over.

MR. EFFORD: You have been up for twenty minutes and you

haven't stated one yet.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I will give it to you again. Maybe you

didn't listen, so I will give it to you again, just one example. This is just

one statistic, and this is a fact. I didn't write it up. It is a statistic.

MR. EFFORD: You didn't read it either.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, I will read it for the minister for

the second time here in the House of Assembly in the last twenty minutes: In St.

John's in 1993 - that is just last year, I say to the minister - 27 per cent of

drivers involved in single vehicle crashes had been drinking. Of these, 100 per

cent of those tested registered blood alcohol levels of .15 or more.

Mr. Speaker, that is a statistic that is simple and

straightforward. In other words, .05 to .08 had nothing to do with fatalities or

accidents related to alcohol in this Province last year. It is simple.

Now, the minister keeps tapping his desk and saying, `I have

the statistics'. I want the minister to stand in his place and say, if he can

say this: I have these many people .05 to .08 who last year registered at that

amount and they caused accidents in this Province. It is as simple as that. Just

show me some people in that blood alcohol range who have been a problem on these

highways.

I say to the minister that you missed the target. You missed

the dartboard completely. You are not going to get a point at all. The minister

missed the dartboard, Mr. Speaker. He tried for the bull's-eye on this and he

missed, didn't get a point. He is wrongly focused.

We are ready to support anything in the legislation that is

going to take away the problem, but we are not going to skate around it and

involve people who are really not the problem, and that is the person who has a

glass of wine with dinner, or one drink, and is the designated driver.

I think the minister has missed out on this one. I think what

he did was make a hasty, emotional decision - I really do - and I am looking

forward to the minister standing in his place and giving me some statistics so

that I can think otherwise. If he does that, then power to him, but right now I

don't see it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a simple suggestion that I put forward, as

I take these few minutes, and that is for the minister to step back, keep the

intent he has - I am all for that, and so is, I think, anybody in this House -

but for him to take a second look and back out and bull forward again, and this

time, hopefully he will hit the target.

I say to the minister, I look forward to his comments. I look

forward to his statistics which support what he is really saying, because to

date he has said nothing to convince me on that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation. If he speaks now, he will close the debate.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Two sober people.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this hon. House of Assembly since

1985, four years on the Opposition side, and since then, with the party

governing the Province. I have heard I won't say thousands of speakers, but

hundreds and hundreds of speakers, get up and speak about all kinds of

legislation; and you can be critical of some, you can agree with some, and you

have the opportunity to express your own opinion. And 99 per cent of the

legislation that goes through the House deserves some criticism, and deserves

some congratulatory words and some support - mostly support.

On the Opposition side, I had the opportunity many, many

times to get up and, as the members opposite did for the past couple of days,

talk about a piece of legislation, because we were the Opposition who then had

the opportunity, and rightly so, to be able to criticize government, but I

never, ever, in my wildest imagination - and that was the reason why the other

day, in introducing this bill in the House, I didn't take a whole lot of time to

do the introduction and go on into a lot of detail. Because never in my wildest

imagination did I ever expect any MHA, any responsible individual sent here by

the people of the Province, to stand in the House of Assembly and support

drinking and driving.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Never did I ever think that. I can honestly

say that I got caught completely off guard. I kept a low-keyed introduction, I

presented some of the facts. I said the reasons why we were doing it was to keep

drinking and driving - drink if you wish. There is nobody in this Province going

to object to anybody drinking. That is an individual's choice. Stay home and

drink yourself silly, drink yourself into a stupor, drink twenty-four hours a

day, drink seven days a week, 365 days a year, the point is, Mr. Speaker, you

should not drink and drive.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Now, Mr. Speaker, if I am going to present

facts to the hon. members, as they have been doing for the last two days, they

should listen, otherwise, they will be saying after I am finished presenting the

facts to the House that I didn't say anything, because they are not listening.

So listen to the facts that I am about to put before the House and then make up

your minds. I have to make the point to the people of this Province, it is the

first time since 1985 that I could sit in this House in total dismay and total

shock and listen to people supporting people actually consuming alcohol and then

driving their vehicles, endangering the lives of everybody, not only themselves

but everybody else on the highway. I will not refer to that point anymore. The

point is made quite clear to the people of the Province.

Now, let's get into some cold facts, some real facts. Let's

address some of the issues put out by the members of the Opposition, some of the

false information, the wrong information. All the information and all the facts

that they presented to the House of Assembly were simply - no that information

was put out by Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, the lounge owners, a self

interest group. Now, we obviously don't think that those individuals, who feel

that they are going to have a loss of income, a loss of business, are going to

present all the facts, the real facts about the problems with drinking and

driving, the real facts which our law enforcement officers have on the highroads

in stopping a drinking driver and using the breathalyser - and the 0.1 tolerance

into a breathalyser versus the actual - what they can get - convict an

individual in court. Not only that, it is a separate issue altogether.

The Criminal Code and the regulation we are bringing in now

are two separate issues. There is a problem with people drinking and driving on

the Criminal Code; there is a problem with the breathalyser; there is a problem

with the fact that a law enforcement officer cannot charge someone who reads

.08; there is a problem that people drinking and driving cause fatalities on the

highway. That is another issue. We are stepping up the penalties and stepping up

the fines to deal with the issue of drunk driving. The fact that the Opposition

are saying that drinking and driving is not a problem is totally wrong. It is

totally wrong and I will present the information and the facts to substantiate

why the officials of the department have spent untold hours, weeks and months

researching and gathering information and bringing in this piece of legislation

which is going to make our highways safer to drive on.

First, I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, the fact that these

people have led us to believe that the Mothers Against Drunk Driving is against

this piece of legislation. They read out an

article that was taken out of a

newspaper, I think it was the Globe and Mail and that is what they have

been referring to, in saying Mothers Against Drunk Driving are against this

piece of legislation. That is wrong. What the Mothers Against Drunk Driving said

in that

article is that this piece of legislation doesn't do anything to deal

with the people who are drunk driving. They are correct, that is not the intent

of this piece of legislation to deal with the people who are .10 or whatever,

stupid drunk and driving their cars. That is the responsibility of the Criminal

Code of Canada. This is a piece of provincial legislation that is to deal with

the people on the road who have a .05 .06, .07 blood alcohol count in their

system. That is what this piece of legislation is all about.

This is a letter faxed in, November 15, from John G. Bates,

Founder and Director of Public Policy, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. This is

what he says, Mr. Speaker:

"Following our recent telephone conversation, thank you for

sending me the outline of Bill 30.

"On reading the proposed amendments it is clear that this

initiative will be unique in this country.

"In fact, you are suggesting things which we have been

advocating for years." Newfoundland is suggesting something that the Mothers

Against Drunk Driving, a national group, has been suggesting for years. "A

24-hour suspension for `warn' on a roadside testing device, a $100 driver

licence reinstatement" - not a fine, not a ticket, a "reinstatement fee, alcohol

dependency screening are all features that put your Bill 30" - listen to this,

Mr. Speaker - "that put your Bill 30 on the leading edge of the battle against

impaired driving.

"We have known for years that an aggressive roadside sobriety

spotcheck program is by far the most effective deterrent.

"This, combined with point of sale warning labels" - by the

alcohol and beverage industry - "review of alcohol advertising policies, and

implementation of server training is bound to have a positive effect on highway

safety in your province."

That letter alone from Mothers Against Drunk Driving is

sufficient for me as the minister of my department to support my department's

officials in the research program which they've entailed and to bring this into

the House of Assembly and to ask hon. members of this House of Assembly to pass

this piece of legislation immediately. The Opposition members stood for the last

two to three days, member after member, saying that they had information from

Mothers Against Drunk Driving that was totally against this piece of

legislation.

MR. SHELLEY: No we didn't.

MR. EFFORD: That is the message they've been putting out.

MR. SHELLEY: No we didn't! That is not true.

MR. EFFORD: The Leader of the Opposition said he wanted

it to go out to public review. This piece of legislation was tabled in the

Spring sitting of the House of Assembly. Three members from the Opposition are

on that legislation review committee. They had full opportunity all summer while

they were off on their vacations to do a total review of this if they had so

chosen.

Here are the names of the committees and the people across

this Province with whom there has been full consultation: The RCMP, in total

support of this legislation; the RNC, in total support of this legislation;

Alcohol and Drug Dependency Commission, in total support of this legislation;

Newfoundland Safety Council, in total support of this legislation; Friends

Against Drunk Driving, in total support of this legislation; Traffic Injury

Research Foundation, in total support of this legislation; Council of Motor

Transport Administrators of Canada, in total support of this piece of

legislation; and full consultation by the people of the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation.

For somebody who is being accused of not doing proper

research, I say the Opposition should do more research themselves and get their

facts straight before they stand in this House of Assembly and accuse people of

not being responsible and bringing in the proper legislation.

Let me read something else to the hon. members who didn't do

properly their research dealing with drunk driving offenders in Canada. This is

a final report, July 1994. The Traffic Injury Research Foundation, Ottawa,

Ontario, published by the authority of the Minister of National Health and

Welfare. Let me read for you the last paragraph which talks again about the

ability of Newfoundlanders to be on the leading edge of bringing in the right

legislation:

`Newfoundland's proposed 24-hour roadside suspension program.

Newfoundlanders propose a 24-hour roadside suspension for drivers found to have

a blood alcohol content in excess of fifty milligrams. The proposed system has

several features that make it unique from other roadside suspension laws in

Canada.

`First, offenders will be required to pay $100 license

reinstatement fees. Secondly, a record will be made up of all long-term

suspensions and finally, the repeat offenders will be required to attend a brief

education program. These aspects of the road-side suspension program provide

enhanced deterrent and rehabilitative components not available anywhere else in

Canada.

MS. VERGE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East, on a point of order.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I note the minister has not answered the Opposition's

questions about -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - where he gets his authority for the $100

fine or the legal problems that I raised about the rights of people improperly

and wrongly found to be above .05.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

That is certainly not a point of order.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have had the opportunity -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: If you want the answers I will give you the

answers to as many questions as I possibly can in the time allotted to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. members want to hear the answers then they should

listen. Here is an interesting article, Mr. Speaker, and the name of the

magazine is Wine Spectator and I believe it is out of New York, in the

United States. This

article was done by a police officer in New York and has to

do with drinking and driving, not as much drunk driving as it is an

article here

on drinking and driving, where the police, the RCMP officers, the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary, the police enforcement officers across Canada and

across the United States have a problem with, had to identify the problem of

drinking and driving, and an impairment to the human mind that they cannot react

to a certain situation because of a blood alcohol count of .05, .06, .07 and

.08.

Do not tell me that any individual who has consumed two or

three drinks of alcohol or whatever the amount, to bring them up to that level

in as short period of time, is a responsible person to be behind the operation

of a vehicle, the wheel of a vehicle and a detriment to the safety of our

highways, to our children and to everybody else. Anybody who would say that I

can drink or you can drink or she can drink X number of drinks and be

responsible driving, Mr. Speaker, should be ashamed to be representing the

people of this Province in this hon. House of Assembly. I drink myself, I am a

social drinker, I like to drink but I have to be a responsible individual and

know that when I drink I should not drive on our highways. That is the issue we

are talking about here.

The idea of the lounge owners making the lobbying effort to

the members opposite and for them to be listening to them and to say: well, why

lounge owner, would you say that, that is going to hurt your business? Are we

saying that if you go to a club, you take your wife or your friend or your

spouse or whomever out to a meal in the evening, that the only way you can drink

and get there is if you drive your vehicle? How silly. Nobody is saying that you

cannot drink; go out to a restaurant or go out to a club and drink all you want,

don't touch that vehicle. That is the issue here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a short paragraph again and

this is about a policeman - I will give you his name in a second. McGuire, from

the United States and this is the paragraph: Each state has it's own legal

definition of intoxication, and that is correct, so do the different provinces

in Canada. On Long Island where McGuire spent ten years in a patrol car before

becoming a police academy instructor, drunk means having a blood alcohol count

of .10 per cent or more. A person with a blood alcohol count between .05 and .10

per cent is considered impaired, and that is the word that we have been using

since we introduced and talked back and forth on this piece of legislation.

What the Opposition has been using is drunk driving and there

is a difference between drunk driving according to the blood alcohol count and

impaired driving. That is the issue that we are talking about here and we are

trying to get the impaired drivers off the road that the police really do not

have the authority to do under the regulations and the Criminal Code Act,

because there is a tolerance because, as the opposition members pointed out very

clearly, that .08 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) the House as to the Criminal Code

of Canada. There is an offence called impaired driving which the RCMP and the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary have the authority to enforce regardless of the

blood alcohol content. Impaired driving is an offence against the Criminal Code

of Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for St. John's

East had full and ample time when he stood to his feet to make all the

explanations that he wanted. If he wants to take up the time on points of order

I'm quite satisfied to sit down and listen. If he wants the information that I

am to present to this hon. House then I will do that. I have no problems with

presenting all of the information dealing with all of the issues that the

Opposition put forth, including the lonely man for St. John's East.

There are many points that we want to bring out here. I want

to start first by talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, because the

Opposition has made a lot to do about the Criminal Code of Canada, trying to tie

it all in with that, I should be doing more to improve the Criminal Code's

tolerances and not be dealing with the regulation that we are bringing in in

Newfoundland. Some of the Opposition members said that the people who were

charged under the twenty-four hour road suspension would be charged under the

Criminal Code act, and that is not correct.

This is a regulation where you will lose your licence for a

twenty-four hour suspension if you are caught with a .05 blood alcohol count. At

the end of the day, the twenty-four hour period, you would have to go to the

nearest office of Motor Registration and you would pay a $100 reinstatement fee.

There is no record of a Criminal Code under this regulation.

MS. VERGE: Where is your authority (inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: The ministerial authority gives me that right

as a minister to impose the reinstatement fee. The hon. former Minister of

Justice knew the answer to that before she asked it.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there is a standard between being

sober and being criminal (inaudible) jurisdictions use as an administrative

standard. That is very clear. That is what I have been pointing out, the

difference in what we are talking about here in this piece of legislation. There

is a difference between being sober and being criminal (inaudible) jurisdictions

use that administrative standard. That is what I was talking about from the .05

and .06. When you get up to the .l0, .12, whatever, you are charged under the

Criminal Code act. There is a standard between that that the law enforcement

officers have not been able to take the impaired drinker and driver off the

road. There is a change. This piece of legislation will deal with that.

The research conducted by, and it shows impairment of body

functions -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) Criminal Code?

MR. EFFORD: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. There has been

a lot of research that has gone into this. The research conducted shows that the

impairment of body functions starts at .03. There is a point of impairment of

body functions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) .03?

MR. EFFORD: There is a definite -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Boys, how silly can you get.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Drinking coffee, eating rum and butter bars,

is that what you are talking about? How silly. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is too

bad that the general public of Newfoundland and Labrador don't hear the quips

coming from across the floor. But again, they did, because back a year a half

ago when they went to the polls they sure proved that they had heard them in the

past. When they elected in this government in the future to be responsible they

sure knew the reasons why they were doing it.

The Criminal Code level sets at .08 or .1 administrative

standard set at .05.

AN HON. MEMBER: One-term member.

MR. EFFORD: One-term member, Mr. Speaker, there is no

doubt about it.

The hon. Member for Humber East talked about the appeals

process. Was there an appeals process in place so that an individual could, if

they felt they were unjustly registered or monitored at the roadside suspension,

yes, there is. If I were stopped this evening and it showed a `warn' and I

argued and said that: I haven't had anything to drink, your machine is showing a

`warn,' or I haven't had sufficient drink, I have the right to be taken to the

police station. I have the right to be taken under better scrutiny, that I think

is better scrutiny, and to have another police officer or another machine give

me the right to take that. That is my right. You have the right to appeal right

there. The police is not judge and jury.

They have a machine that is put into your mouth and you blow

into it; it shows a warning. If you believe that machine is defective you have

the right to take it further. You have the right for the appeal of that. The

best thing to avoid it, the way to have the police not to be judge and jury, the

way not to worry about the machine to be defective, is not to drink and drive.

That is the solution which we are trying to accomplish. You haven't got to be

brought to any of this, the so-called discrimination, the argument about the

police being judge and jury. Do not drink and drive, then there will be no

problem.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the arguments put forth by a

number of members opposite about the fact - what does the blood alcohol content

of people who have a blood alcohol count of .05, .06, actually do to people?

Because I think that was one of the - the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, I

think he made that point. Using the reference that anybody who've caused

accidents - the 27 per cent of accidents that were caused last year were caused

by a blood alcohol count of 1.2 and on up. The drunker you were the greater risk

of getting an accident.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point one five.

MR. EFFORD: Point one five. There is no question that

those people are a major problem on our highways and we cannot do enough to get

them off the highways. The more we are doing the more we will be required to do.

Let's talk about the blood alcohol count. The behaviour

changes. Alcohol is a drug which impairs the ability to judge one's skills. Let

me actually ask hon. members: How many individuals sitting in this House of

Assembly have had the opportunity to be in the company of an individual who was

drunk and try and convince them to get the keys away from them? Oh no, I can

drive, I'm alright. They can't stand up, they can't sit up in the car, but they

can drive. You try and convince that individual that he or she should not be

driving a vehicle. They are 100 per cent right in their own mind and it is

because of the alcohol blood count in their bodies and their inability to judge

and to think rationally for that reason. It starts down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not at .05.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, that is the point.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) .05?

MR. EFFORD: That is what I'm getting to.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, no. That is what I'm getting to. I

understand. That is the point I'm making. Alcohol is a drug which impairs the

ability to judge one's skills. Decisions to separate drinking and driving must

be made sober. Administrative sanction of .05 helps makes the right decision.

That is simple. All the research shows that at .05 you are impaired.

MR. SULLIVAN: Where is the research? Can you table a

copy?

MR. EFFORD: You can have it all when I'm finished, you

can have everything. Point zero five shows that there is an impairment of - the

person's inability for a person to function soberly with .05. Therefore, if that

is the case, any person driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol count of .05

doesn't have the ability to think rationally as would a sober person, doesn't

have the ability to think and react at certain critical situations. You are

coming up and all of a sudden a child runs across the road. You are supposed to

hit the brakes and react quickly. A person with a blood alcohol count of point

zero five, according to all the research, would not have the ability to react to

a situation like that. Therefore you are a danger on the highway.

You don't need to be a doctor or lawyer to understand that.

Common logic reaction. Are you going to tell me that if I go out tonight, as I

said earlier in my remarks, and I sit down and I have a supper and I drink one

or two glasses of wine or one or two drinks over a one hour period, one

half-an-hour period, that I'm going to fail the .05? Nonsense. But if I go out

and I drink three drinks or more in less than an hour, I will definitely fail.

If I drink three drinks of alcohol in less than an hour I should not be driving

a vehicle. That is the point that I'm making here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: That is the point I'm making in this

particular situation.

What are the unique aspects about this piece of legislation?

One other point I should make about behaviour change. Behaviour changes when

feedback is swift and certain. Swift or certain is when behaviour changes.

Roadside suspension. I tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, roadside suspension is

swift and certain; make no mistake about that.

The unique aspect about this piece of legislation is clear -

a simple, $100 reinstatement fee. They keep saying the government is going to

make money off it. We will not collect one cent if people don't drink and drive,

and if you choose to go out and drink and drive, you will pay the $100. If you

go out two or three times or whatever, as often as you are foolish enough to

drink and drive, and the law enforcement officers of this Province catch you,

you will pay. It is your choice to break the law, but it is not right, and you

will pay the penalty for it, and the penalty is to lose your licence for a

twenty-four hour period, and if you are caught three times in the twenty-four

month period, you will then lose it for two months. So we are not going to relax

these regulations, and that is what we talk about, the accumulative suspensions,

three times in a twenty-four month period.

I cannot imagine that the responsible drivers in this

Province would condone drinking and driving and, secondly, anybody who would get

caught the first time with .05, surely to goodness wouldn't be stupid enough to

go out three times in two years and do it over and get caught, and lose their

licence for two months. It is a deterrent to the individuals who are not

responsible in the normal circumstances to keep people off the highways.

Mandatory education programs, if an individual gets involved

and is not being responsible, and proves to the police enforcement of this

Province that they are not responsible, they have lost their licence for a three

month period, they will have to go through an assessment program - no doubt

about it - and so they should.

Mr. Speaker, the lounge owners of this Province called other

provinces a joke. They fear the comprehensive approach that we are taking here

in Newfoundland and Labrador is going to hurt business. That is the reason why

they referred, when we referred to other provinces having similar legislation,

not as stated by Ottawa, not as stated by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, a

unique piece of legislation, what they have been trying to accomplish for years.

They said what the other provinces were doing was a joke, because they thought

we were doing exactly as the other provinces are doing, but the fear is - they

know what we are doing is right. They know we are going to keep drunk drivers

off the road, and they know full well, in their own hearts and minds, that the

intent is not to hurt businesses, the intent is not to take anything away from

anybody in regard to profits or loss. We don't even consider that in our

research, in our talks and our bringing in this piece of legislation. Our main

intent is the safety of our highways.

MR. DECKER: Watch the other provinces. They will bring

this in within two years.

MR. EFFORD: Within two years or less. Already we have had

calls. I had a call from Ontario yesterday to do an interview, from a news media

in Ontario who already heard about this piece of legislation, who already

congratulates us with the guts and with the determination to bring this forth

because it is the right thing to do.

The other thing that the hon. Member for St. John's East

talked about was the Constitution. Would it impact on the people's

constitutional rights? It has been challenged - already it has been challenged -

in a number of other provinces in Canada, unsuccessfully. Unsuccessfully has it

been challenged, so that answers the hon. Member for St. John's East.

The Highway Traffic Act has simply enacted a reinstatement

fee, and the Registrar of Motor Vehicles can suspend their driver's licence in

the process and can survive Charter challenge any time, because it is a

regulation brought in by the Director of Motor Registration of this Province to

make sure that our highways are safe for the people - all people - safe for the

children of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I just had a note passed down. I don't have

unlimited time in this?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Oh, I thought I had unlimited time in

closure.

Mr. Speaker, I have covered a number of the questions put

forth by the hon. members across the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: You missed one there.

MR. EFFORD: What was the one I missed?

AN HON. MEMBER: I would like to hear some statistics

(Inaudible) .05 and .08 were involved in alcohol related accidents in this

Province.

MR. EFFORD: In this Province?

First of all there has been no law that could be administered

by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or anybody else to take anybody off the

highway who has had an accident.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there are no statistics to tell

us if the accidents were caused by somebody with a blood alcohol count of .03,

.04, or .05, or any. I cannot give the hon. members that, but what I can give

the hon. members is a very clear understanding, as I have already, that when an

individual is at a blood alcohol count of .05 he or she is impaired. He or she

cannot think as could a sober person. That is reasoning enough to keep those

types of drivers off the highway.

This silliness where they have been saying that if a person

takes his or her spouse out to a restaurant, or they drop in and have a drink of

wine, or one or two beer, that they will be stopped and are going to lose their

license. That is uttermost silliness. We are saying that if two drinks causes

that and you reach .05 because of your body weight and body conditions, then

that brings you to the level where you are not a sober individual and you are

impaired behind the wheel of a car, then, Mr. Speaker, you will lose your

license. It depends on the individual and the amount of alcohol consumed that

they can be considered by the law enforcement officers for an impaired reaction.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I ask all hon. members,

sincerely, to understand the purpose of the department and the government

bringing forth this piece of legislation. We have to deal with drinking and

driving. We have to be responsible people in our Province. We, the elected

people, on both sides of this House of Assembly have the responsibility to show

leadership and be concerned about the safety of the people of our Province.

I cannot imagine anybody being against keeping drinking and

driving off our highways. It is an individual's right to do as they wish when

they want to socialize. It is an individual's right to be able to go out and do

as they wish, but it is not an individual's right to do as they wish when they

go out and socialize if they put others at risk. It is not their right to put

themselves at risk, but especially not their right to put others at risk.

Mr. Speaker, it is common sense, it is logical, and it is the

right thing to do. I am going to sit now, close debate, and ask hon. members

opposite, and all members of this House of Assembly, to do what is right for

highway safety and for all people of the Province, and to pass this piece of

legislation so as not to allow people who are drinking to drive a vehicle on the

highways in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. minister I want

to take this opportunity to welcome to the House on behalf of all hon. members

thirty-eight students from Bishop O'Neill school in Brigus, accompanied by their

teachers, Mr. Steve Hurley and Mr. Ron Burke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, on behalf of all hon. members I

would like to welcome to the gallery six Pathfinders from the Newfoundland

Career Academy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to have

visitors to the House, particularly from Brigus, which is in my hon. friend's

district and where my grandfather, I am proud to say, was born and lived for

part of his life. He made it his retirement home and died there, in fact.

Mr. Speaker, my friend the Member for Port de Grave has been

doing so well, perhaps we could call Bill 16, Order No. 8, "An Act To Amend The

Department Of Works, Services And Transportation Act".

I earlier suggested to my friends opposite, there is also on

the Order Paper a second amendment to the Works, Services, and Transportation

Act. It is Bill No. 31, Order 14. My suggestion would be that we combine the two

and debate them together, but that is a matter that would take leave. Each is a

fairly straightforward amendment. It is really a question whether we want two

rounds of debate on amendments to the Works, Services And Transportation Act or

whether we want one. It would require leave to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, that's fine, Mr. Speaker. We will call

Bill 16, we will deal with that, and then call Bill 30. It is Bill 16, Order No.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Department Of Works, Services And Transportation Act." (Bill No. 16)

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

Transportation.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, there are two of them. (Inaudible) act

twice. You had better find it before you speak on it.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, that is what I want to find.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, because I have another bill. Bill

31 is

An Act To Amend The Department Of Works, Services And Transportation Act

(No. 2) also, Bill 31. I was caught off guard and didn't have Bill 16.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not unusual.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very unusual.

MR. EFFORD: Very unusual.

Mr. Speaker, I don't suspect this is going to cause such a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, probably I won't be caught off guard on

this one again.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago, the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador brought in a new signage policy which gives the responsibility to

myself as the minister of the department to change the transportation act in

order to accommodate that new policy. What we are going to do here - and I

should start off by talking about Pasadena, Corner Brook and the highway signage

in that particular area. I tell you, it must be a unique part of Newfoundland

and Labrador, in that we seem to get a lot of complaints about the highway

signage out there.

I read in the paper and I heard on the news media a while ago

that an individual got lost driving from Corner Brook to Pasadena because of the

highway signage. When you are leaving Port aux Basques and you get on the

highway there is a straight drive on the Trans-Canada from Port aux Basques

coming into the Province on through the Codroy Valley, on up to Corner Brook, no

turns, on into Pasadena.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would have to question the sobriety, I

would have to question the amount of whatever an individual had for supper or

dinner an hour before that, in order for him to get lost. What I had to question

most of all was that the fact that the hon. the Member for Humber East made an

issue of it and supported the individuals who said they couldn't find their way

from Corner Brook to Pasadena on through Little Rapids. I don't know if they

went up over Marble Mountain, I don't know if they tried to do some skiing in

the summertime or whatever.

I can assure you I took it upon myself to go out to Corner

Brook - in fact, two of my officials. I also said at the time that anybody who

could not find his way from Corner Brook to Pasadena should not have a driver's

licence. I said that very clearly. Anybody, the word is "anybody." That was in

The Evening Telegram , by the way. Anybody who could not find his way.

I've driven to Ontario I would say five or six times in my lifetime, and going

through the Province of Quebec I think was one of the more difficult provinces,

because of the language barrier. My Port de Grave accent and people speaking

french caused me not to be able to understand people's proper directions.

I must say, I honestly drove five times through Quebec,

Montreal, and I never got lost. If, because of highway signage, somebody coming

into this Province, or some resident of this Province, would not be able to find

his or her way from Corner Brook to Pasadena, leaves me to wonder what they did

have to drink. I can assure you it wasn't all pea soup.

As to the highway signage going into Corner Brook, there are

five entrances, five signs, to Corner Brook that would show you coming east and

going west. If you count them you will find five in total.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four.

MR. EFFORD: Okay, well, I will concede four. Now, can we

just imagine the great city of Corner Brook, I get in my vehicle, I drive out,

there are four entrances to Corner Brook and I get lost. I cannot find my way

into Corner Brook. There is something wrong, Mr. Speaker, not with the highway

signage but with the individuals operating the vehicles. There is definitely

something wrong. Now, how do we put the highway signage on our highways? We

conform with a national highway policy. A national highway policy is what we

conform with. Now, I know with our weather conditions, our seasons, our snow,

our snowploughs, from time to time, some signs get knocked down. Every year

officials from the department, in all regional departments, go out and look at

the signs and make sure that any that have been destroyed, broken down by

accident or by ploughs or whatever, over the winter months are replaced.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about fences?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I would suspect there is a scattered

fence knocked down, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you put them back up?

MR. EFFORD: Not always.

AN HON. MEMBER: It depends on who you are, does it, and

where you live?

MR. EFFORD: It depends who you are, where you live and

what district you represent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I got off-track there for a

minute. The purpose of this legislation is to change the act to conform with the

new legislation that government is bringing in, not only the new piece of

legislation according to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the responsibility they will

have for highway signage, to permit the corridor so that the business community,

the tourism community and the municipalities can have the proper signage on the

highway.

Secondly, the other thing we have to do - we are four-laning

our highways. That will give you a different width. We have to change the act to

allow the different widths of our highways, because the distance and the width

of a four-lane highway or the Trans-Canada is different from the trunk road

which is different from the normal roads into our communities.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible). Now, that happened.

MR. EFFORD: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be

responsible - I have a problem with being responsible for myself, let alone the

Deputy Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. So I am only going to make

sure that I am going to look at - when I go out to Marble Mountain I don't ski,

I don't have that kind of nerve, but if I go driving through Corner Brook, I am

going to take my own responsibility and concern, not the Deputy Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman has been on some slippery

slopes in his time.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I have been on some slippery slopes.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you have slipped off some, too!

MR. EFFORD: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I don't think there are too

many people in this hon. House who have not been on some slippery slopes from

time to time.

With that short brief explanation of the - I will entertain

some questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I am not the facilitator of the highway

signage. The minister responsible for highway signage is the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I am only responsible for the traffic signage,

the directional signage, the speed limit signage. The Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs will be responsible for the implementation of the new signage

policy. All I have to do is to change the act - yes, that is correct. I will not

be responsible for the commercial and the municipality or any signs other than

highway direction signs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even between municipalities like in

developmental control areas - between communities?

MR. EFFORD: I am responsible for highway signage,

department signs, that is right. All I am responsible for is to change the act

to allow the corridor, depending on the width of the highway, the directional -

so that the ministers responsible can give authority to the individuals, whether

they be tourism associations or whether they be municipalities, to put up their

signs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well if it is tourism, the Department of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation - if it is directional it is highway but if it

is not a municipality then they won't require municipal signage. If it is to do

with a tourism-related industry, yes, otherwise it goes directly to the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

MR. CAREEN: Bill 16 - after all these years they are

finally getting their act together.

MS. VERGE: Oh, I wouldn't count on that.

So it seems to be a perception of this bill that a number of

years ago, since this government started, they have given all kinds of signs and

they always went the other way.

Out in the western United States, among one of the Indian

tribes, there is a word, `Niaki'. What it means is to say you are going one way,

and turn around and go the other way. That is the way your signs have been since

1989, April 20, I should say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like his inspections.

MR. CAREEN: His inspections - well, he said about being

on a slippery slope. I tell you, the inspections are going to put him on a

slippery slope.

The former Minister of Tourism, the Member for Mount Scio -

Bell Island, traversed this Province about signage, and that was what, three

years ago? And it takes three years for this government to get its act together

about signs? We have seen what happened in Marystown and Hibernia, job creation,

and other odds and ends. We know what they have done about that, and they can't

get their signs together.

The minister talked about width of a highway - four lanes.

You only have two lanes going in each direction, and we are all told to keep to

the right unless you are going to pass, so is he going to stick up signs in the

area between these double lanes? Is he going to overkill? Is someone else going

to get a contract? Is the public tender going to be ignored for these little

contracts?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You were saying about four lanes. We are

supposed to keep to the right when we are driving. You are only supposed to be

out in the centre lane when you are passing. You are talking about your signs

you are going to put in. You are not consistent, Minister. You are a really

inconsistent minister.

They made such a fuss there about bringing in, in this

legislation one time there the past spring, it amazes me that we had to come

this long, this far, for him to finally find out that he is only responsible for

highways. There has been a kerfuffle, interdepartmental kerfuffles, over the

years with this government about who has jurisdiction.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You are the silly one, Minister. You are

silly with your presentations, and you are silly with the way you introduce your

bills.

Municipal Affairs is going to have their re