December

16, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 82

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As hon. members are aware, public sector employees have made

a substantial contribution towards this government's deficit reduction

initiatives. Employees had wage freezes, days off without pay, pension

adjustments and staff reductions. Most of these restraint measures were

negotiated at the bargaining table and implemented with the concurrence of the

public sector unions.

During the last round of collective bargaining government

initially requested its employees to make a contribution of $50 million towards

the 1994-1995 deficit reduction effort. We realized part way through

negotiations that our revenues might possibly exceed original budgetary

projections. Government therefore decided at that time to reduce the

contribution requested from public sector employees from $50 million to $25

million. It was also indicated that if the anticipated improvement in our

revenue position did not materialize as expected we would not expect public

sector employees to make a further contribution. In essence, government agreed

to take a $25 million risk.

As it turns out, the anticipated improvement in our revenue

position not only materialized, but it appears, will exceed expectations. The

degree of improvement was recently outlined for hon. members during my mid-year

fiscal review.

Government has maintained throughout this period of budgetary

restraint that compensation measures applicable to its employees would be eased

when there was some improvement in the financial situation. In keeping with that

position:

(1) We initially reduced the amount requested from our

employees from 4.5 per cent in 1993-1994 to about 3 per cent in 1994-1995; and,

(2) As already pointed out during the course of collective

bargaining, the amount requested from our employees for 1994-1995 was reduced

from 3 per cent to about 1.6 per cent.

Given the better than anticipated improvements in our

revenues, government, after discussion with the public sector union leadership,

has now decided to further reduce the compensation restraint measures applicable

to 1994-1995. I am pleased to advise that public sector employees will not be

required to take one-and-a-half days off without pay during this fiscal year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: While we are under no contractual obligation

to any public sector union to do this in 1994-1995, the action is consistent

with our long-standing policy to ease the burden on employees if the financial

situation improves. For these unions which have signed agreements in place there

must be discussion now on the details of how to reimburse the employees who may

have already taken their time off. For these unions still in negotiation, Mr.

Speaker, our position at the bargaining table will be modified accordingly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My initial reaction to the minister's statement is that it is

a positive statement for public sector employees. We are glad to see that the

burden on them is being reduced over time by the government. They have paid more

than their price of government's restraint measures over the last five or six

years that this government has been in office. It is good to see that it is

gradually being reduced and, of course, the one concern that I had the minister

has addressed in the last paragraph of his statement, that some public employees

have already taken time off because they thought they would be required to take

time off without pay, so I am glad to see that discussions are under way with

the unions to see what is going to be worked out in that matter.

Overall, it is a positive statement for public sector

employees and I just hope, when we get the new Budget, that the attack on the

public sector employees by this President of Treasury Board and Minister of

Finance will cease, that we will not see it in the next fiscal year. Because

these people have had such a difficult time the last five or six years with

inflation rates and the freezes and reduction in compensation. They are having a

rough time making ends meet with the financial commitments they had made before

they were met with those restraint measures, so I hope in the next Budget that

the public sector employees will escape any attack from this government.

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

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, on August 15, 1994, the sale of

the Come By Chance oil refinery to Vitol S.A. Limited was completed. My purpose

today is to give the House a report on the status of environmental measures

being undertaken at the refinery.

One of the more significant aspects of the sale was the

signing of a comprehensive Environmental Compliance Initiative. By means of this

agreement, Vitol S.A. Limited has made a number of substantial commitments which

will lead to major improvements in the environmental performance of the

refinery, and to ongoing maintenance of those improvements through rigorous

control and monitoring activities.

This Environmental Compliance Initiative has been made

public, and has been distributed widely in the communities surrounding the

refinery. It is thorough, and in the belief of the government, will address the

major environmental concerns that have been raised about the refinery over the

past few years.

A major commitment of the Environmental Compliance Initiative

is to establish and maintain effective working relationships with the people who

live in nearby communities. To this end, a Community Liaison Committee has been

established, comprising representation from thirteen community organizations, as

well as from the refinery's owners, my department and the Departments of Health

and Natural Resources.

I recently had an opportunity to attend the meeting of the

Committee. At that time, the refinery had been operating for some four to five

weeks, and I must say, the members of the Community Liaison Committee expressed

satisfaction at Vitol's efforts to date to address environmental concerns. I

would also add that no significant concerns about air emissions from the

refinery have come to my attention since Vitol took over operation of the

refinery.

Mr. Speaker, under the Environmental Compliance Initiative,

Vitol has also committed to address a number of other significant issues which

have been the focus of complaints. Among them are:

- assessment and development of a sour water handling system

intended to address one major source of odour; this work is currently under way.

- recovery of free petroleum products from the impounding

basin, which has been identified as another source of odour; this work is to be

completed by February 15, 1995.

- development and implementation of a terrestrial effects

program, also due to be in place by February 15, 1995.

- installation of an additional sulphur dioxide monitoring

station at Bull Arm during 1995.

- scheduled and progressive reduction of sulphur dioxide

emissions over the next seven years from 40,000 tonnes per year to 25,000 tonnes

per year. This represents a substantial reduction from the 61,255 tonnes

recorded in 1993.

In addition, the company has undertaken renovation of heaters

and other combustion systems which will improve both operational efficiency and

environmental performance.

Mr. Speaker, these are but a few of the major initiatives

which will help resolve past environmental problems. This Environmental

Compliance Initiative is progressive. It represents a new approach by the new

owners, one which is acceptable to the government. We are confident that it will

allow the oil refinery to operate both viably and within the environmental

regulations of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to commend my

predecessor as Environment Minister, the hon. Patt Cowan, and my colleague, the

hon. Rex Gibbons, Minister of Natural Resources, as well as their staffs, for

their fine work in ensuring an Environmental Compliance Initiative which

protects the assets and interests of the people of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

I would like to thank the minister for sending me a copy of

his statement before the House sat this morning. I believe that this is a

positive statement and I share the minister's satisfaction and optimism

regarding Vitol S.A. Limited. I want to congratulate the Vitol Limited, who

recently purchased the refinery at Come By Chance, for taking serious measures

to address the environmental problems plagued by the refinery and surrounding

communities for years.

I want to stress that I believe that these are measures taken

by the new owners and are not happening because of the Department of

Environment. I had many questions in the past for the previous Minister of

Environment and Lands at the time and there was no action taken, Mr. Speaker. If

the department had been concerned they certainly would have done something years

ago. This is Vitol's action and I think Vitol deserves the recognition and

appreciation for the action they are taking.

I am certainly pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the company is

working with the communities, through the thirteen member liaison committee, and

I believe Vitol's willingness to work with the communities is our best guarantee

that Vitol is serious about the commitments undertaken. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the members of the House for this tremendous support.

I have never seen them show any such confidence in their

members over there.

I would like to direct a question, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Health.

Now, will the minister tell this House if the $800,000

announced in the March Budget to reduce waiting lists for heart surgery is being

spent for that purpose and in what way is it being spent?

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

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

I have heard of Custer's last stand but I guess this is

Loyola's first stand and to the extent that he may have aspirations. I wish him

all the best.

There was, Mr. Speaker, money allocated to reduce the waiting

list for cardiovascular surgery at the Health Sciences Complex. Policy and

procedures were put in place to give effect to that; the waiting list has been

substantially reduced to a point where it is now, about where it would be in any

acute care situation or in any acute care hospital and the waiting list is not

abnormal. The money is being spent for that purpose and it has addressed and met

the need that it was prescribed to do and we are happy to report that to the

House.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to tell the minister that in my short time as

Health critic, I managed to move one minister out of there already.

Everyone knows that the only permanent solution is to

increase the number of cardiovascular beds in the Intensive Care Unit. Now that

was the intent of the $800,000. It took until November of this year to add just

two extra cardiovascular beds to that unit and this decision only lasted a few

days.

Will the minister confirm that those extra two beds only

lasted a couple of days; now, why were those beds taken away just a few days

after they were opened and who cut the funding?

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

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

To the last part of the question, to my knowledge the funding

has not been cut. To the previous part of the question, the beds were put in the

system consistent with what the people at Health Sciences, the medical experts

and the administration considered to be necessary. The funding, as I recall, was

not only to be dedicated to increasing beds on the ward, if you like, but also

to provide some back up in the intensive care unit, and right through the system

generally that would give effect to being able to do more heart surgeries and

reduce the waiting list.

The last time I checked, which was just about a week or so

ago, that has happened. The waiting list is now down to a reasonable level, and

having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, let me again assure the hon. member and

the people of this House, and the people of the Province, that where situations

arise in dire emergencies medical service is rendered in a prompt, efficient

manner, notwithstanding anything that might otherwise give cause to undue delay,

so we do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Four out of fourteen beds in the intensive care unit were

designated cardiovascular and it took until just before the November 11th

weekend to open two extra beds. There were only opened a few days when they were

closed again. Now, the minister knows we are back to the same old problem.

Critical procedures are being cancelled, with patients still waiting in hospital

for surgery and people outside are waiting on increasingly longer waiting lists

because you have not dealt with this problem.

I ask the minister when he is going to deal with it?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, to the question again in

deference to my hon. critic across the way, we have dealt with the problem. It

has been successfully dealt with and it will continue to be monitored and the

situation will not be such that people who require emergency service will be

denied. It will not be such that people who are on a waiting list that is not of

an emergency nature will be denied. They will get the service in a timely

fashion, in a good medical practice fashion, and will the treatment they deserve

and need. There is no need for the people of this Province to fear or to be

taken in by any fearmongering that might be tried to be stirred up.

The health care system in this Province is sound. The health

care system is good and the surveys and statistics that we have with respect to

the opinions of the people of this Province verify and indicate that, and we

will continue to do and deliver the service, promptly, efficiently, and

effectively.

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

Extern.

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

I have a question for the Minister of Environment about the

government's new policy on waste importation which states, waste can be imported

for purposes of re-use, recycling, reprocessing and recovery. These are vague

terms which the minister doesn't define, or the policy doesn't define. Can the

minister tell the House whether a proposal to incinerate waste to recover energy

in the form of electrical power would meet government's new criteria under the

government's definition of recovery?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this point in

time we haven't a proposal of that sort. There has been some suggestions that

there would be. Under the policy that we have it would be considered - if it is

incineration it would be considered for final disposal. That is the policy and

that is the position. Thank you very much.

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

John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my

understanding that the proponent of a waste to energy incinerator proposal for

Long Harbour, North American Resource Recovery, or NARR, has received federal

funding to investigate this proposition. I understand this proposal has never

been formally submitted to the Province for assessment. Has the Province

provided any funding or other assistance to NARR which is in any way related to

any such waste to energy incinerator project?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know. I think that was

federal money that was provided back a couple of years ago by some other

government, I'm assuming.

No. First off, there is no proposal registered. There is no

proposal registered, I will say it again. Secondly there is no provincial

funding that has been provided to do whatever. The policy is now in place. Like

I said, I think there was funding way back a couple of years ago by some former

Tory government in Ottawa I think that provided that money. Thank you very much.

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

St. John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion there

is clearly a conflict between the Premier and the minister whether

asbestos-containing material from the U.S. can be buried at the Baie Verte mines

under the new policy. The minister told CBC that the proposal can't be approved,

yet the Premier on Tuesday past in this House said the proposal should go

through a normal process. Who is right? What does the policy say with regards to

this issue?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no

difference. The Premier said that if a proposal came forward and met the

criteria of the policy then it would be acceptable. If it doesn't meet the

criteria then it is not acceptable. This proposal which has been under

consideration, under assessment, for some time, is now not unacceptable under

the new criteria. That is the case. The new policy is in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker. The member can get on with

what he wants to. The fact of the matter is, we have a new policy in place and

we have already indicated to the proponent for the Baie Verte project that it is

not acceptable under the new policy.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I noticed the Premier

wasn't applauding. I have some questions for the Premier.

On November 22 the Premier issued a written release

announcing that the police were investigating pharmaceutical transactions in

Ontario and Newfoundland, that the Member for Naskaupi had been relieved of all

duties both as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and that the Premier

himself would carry out all duties of the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General. Why then is the Member for Naskaupi still functioning as the Minister

of Justice and doing work of the Minister of Justice? Isn't the member's

demotion just a pretence and a sham?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. The member as usual

didn't state fully the position. The position was very clear. While the minister

is relieved of his responsibilities as Minister of Justice and Attorney General,

the big concern that I have is that there not be any doubt about the direction

of the police or the general supervision of the direction of public prosecutions

in this Province. I have responsibility for that in the meantime.

I also stated very clearly - I stated in the House, I stated

publicly through the media - that I would be assigning to the minister

responsibility to continue to deal with certain things that are under way that

have nothing to do with this and do not in any manner affect the fact that this

police investigation is under way. He will continue to do those things in

relation to the matters that might normally come under the Minister of Justice

that do not in any manner affect the police or the director of public

prosecutions.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have more questions

for the Premier. Again, reality doesn't match the written word. I quoted

directly from the Premier's news release of November 22, but I would like to ask

the Premier: How can he keep in his Cabinet the Member for Naskaupi, at all,

whether the member is there as a minister without portfolio doing Department of

Justice work, and work of the Minister of Justice, or whether he is there with

the title Minister of Justice doing justice work, with the member and his family

either directly or indirectly owning Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited and getting

the profit from that large business which does the lion's share worth of drug

and hospital supply business to government institutions? Doesn't the Premier

realize the conflict involved? Doesn't the Premier realize the reported growth

in gross revenue of that firm from $24 million in 1991 to $44 million in 1993?

How can the Premier tolerate that kind of conflict between a member profiting

directly and very substantially from his direct or indirect ownership of

Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited, and the member's participation around the

Cabinet table in health policy decisions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the only extent to which

reality doesn't match the written word is what the member has put forward in

this House. The reality of what she says doesn't match anything, and that is the

only extent to which it doesn't match.

Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear that the minister would

continue to carry on such duties as I would assign to him that may well be

justice related matters, but would not have anything whatsoever to do with

anything that related to the direction of the police or the Attorney General

function in the Province. I will continue to discharge those.

In the meantime, I am quite happy to rely on the best

Attorney General and Minister of Justice I have had the good fortune to see in

this Province in the thirty or forty years that I have been watching.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the

other question raised by the Member for Humber East, and that is the question of

the sale by Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited of drugs and drug related products

in this Province, particularly to hospitals and other institutions that may

receive their funding through the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, we have in place a Conflict of Interest Act that

provides for and requires members to report their interest in any business that

could have a conflict. It also requires members to report the interest of

themselves and their spouses. This minister has fully and completed conformed to

that requirement. The member who asked the question has not.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that legislation strictly sets out the

standards by which members can continue to be members of this House, or members

of the Cabinet, and continue to have an interest in business. Unless the member

has some reason to suggest otherwise, and if she does then she owes it to me, at

least, to provide the information, to the best of my knowledge the Member for

Naskaupi has conformed totally to all requirements of the statute.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Doesn't the Premier remember that his law, when introduced in

this House of Assembly, bore on its cover the name Edward Roberts? Doesn't

everyone now realize that law was crafted by the Member for Naskaupi to suit his

own personal financial arrangement? Isn't it obvious that that law allows the

Member for Naskaupi, and other government members, to sin as much as they want

as long as they confess to a commissioner who is precluded by the members law

from reporting the sin to the public.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will go back and find out

where the law was crafted but to the best of my knowledge it was not crafted by

the hon. member at all. It bore his name on it because he presented it, as

Government House Leader, as a piece of legislation for which the - that the

government was putting forward for which he, as Minister of Justice, would have

some degree of responsibility but my recollection is, there was a select

committee of this House. My recollection is, it had the full endorsement of the

House. I don't think -

AN HON. MEMBER: She was the vice-chair.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. member was vice-chair of the

committee?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, she was not. Alright, then she was not

vice-chair of the committee but it had the endorsement of the committee and the

endorsement of the House. So the member's question is clearly without merit.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just thought I heard a lonesome knock somewhere - just

based on assumptions.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I have a question for the Premier.

Premier, the bill you will introduce shortly - which will be enacted into law in

a short time - to promote economic diversification and growth enterprises in

this Province, will your government be proceeding with this bill to gain trade

enhancement zones for this Province, particular in light of our conversations

before?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, and

I guess most hon. members in this House know, the government has been trying now

for all of its five-and-a-half years in office to see established in this

Province a trade enhancement zone. Our efforts in that regard will not diminish

in any way.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Premier, there have been a number of meetings

with representatives from the Placentia area regarding Argentia being given a

level playing field to bid for offshore supply and HMDC wants to use St. John's

and are willing to pay extra money for the flexibility to use that port. We are

wondering and asking, if you will ensure - because Argentia, we approved it on

paper, they can save $30 million a year by using Argentia - we are wondering if

you would support us in our cause to be allowed to play upon a level playing

field?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The member knows he does not have to

wonder if I would support it. The member probably knows and probably has seen a

copy of a letter that I wrote to HMDC two or three months ago - I have forgotten

which, about a couple of months ago I would think - which asked them

specifically to consider Argentia in their consideration of a supply base. I

cannot direct them what to use but I asked them to make sure that Argentia was

not in any manner disadvantaged by a failure on the part of the committee to

give full and fair consideration to Argentia. Now I think the hon. member has

already seen that letter. So he does not need to wonder whether or not I would

do it, it has clearly been done.

Now, if HMDC wants to use St. John's, I cannot alter that and

I will not take any steps to interfere with their decision to do that. If they

choose to do it, that is of their choice. I am not sure on what basis the member

says it could save $30 million a year. That is a figure that I know nothing of

and I don't know that it has any merit whatsoever. It appears to be a balloon

just pulled out of the air.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, could the minister give us an update of

where the negotiations are relating to tax reform and tax harmonization? What

negotiations proceeding? Can he tell us where we are heading at this point in

time?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, another step in the saga of

harmonization and tax reform will take place on January 23 when there is another

finance minister's meeting. There is a lot of activity ongoing at the officials

level with regards to the changes in the way the federal government and the

provinces undergo tax collections. All I can say to the hon. gentleman at this

point in time is that our position is clear, that we see tremendous advantages

in harmonizing with whatever is in place after the federal government makes up

its mind, so we want to see harmonization because we feel tremendous advantages

that will bring us and secondly, in that process, we would like in some way to

lower the RST rate in this Province, so with these objectives in mind, that's

the way we are negotiating.

So far, we have not been successful as a group of finance

ministers or a group of provinces in coming to any agreement. My reading of it

is, that perhaps a nationwide agreement is impossible, that is my personal

opinion, therefore we should perhaps look at regional agreements as a next best

step, because the regions have much more in common and perhaps agreement could

be reached in that way so we are continuing, but I am very discouraged that we

do not have the situation settled now and I am looking forward to the

discussions in January.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I find his regional concept

interesting. Can the minister tell us if one of the objectives of this Province

is to ensure that in any tax harmonization, any inequities in taxation systems

across Canada are removed? In other words, will our RST be equivalent? Will the

total tax burden be equivalent on sales all across Canada, and more

specifically, is the elimination of the payroll tax part of that package? In

other words, are we simply going to harmonize part of the tax system and still

leave other taxes which are disincentives to development in place, in

Newfoundland?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman is

suggesting, is assuming that we simply have one government in this country and

we have one big province or in other words, a country without provinces.

I would suggest to the hon. gentleman, that first of all, it

would be impossible to get agreement on a single, unique tax system across the

country for a number of reasons, one of the prime reasons being that the

provinces would have to give up total control over their own destinies and I

don't think the provinces, Mr. Speaker, are willing to do that. To get more

specific, the payroll tax is not part of these discussions, this is a provincial

tax administered in four of the provinces and is not part of the discussions in

terms of harmonization; we are simply discussing the retail sales tax level and

the - I would say GST level or whatever replaces the GST.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us how

we can deal with tax harmonization, tax reform at this point in time when we are

heading into a referendum in the Province of Quebec to decide whether or not

that province will be part of Canada? Should Quebec decide to separate, what

impact would that have on the whole tax regime throughout Canada and more

specifically, is this government prepared to enter into an agreement with Quebec

that would provide them an opportunity for economic union with Canada? In other

words, can they have their cake and eat it too, as far as this Province is

concerned?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, with regards to the tax

situation, Quebec has already been harmonized, effectively harmonized with the

federal government tax. They are the only province in Canada that has brought

about this almost complete harmonization with the GST, so they have already

taken that step and what the attempt has been, is to bring the rest of Canada to

the same situation where, there is a harmonized RST, GST across the country, so

the Quebec situation has no bearing on the discussions because Quebec is already

harmonized.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Major donations to my official agent, I

say to all members.

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

It has been brought to my attention that there is a problem

being experienced by a number of fishermen who have applied to the minister's

department which administers the boat rebuilding bounty program. I am told that

several fishermen applied for this bounty, were left for several months before

they were responded to, and finally found out that there was no money available.

Is the minister aware of this problem and the hardship it has caused for a

number of fishermen in our Province?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, the minister is aware of the fact that there was a

problem with the funding into the program. That has recently been rectified.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I didn't quite hear the minister. Is the

minister saying that those applications that were on file with his department

for the boat rebuilding bounty, that were approved, that now funding has been

found and those applications will be serviced and the money will be forwarded to

the fishermen?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said that the shortage of funding has been rectified. If

someone was notified before that their application was approved but there was

just no money in the program to look after it at that time, then I would assume

that will be done at this particular time.

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Could the minister, then, inform the

House how many fishermen were approved, received late approval, and what the

additional amount of money was that funded them? Could he inform the House of

that?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: The hon. Member for Grand Bank always expects

me to go around with a filing cabinet of details as to how many people were -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) combine harvester.

DR. HULAN: On the combine harvester, by the way...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: I perform only on Thursdays, the day before

the beginning of the weekend.

I can assure you that I can provide the numbers some time

later. The money that has been secured for the program hopefully will be enough

to look after the additional applications that we received. Thank you.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The rural development council, which is the umbrella group

for the fifty-nine development associations in this Province, were, without a

doubt, the driving force behind the formation of the task force on community

economic development.

Now that the recommendations and the report have been passed

back to the minister, I would like to ask the minister: What does he see

as the future for these fifty-nine development associations in regard to

community economic development in the Province in the future?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we just received the final report

of the community economic development task force. Cabinet is assessing the

recommendations. Government is very supportive, has been, and will be in the

future, very supportive of the rural development movement. We see them playing a

very important role in the implementation of this task force, but it hasn't been

made public. I guess the federal minister will have his copy shortly and it will

proceed to the federal Cabinet, and our Cabinet is dealing with it as well, but

we see the rural development movement generally, and the association, playing a

very important role in implementing these important recommendations.

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

Petitions

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to stand and

present a petition on behalf of 969 residents of my District. The prayer of

the petition is: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer: We the undersigned residents of the District of

St. Mary's - The Capes do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation to undertake the upgrading and

paving of approximately twenty-one kilometres of road on Route 91 from Southeast

Placentia to the intersection of North Harbour Road, Route 92. We ask the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to address this matter as in duty

bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this road that these people are trying to have

some work done on is one of the oldest roads in our area. It was upgraded by the

provincial government of the day in the 1920s. The Americans rebuilt the road

somewhat in the early 1940s and maintained it well into the 1950s. The road is

used on a daily basis by people from the North Harbour - Colinet - Mount Carmel

- St. Joseph's - O'Donnells - Admiral's Beach area that use this road on a

continuous basis to drive back and forth to Placentia area for a number of

reasons.

One is for shopping. There is a bank in Placentia area, the

central hospital is there for our area, there is a Placentia campus of the

Eastern College, and the RCMP is also in Placentia. Because of all this this

road is used on a continuous basis. These people would like to see some work

done with this road. The fact that most of the roads in the area now are

upgraded and paved and this road is something that needs to have something done

with it as soon as possible. I hope that the minister in his wisdom will have a

look at this road and try to find some dollars to help out the people in the

area and indeed do something with the road.

One of the major items of concern about the road is the

opportunity it has to develop our tourism industry in our area. Over the past

number of years development associations, community future groups, have been

working hard trying to develop our tourism industry in our part of the Province.

This road is one of the major links in our area because of the entry port of

Argentia, and many thousands of visitors who come into Argentia - we have the

Cape St. Mary's seabird sanctuary. Indeed, on this road itself we have the

Cataracts Park. Over the past number of years we've had many people coming into

our area which really opens up the visitors to the southern Avalon area. The

tourism development here - it is unknown at this point how many people we can

bring in to the area.

If this road was paved it would be kind of an extra route

that the people could take, a shorter distance to St. John's not only for the

people who live there year-round but indeed for the tourists. I hope that

somewhere down the road the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will

be in the Christmas mood all next year and maybe find some dollars around to do

something with this road.

This road is travelled by very many people. Every day I come

over the road several times myself. At any time of the day you can meet several

vehicles on that road travelling back and forth to Placentia or to St. John's or

whatever the case may be. It is a good solid road that if upgraded and paved

would make a major roadway for the people in the area. The whole item of tourism

development is something that the organizations have been grappling with for a

number of years now. Hopefully with the salmon enhancement of the rivers on this

road we will see not only tourists coming from outside the Province, but indeed

people from inside our own Province who will travel this area to take

part in

this. This is one of the major concerns that the people have.

I hope that in presenting this petition on behalf of the 969

residents of the area it shows that people really want to have something done

with the road, and that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in

his wisdom will find some dollars to at least begin construction and upgrading

of this road. Hopefully within the next couple of years we will have something

done in relation to a positive note so that the people can not only enjoy the

luxury of driving along on some pavement, but indeed the safety that comes with

it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you very much.

I am happy today to be able to rise and support my

colleague's petition from that part of his district. Two weeks ago he supported

a petition from my end of the district which had supplied some 1,300 names in a

similar petition. The petition refers to about twenty-one kilometres of road

that needs to be upgraded and paved. It has very historical value. People are

looking at creating Newfoundland tourism on what they call the French Trail.

The French Trail takes in part of this road in the leeway of

the hills where D'Iberville, some 300 years ago, left Placentia with eighty

soldiers to go and take possession of Ferryland and St. John's.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: The Member for St. John's East said, murdered

and burnt. I don't know about murder, but I know that he burnt, that he levelled

those two places to the ground. He didn't take Carbonear, and coming back that

winter, he wintered in Bull Arm - 300 years ago. Parts of this road are of very

significant value.

As the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes says, there

are many, many people who travel daily, this gravel road from Southeast

Placentia to North Harbour area, to Colinet. They go for hospital services. They

go to the Eastern Community College in Placentia. The RCMP patrol there daily.

There is business they conduct in Placentia, and for the people our way, to go

to St. John's or even out to that area of St. Mary's Bay north.

Many people use it, and in tourism it would provide another

valuable link, a paved link, that people coming in off the Argentia ferry might

use.

Now, in terms of Newfoundland tourism I think that persons

who travel, resident Newfoundlanders who travel over a fifty-mile area are

considered tourists as well, so if they didn't have the time this would make a

shorter link on parts of the Avalon and open up a new area that could be quite

valuable.

The member mentioned earlier Cape St. Mary's and the Cataract

Park, so I am glad, as I said earlier, to be able to support this. I say to the

minister, the Chinese have a saying, `The longest walk starts with the first

step', and probably by taking some initiative to have a look to start this area,

someday or other, we will see this pavement fulfilled.

Thank you.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, in 1995 we will

have a request from the people of this Province to address some 9,500 kilometres

of road. If and when the budgetary decision allows me to do some construction on

those roads there will be a priority list that I will be looking over and I will

make all the decisions at that particular time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present a petition on behalf of members of my district: To

the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament

assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following

prayer:

`We, the undersigned residents of the district of Ferryland,

do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of Employment

and Labour Relations to immediately implement an emergency employment program.

With the economic conditions that exist we find ourselves in a desperate

situation. We ask the minister and his government to show compassion and

understanding in this matter. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever

pray.'

Mr. Speaker, I have had numerous calls from people in my

district and many, many hardship cases. I had one call recently from a family of

four people - I made reference to it before - who moved into another home, owe a

few hundred dollars to Newfoundland Light and Power and can't get a power

hook-up - a family, at this time of the year, on the income of a disability

pension. The father had to give up work and take a disability pension of only

$600-and-some. He has two kids in high school not able to afford to get books

and he just hits the borderline on Social Services. They can't get assistance or

have any drug costs covered.

There are many people in the Province today, while they may

not be on social assistance, they are on the borderline and below the poverty

lines that are established in this Province. An estimated 25 per cent of

children in this Province are living in families below the poverty line. While

they may not be in danger of dying today from starvation, I can assure you they

are going hungry and their families and themselves are severely affected because

of it.

The Premier in this House and the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology stand and they tell us that in this Province today, the picture

is very rosy, we are going to have 3.4 per cent growth in this Province, when

the actual fact, Mr. Speaker, is that every single province in Canada today,

except Newfoundland, has had a reduction in unemployment. All the other

provinces have come out of recovery and have followed on the coat-tails of the

United States and Canada overall. We are the only Province in Canada that is

coming out of the recession without any increase in number of jobs. We have a

jobless recovery in this Province. We have 21 per cent unemployment, the most

severe that it has ever been. There are more families out there today hurting,

more families in need of food and the basic necessities of life than there have

ever been in this Province before - and they paint a rosy picture, they tell us

that we are on a recovery.

Mr. Speaker, Professor Hill, I believe - I heard yesterday

morning - has indicated that is not the case.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't know what he was talking about.

MR. SULLIVAN: He did have a clue what he was talking

about.

I read many financial magazines on the economic view, and the

quarterly reviews done by this government, I tell the minister, are no longer

non-partisan. They have overtones of promoting what is best, picking out the

best parts of this economy and not the real impacts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I don't care whose they are, we have

to paint a true picture to the people of this Province. We have to paint a true

picture and tell the real story.

I asked the members who are out in the districts and have

seen it. I went to a house in my district a few months ago and under an

emergency program - I mentioned this before in this House - they repaired a

chimney because it was a fire hazard, and did some electrical work around there,

but that woman and two children didn't have a door on the house except an

outside storm standard door that you can see through - no inside door. Their

family put siding on one end and the back of that house. They couldn't afford to

put on any more, and still social assistance would pay heating bills, while, by

putting up a door it could have saved them ten times the value. But `because it

is not our policy we can't do it,' they decided to go out and waste money. That

family couldn't stay there - the house is unoccupied and they are out paying

rent. Social Services are paying rent in the City of St. John's for this family,

at a very high cost. People are having to leave their homes - they own their

homes but they can't get money to repair them up to a standard where they can

live in them, and have to go out and be subsidized by this Province when, given

a few extra dollars, a few thousand dollars, they could be staying in their own

homes at much less cost to government and much better - and not upsetting the

family by moving them out of the area in which they have lived.

There are, Mr. Speaker, many, many hardship cases out there.

And I said to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations before, that it is

incumbent upon this government to recognize those hardship cases out there, to

do something to bring in an emergency employment program. I know short-term

employment is not the answer in this Province, but short-term employment is a

better response than no employment at all.

I think it is important that this government - the Premier

put a gag order on all of these announcements by the minister, and a release

went out, but this morning I heard the minister saying, I hope to have an

announcement in my place in the House today. He said it last week and the week

before and we just haven't had any response -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We haven't had any response from the

government, and I think they should do something about it to meet the needs of

the people in this Province today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand and

support the Member for Ferryland with his petition on behalf of the people of

his district in relation to an employment generation program.

I was sorry today not to hear the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations. I thought he would give us an early Christmas gift, so close

to Christmas, the last day of the House. I thought he would stand in his place

today and present something, but as I have said so many times before in this

House, I know full well that the minister would like to stand in his place and

present it, and hopefully we will hear over the airwaves in the next few weeks

that something has come forward.

I am pleased today to stand and support the Member for

Ferryland. To touch on a few things that the member touched on in relation to

percentages and growth in this Province, that the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology was on the airwaves about over the past couple of days, he forgot

a couple of the percentages that I think he should have announced when doing his

announcement, that I am sure the people of the Province would be interested in

hearing. One was that there was a 200 per cent increase in social assistance

recipients in this Province over the past three years - 200 per cent. It was on

CBC Radio this morning, there are going to be 40,000 people in this Province

this year depending on food banks, 10,000 more than last Christmas, and most of

them, Mr. Speaker, a fair number of them, are within the confines of the St.

John's area.

The stories on CBC Radio this morning - one lady said she

didn't know where her next meal was coming from - are stories we have tried to

bring forward in this House over the past couple of weeks that have met with

ridicule and laughter. But they are reality, it is just that some people turn a

blind eye to them.

Mr. Speaker, 25 per cent of the children in this Province are

living below the poverty line. There are children going to school hungry in this

Province, and for some reason or other the government fails to see that.

Ten thousand coats for kids were collected in this area over

the past couple of weeks, almost double what was collected and distributed last

year. And they changed the format of it this year a little bit, they decided to

give coats to the adults so that the adults could buy coats for their own

children. This really, I think, brings out the true message that we, on this

side of the House, are trying to get across, that there are people hurting.

There are people who are in desperate need of some type of assistance, and that

is why we stand in this House day after day, presenting petitions on behalf of

constituents of ours, trying to get the government to realize that there is a

need out there for some type of employment generation program. It is an

emergency not only in my district, but indeed, I would allow, in the fifty-two

districts in this Province there is a need for some type of emergency employment

program. I certainly hope that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations,

in his discussions with his Cabinet colleagues, can find the money somewhere to

come forward with something that will alleviate the pain and suffering of the

people in the Province.

We talk about the growth that has been happening in some

industries in our Province over the past couple of months - over the past years,

I should say - but it is what you would call a jobless growth, in my estimation.

We may be having growth, but it is not resulting in jobs, it is not resulting in

money in the pockets of the people of this Province. It is resulting in money in

the pockets of the multinationals that are taking the money from our Province

and putting it into Quebec or Ontario, or God knows where. The people of this

Province don't feel the growth that the government opposite feels. The people in

my district don't feel the growth that the government opposite is talking about.

Because they are, for the first time in their lives, several of them have to

return to social assistance. Several people I have talked to over the past

number of weeks, for the first time in their lives had to turn to social

assistance.

I think that is a sad commentary, not only on society, but

indeed, on the government in general. I hope the petitions we bring forward here

today looking for some type of short-term employment -and as the Member for

Ferryland said, and I have said myself on several occasions, we know this is not

the answer to the problems that face this Province today. We know that a

short-term employment program is not going to take care of the many needs of the

people of this Province, but it is something that is needed now to help some

people along. Maybe one member in a family might be lucky enough to get some

type of job to help through the winter months.

We are not saying that the government is going to come up

with enough money to create the thousands and tens of thousands of jobs that are

needed in this Province. No government can. We hope that the government will

come forward with something that will take care of the emergency that is facing

this Province at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is nice to have an

occasion to rise in this House to say to hon. members, finally, after, as most

members know, long discussions with the Federal Government on this issue,

consistent with other employment initiatives we have had over the year, we have

the Federal Government position. The government will be dealing with that

position over the next couple of days and I'm very hopeful we will be able to

address it in a proper manner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all minded to

get out of here at an early time, so let's move ahead with it. I ask if you

would first call motion 2, which stands in my name, and my suspicion is it will

go through without debate, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2; it is moved and seconded as on the

Order Paper.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, all I will simply say is the

motion speaks for itself and I commend it to the House.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you be good enough,

please, to put the House into Committee.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, we have to deal with three

bills and then the supply bill in Committee. All three of the bills will require

amendment. If we could go first to Order 37 which is Bill No. 32, the public

tender act amendments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Public tender act amendment. Oh, the

amendment! I ask the Clerk to bring one over, I'm sorry. It is a really massive

one, it strikes out a comma. But I'm sorry, I thought the - my instructions were

that the amendments would be distributed.

Your Honour, the amendment is in clause 9, so when we get to

clause 9 I will move it. If you would call the bill and we will deal with it.

On motion, clauses 1 to 8, carried.

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

the amendment.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I would move that clause 9(

a) of the bill be amended by striking out the figures and comma, quote: 4 3, 4" and

substituting the figure: "4 (4)". That may read fairly well in Hansard and I am

sure that the explanation is in the very words that I used.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 9 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 10 and 11, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act", (Bill No.

32).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with

amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, will you be good enough please,

to call Order 36, Bill 44, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991", amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 36, Bill 44.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) refer to clauses 2 and 4, and I

believe my friends opposite were given the amendments yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are just taking a few minutes -

MR. ROBERTS: If you want to take a few minutes, there is

no hurry, have a look at them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well look, let us let that bill stand; we

have one other to deal with and that is to ask leave to take a bill that we

passed through Committee yesterday, that is Bill 18, "An Act To Amend The

Assessment Act" which stands as Order 7, today and to recommit it to Committee

to move a further amendment.

I think I need unanimous consent to do that, Mr. Chairman,

and I would ask if the Committee is prepared to agree.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Government House Leader have leave

of the House to revert to Order 7, an amendment in the Committee stage?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Leave is granted.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

Would you please then, call, for Committee stage again, Bill

18, which is "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act", and I will have an amendment

for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 18, clause 4.

Shall clause 4 carry?

MR. ROBERTS: No, the amendment will be to clause 4, Mr.

Chairman, please.

It now reads, subsection 1 (2) of this Act shall come into

force on Jan 1, 1995 ... we wish to amend by deleting 1995 and putting in the

words 1996; the effect of the amendment obviously and very clearly is that the

subsection 1 (2) will come into force a year from now as opposed to a week from

now or two weeks from now. I move the amendment, Sir.

On motion, amended carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 4 as amended, carry?

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Just a short comment on this particular

clause.

I don't see anything wrong with the clause from changing Jan

1, '95 to Jan 1, '96. In fact, Mr. Chairman, because of the budgetary process

and everything that is about to be completed by municipalities in the Province,

it would be the right thing to do rather than some of them change it two or

three or four months down the road and find out that they had to pay back money

or whichever; but there is one other thing, now, while I have a chance to say a

few words on this, that I would ask the minister, he would probably be able to

tell me now when he stands, because on the Order Paper today, Bill 62, is still

on the Order Paper by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and I

was wondering; I know it has not gone through second reading yet, but I am

wondering if that will come today or not or will it just be dropped off the

Order Paper?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I will deal with that.

The government decided not to proceed with that bill at this

time. It will remain on the Order Paper but will not be called for debate this

day.

On motion, clause 4 as amended, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with

amendment, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 44, clause 9.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, on Bill 44 we have two

amendments, if we are back to that now, and I understand my friend from

Ferryland has had an opportunity to peruse these. These are very technical and,

in my understanding, are aimed at addressing one or two anomalies that have been

discovered, really, in implementing the NLCS privatization. That is what I am

told.

I would move the amendments if they are in order, Your

Honour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it clause 1 you are amending?

MR. ROBERTS: No, clause 1 should be carried.

In clause 2 there are two amendments, Your Honour. The first

would be to delete from subclauses 6.1(1) and 6.1(2) the word "credited". It

appears, as the committee will see, in each case, in 6.1(1) and 6.1(2), so it is

to be taken out and I so move, Sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to clause 2 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

speak briefly to the issue and the tidying up of the privatization of NLCS, and

say that this activity took place over the summer after a bill was passed last

spring. We haven't yet seen the actual contract. I wonder if the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board would be prepared to table the contracts that were

entered into with respect to the privatization of NLCS? They have never been

made public, and I wonder if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would be

prepared to table those documents?

I also wonder why the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

was able to sell a company with annual revenues of $21 million, and a reported

profit of about $3 million in the last year, for only $9 million? It seems that

the government, in doing this, not only did they sell this company for the price

of only $9 million, also gave them a guarantee of work for seven years to be

able to earn, presumably, more than enough money to pay for the company in the

seven years, so it seems to me to be much less of a privatization for the sake

of other objectives than, in fact, a giveaway to a group of people who are then

guaranteed the revenues and the profit to pay for the purchase price. It seems

to be a very sweet deal, or a sweetheart deal, for these companies.

I have yet to see the details of this agreement. I know there

were some negotiations going on all over the summer, and the minister made great

comments at the time of the announcement of the deal, but we haven't seen the

documents themselves, and haven't seen what exact obligations are placed on

these companies who have taken over this work. There was all sorts of talk of

all kinds of new work being brought to the Province as a result of this

privatization, and I wonder what commitments are in the contract, or what

contractual commitments there are in that regard.

Perhaps the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would be

willing to respond to these comments and agree to table in the House, or make

available to hon. members personally, copies of the contracts entered into on

behalf of the government with respect to the privatization of NLCS. These

contracts have yet to be made public and I, for one, would like to examine them

to determine my view as to how the public interest, not only in the choosing of

services but the public interest into possibly using this opportunity to

diversify the economy of this Province, and particularly provide opportunities

for all of those companies in the Province who are active in the computer

software, or in the computer market, to play a role in the development of a

viable computer software industry in the Province.

It is one of those new economy type industries that does not

necessarily require a lot - your geographical location in the world is of little

relevance to this particular type of business. It is one of those areas where I

know from personal knowledge that we have an awful lot of highly skilled and

talented individuals who are participating in that business and have a real

concern, and still have a real concern, as to whether or not there is anything

going to be done as a result of the privatization of NLCS that would ensure them

having some role to play.

I for one would like to see what contractual obligations

these newly privatized organizations have undertaken, and I ask the Minister of

Finance to indicate his willingness to make available, either to the House by

tabling it here today, or to me outside the House, a copy of the contracts

entered into on government's behalf with the new owners of the NLCS enterprise.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. BAKER: I have just a few brief comments, Mr.

Chairman.

Obviously, I am not going to now table copies of the

agreements. I do not have them, number one, and number two, it will take awhile

to get them. Number three, I do not know what implications that would have and I

have to find out, so obviously I cannot now table the agreements. I would like

to point out that the process of the privatization of NLCS was a very highly

competitive process and the leader without a party down there - and we now have

a party without a leader, so it is an interesting combination, anyway the leader

without a party, tries to characterize this as some kind of a cooked up

sweetheart deal whereby perhaps we wanted to provide some humongous benefit to

Bell Sigma, Anderson Consulting, or NewTel, and that we cooked up this whole

thing simply to provide them with some windfall.

I find it very difficult to respond to such implications, Mr.

Chairman. This was a very competitive process with very competitive companies

involved, including companies like IBM, and companies like Systems House. If

this was such a lucrative deal then obviously a company like Systems House or a

company like IBM would have made a better offer. This was a highly, highly

competitive process in an extremely competitive industry.

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to comment on the hon.

member's accusations, I suppose, if they are that, that somehow this was some

sweetheart deal cooked up. I feel sorry for the hon. member as he always seems

to be looking for these bogeymen behind the woodpiles.

I would like to tell him, Mr. Speaker, there is neither one

here.

On motion, first amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, the second amendment is also to

clause 2 of the bill and to add after the proposed Subclause 6.1 Sub 2 the

following. "2.1, an employee who elects to rejoin the pension plan under this

section may elect to purchase a period of service from the date of his or her

completion of thirty-five years of pensionable service to the date of his or her

election to rejoin the pension plan at a cost that shall be prescribed by

regulation."

Again, Sir, I think the wording of the amendment says all

that needs to be said and I simply move the amendment.

On motion, Clause 2 as amended, carried.

On motion, Clauses 3 and 4, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, could I now move that we add

Clause 5 which will read as follows: "Paragraph 33, 1, (

g) of the act is amended

by adding immediately after the word "sections" the figure and, "6.1,". Again, I

am sure the committee has followed that carefully, Sir.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause #?, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with

amendments, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you please call Motion

No. 1 which is supplementary supply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion No. 1, Bill No. 63.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) in the full House. Then Your

Honour will have to rise the Committee and we will - we are going to do

supplementary supply. We have to go back to get the message from the

Lieutenant-Governor read first, back into the House.

Your Honour, let us rise the Committee, report the three

bills with amendments. We will deal with those and get the amendments cleared

up, then come back into Committee stage.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have

considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report having

passed Bill Nos. 32, 18 and 44 with amendments, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, amendments to Bill Nos. 32, 18 and 44 read a first

and second time, ordered read a third time today.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from

His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: The message from His Honour, the

Lieutenant-Governor is dated December 12 1994 and reads as follows:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland,

transmit further supplementary estimates of sums required for the public service

of the Province for the year ending March 31 1994 by way of further

supplementary supply, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution

Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you be good enough to put

the House in Committee again and we will deal with the supplementary supply bill

there?

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

Bill No. 63, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This bill is essentially a routine bill covering off some

expenditures, supplementary supply, from the year ending March 31, 1994, so from

April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994, totalling $36,500,000, involving $6 million in

employment and labour relations, and a social services overexpenditure of

$30,500,000.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I thought when the minister

got on his feet he was going to give us an early Christmas present and resign,

bringing in a piece of legislation this late in the game looking for $36 million

that he spent last year. I don't understand the minister. I had more faith in

him than that.

There is not a great deal we can do with this particular

piece of legislation, obviously. It is an annual thing that has gone through.

That is one of the powers the government has, that by the time it comes to the

House of Assembly it is far late to do anything but yell and scream and bawl

about it. I would take the opportunity to point out, though, that the bulk of

this is for social services overexpenditures, and I recall very succinctly

during the time of the budget debate, pointing out to the minister that they had

grossly underestimated that, that in view of the economy, in the view of the

unemployment situation, and all the projections that we had, that certain

projections of revenues were overly optimistic, certain projections of

expenditures were underestimated.

I have been proven wrong as it relates to the revenue

projections, and I am pleased to see that. The minister has already told us that

revenues are ahead of expectations and government has benefitted from that

although, as I pointed out in debating that a few weeks ago, the bulk of that

came from federal transfers, so the minister has benefitted from a windfall

there.

I think there is a lesson in this particular piece of

legislation, that it is unrealistic in this day and age, with the present

economy, for government to put in place a budget that does not provide ample

funding for the social service system and for social assistance recipients for

the programs that will be necessary there, for the projects that the minister

invariably comes in with each year, looking for funding to fund special

make-work projects to help these people, for the funding that the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations invariably comes in each year looking for

additional funding to put in place an emergency response program, which we had

all hoped to hear today.

We must accept the fact, as much as we don't like it, as much

as we would all like to see the financial situation of the Province and Canada

change, as much as we would like to get away from that type of government job

creation project and put more emphasis on long-term job creation and

strengthening of the economy. It is a fact of life in Newfoundland and Labrador

today, this government has tried to stay away from it in five successive

budgets, and they have been wrong five times, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to a

couple of points brought up by my friend from Mount Pearl.

First of all, he is absolutely right; the social services

expenditure projections have been off by a certain amount each year. I would

like to point out to him that the method of projecting ahead for the next budget

on social services expenditures used to be that you take the average of the

current year and project that for the next year, and we did that for a number of

years.

Then last year we decided to change it so that in this year's

budget, what we did was, we took the maximum for last year rather than the

average for last year, the maximum point in time for last year and projected for

this year's budget. So there was quite a jump in terms of the budgetary amount

for social services this year but even that, Mr. Speaker, did not handle the

situation and as the hon. member knows, the social service caseload has gone

beyond what we had, still beyond what we projected.

In preparation for next year's budget I am considering doing

a more in-depth analysis on projected caseloads, especially in light of what may

be happening with the federal programs. Nobody knows exactly what they are going

to do but certainly it is going to have an affect on us. When we are preparing

next year's budget we are going to not just take the maximum load this year but

also try to do an accurate estimate on what percentage increase and try to build

that in next year's budget. So he is quite right in his comments about those

particular expenditures, we are trying to deal with it and do a better estimate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of

Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The

Financial Year Ending March 31, 1994 And For Other Purposes Relating To The

Public Service." (Bill No. 63)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I think we are now at the

point where we can go back into the House and deal with third readings. So if

you will be good enough to rise the committee and perhaps ask leave to sit

again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on

Supply has considered the matters to it referred, has directed me to report that

it has adopted a certain resolution and ask that bill be introduced to give

effect to the same and as well, ask leave to sit again.

On motion, amendment to Bill No. 63 read a first, second and

third time.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for

the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses to the

public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1994 the sum of

$36,500,000.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution

and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty

Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public

Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1994 And For Other Purposes

Relating To The Public Service," read a third time, ordered passed and their

titles be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 63)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, if we can maybe moderate the

private conversations a little, those of us who are attending to the business of

the House could get on with it.

There are thirty-four bills now at the stage of third

reading. My suggestion, Sir, is we start with Order No. 2 and simply take them

one after the other. There are, I believe, one or two members who wish to speak

on one or two of the bills. Of course a bill may be debated on third reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Nobody on this side, I have to say, but I

understand my friend for St. John's East -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, as my friend for Gander said, my friend

for St. John's East is now in the happy position of being a leader without a

party who is sitting next to a party without a leader. Maybe the two can get

together. In any event - it wasn't my line, it was my friend for Gander.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I want to say on this leadership thing, I

want to place on the record, that I have already offered my considerable

expertise in leadership matters both in winning and in losing to my friend for

Ferryland and my friend for Humber East. She may be off the list after this

morning, I have to tell you.

Your Honour, could we call Order No. 2, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes I may.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend for Grand Bank is too smart.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: If I may suggest to the hon. Government

House Leader, we could do them individually, or if we knew which bills were not

going to be debated I could call them all as (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I literally cannot hear Your Honour because

of conversations. I'm sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. If we might have a little quiet in the

House just so we can determine how we will do it. I could either call all the

bills as a group and ask for third reading on them all or do them individually.

If we know they are not going to be debated it might be simpler to have one

third reading of them all.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm quite prepared to do them as it were en

masse, if Your Honour deems that appropriate, within the (inaudible). There are

thirty-four bills here. We can either call thirty-four or we can deal with them

individually.

MR. SPEAKER: I would rather do them as a group. I think

it would be simpler.

MR. ROBERTS: If the House agrees we will do it now. My

friend for St. John's East wants to be heard on one bill so let's get him out of

the way first. What is it, Jack?

MR. HARRIS: Bill No. 52.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I will be guided by the Government

House Leader, but if you want to do that.

MR. ROBERTS: If you would call Order No. 14 and then we

will hear from my friend for St. John's East. Then we will do the other

thirty-three bills in one fell swoop. The whole House will now wait for my

friend for St. John's East. If Your Honour would call it.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill No.

52 entitled "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act" be now read a

third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak to

this bill at third reading because I think that it needs to be pointed out that

there are an awful lot of individual difficult circumstances that are in

abeyance as a result of problems with the leaseholds of their land.

They are problems which need to be fixed. They are problems

which are costing people thousands of dollars, and they are problems which are

impossible to fix without legislative changes. They are preventing people from

obtaining mortgages, interfering with the normal buying and selling of property

by individuals in St. John's who have difficulties with titles, and they are not

new problems. They have been known for a number of years. The government has had

for a couple of years a report designed to try and bring about these changes. We

are now here in the last couple of days of our short fall session dealing with a

fairly complex piece of legislation that there obviously isn't time to fix in

such a way as to solve all the problems.

I will give an example of one of the problems that one of my

constituents has brought to my attention and has brought to the Government House

Leader's attention. For some years now, at least in 1993 and again this year,

and I have been getting a number of calls on this issue for some time - this

legislation which has gone to the trouble of coming up with a scheme which I

approve of, and I said so at second reading. A scheme which would put all of the

leasehold interests in the leased lands for residential property for ancient and

modern leases, would vest title to that land in the city, and the city can

insist that the individuals pay to the city the amount of money which landlords

were compensated for their land.

But what I have concern about is the speed at which things

are happening and the fact that, despite much effort on the part of my own

constituent of whom I speak, and representations made to the Department of

Justice, the legislative scheme that we have here does not appear to address the

situation where a particular property still falls between the cracks of

legislation because this particular property is subject in part of its land to

an ancient lease which would be covered by this property, but in another part of

the land on which a portion of the individual's house rests, the leasehold

interest is perhaps neither an ancient nor a modern lease unto the

definitions

because the modern lease requires that there be a covenant to build a house on

the property in order to qualify it as a modern lease. Thus, we have a situation

where a person's back garden and part of the land on which the individual's

house rests, is leasehold land which cannot be purchased under the legislation

and, in this particular case, the landlord, the owner of the freehold of the

land, is unwilling to sell the property.

So that's the situation that I think the intention of the

Leaseholds in St. John's Act is attempting to resolve by vesting leasehold

property in the city, that there are very substantial difficulties created for

individuals, and this one hasn't even been resolved in this legislation. And I

regret, Mr. Speaker, that the government did not bring this legislation forward

earlier in the Fall, so that a legislation committee could have sorted out

whatever anomalies or problems there might be and allow the whole legislative

scheme to be put into place right now. But the problems that are ongoing, that

are still causing difficulties for this particular individual and many others,

cannot yet be resolved.

The solution proposed by the Government House Leader is to

have the bill proclaimed today in

Part I, which would extend all leases to

December 31, 1995. We did something similar last year, Mr. Speaker, to extend

the leases to December 31, 1994, and I believe earlier it was done to extend

them to another date. All of these have been temporary measures, Mr. Speaker, we

now have another temporary measure which is to proclaim

Part I and to send all

Part II to a committee.

I know that the committee will be able to address some of

these problems and hopefully, in the Spring, the legislative changes that are

coming forth from the committee can be incorporated into the bill, changes

introduced, and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Government House Leader treat

this legislation on an urgent, priority basis when it comes back into the House,

so that we are not waiting from when the House opens in February, or whenever it

opens, that we are not waiting until the end of June in a session like today's,

to finally get through this legislation dealing with twenty or thirty or forty

or fifty bills at one time.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government House Leader to

commit, upon receipt of the report from the legislation committee, to

immediately, as the House opens, bringing forth these amendments and not let

them drag on to the end of the session for passage.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it will be found that all sides of the

House would be prepared to agree to give this speedy passage if it could resolve

individual problems that have been of long standing.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would agree with third

reading of the bill and speedy passage of same, to extend the leaseholds that

exist in St. John's, the ancient or modern leases that may have expired to

December 31, 1995, and ask, in fact, plead with the government on behalf of my

constituent of whom the Government House Leader is aware, that the changes that

need to be made to look after her particular problem as well as some others be

made as quickly as is humanly possible and that upon the return of this

legislation, of the report of the legislation committee, to seek an immediate

passage in the House of Assembly as soon as the session opens and the report of

the committee is received.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Those are my remarks.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The hon.

gentleman is correct when he says that he has, on occasion, over the last couple

of years, written to me in my role as then the Minister of Justice about a

particular situation in which a constituent of his finds herself. I have also

had representations from the lawyers who represent that particular person and

she is in a very unusual situation.

I had been told that the amendments set out in the second

part of the bill would, in fact, address the situation but I gather that may not

be the case. I don't want to be argumentative. My learned friend advises me it

is not the case, I am not here to argue one way or the other. I want to speak to

the officials and find out precisely what they have to say. What I do say, and

what I have said to him privately, and will gladly say here in the House is

this: The bill will be referred - I am not sure we refer a bill, but the

relevant Standing Committee, the Standing Order 84 committee, will deal with

this bill.

Now, that is a matter for the committee themselves - when

they deal with it, how they deal with it - but the committee will be asked to

deal with this bill. I make the request now, as I did at second reading. In the

course of that, this situation can be examined. It is a very unique situation, I

think my friend, the Member for St. John's East would acknowledge, a very unique

situation. If we need amendments to the bill, as it will then be

an act, to deal

with the situation, if that is the best way to deal with it, then government

would be prepared to bring those in.

There may well be other amendments requested to the act and

that is the reason we are sending it to the committee. The scheme, we suggest,

as in the bill is a very far-reaching scheme and goes well beyond simply trying

to deal with one particular situation. I do make that commitment quite clearly

without any hesitation. We will try to address the situation in which this

particular individual finds herself.

Thank you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that government still wishes to do

third reading of the bill and have the act proclaimed, and you were speaking

about (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry - look, guys, I can't hear the

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it government still wishes to have

third reading and have the bill passed into law.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, yes, please, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: As I mentioned earlier, I have on the Order

Paper for third reading all the bills listed in Orders 2 through, and including

33, excluding 35 and 36, but including 36 and 37. Is that correct?

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, let me just read them off so at

least we have a record. I am reading now from today's Orders of the Day. We have

Orders 2 through 33, 36 and 37, and I move third reading, Sir, of all of these

bills.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered

passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper.

A bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement

Entered Into Between The Government Of The Province And Corner Brook Pulp And

Paper Limited". (Bill No. 42)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act". (Bill No.

30)

A bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement

Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies". (Bill No. 20)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act". (Bill No.

35)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Grants Act". (Bill No.

17)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act". (Bill No. 18)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City of St. John's Act". (Bill

No.56)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act And The

City Of Mount Pearl Act". (Bill No. 40)

A bill, "An Act To Continue The Newfoundland Pharmaceutical

Association". (Bill No. 5)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association Act".

(Bill No. 37)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The School Trustees' Association

Act". (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mining And Mineral Rights Tax

Act". (Bill No. 30)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act".

(Bill No. 52)

A bill,"An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute

Law". (Bill No. 57)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Recording Of Evidence Act".

(Bill No.60)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland And Labrador

Computer Services Limited Amendment Act". (Bill No. 55)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act". (Bill

No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act (No.

2)". (Bill No. 54)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act".

(Bill No. 53)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill No.

46)

A bill, 'An Act To Provide For Economic Diversification And

Growth Enterprises In The Province." (Bill No. 51)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological

Reserves Act." (Bill No. 50)

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Livestock Insurance Act." (Bill

No. 49)

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

33)

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Works, Services

And Transportation Act (No. 2)." (Bill No. 31)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Works, Services

And Transportation Act." (Bill No. 16)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act, The Reciprocal

Enforcement Of Support Orders Act And The Support Orders Enforcement Act." (Bill

No. 64)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospital Insurance Agreement

Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act." (Bill No.

61)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Reductions Of Pension

Contributions By Employers In The Public Sector." (Bill No. 58)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act."

(Bill No. 34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991." (Bill No. 44)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act." (Bill No.

32)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I understand that the

Lieutenant-Governor is actually taping his Christmas message but he will be with

us as soon as he can. My suggestion would be that we simply leave and hang

around in the common rooms or where have you and Your Honour would let us know

when word has come that the Lieutenant-Governor has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. For members, I think the Clerk

suggested he would probably be here at approximately 11:30 a.m., so members

might -

MR. ROBERTS: About 11:30 a.m.?

MR. SPEAKER: Approximately.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sure we know, Your Honour, but it

will be fairly soon. It may well be 11:30 a.m. or so, but we will all have a

chance for a cup of tea.

MR. SPEAKER: Very good. The House will now recess until

the Lieutenant-Governor arrives.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: Your Honour, it is my agreeable duty on

behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland,

to present to Your Honour a Bill for the appropriation of Supplementary Supply

granted in the present session.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of

Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The

Financial Year Ending March 31, 1994 And For Other Purposes Relating To The

Public Service".

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: In Her Majesty's Name, I thank Her

Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General

Assembly of the Province has at its present session passed certain bills to

which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly, I respectfully request

Your Honour's assent.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957

(No.2)". (Bill No. 38)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act,

1957 (No. 2)". (Bill No. 39)

A bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement

Entered Into Between The Government Of The Province And Corner Brook Pulp And

Paper Limited". (Bill No. 42)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act". (Bill No.

30)

A bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement

Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies". (Bill No. 20)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act". (Bill No.

35)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Grants Act". (Bill No.

17)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act". (Bill No. 18)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act". (Bill

No. 56)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act And The

City Of Mount Pearl Act". (Bill No. 40)

A bill, "An Act To Continue The Newfoundland Pharmaceutical

Association". (Bill No. 5)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association Act".

(Bill No. 37)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The School Trustees' Association

Act". (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mining And Mineral Rights Tax

Act". (Bill No. 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act".

(Bill No. 52)

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute

Law". (Bill No. 57)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Recording Of Evidence Act".

(Bill No. 60)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland And Labrador

Computer Services Limited Amendment Act". (Bill No. 55)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act". (Bill

No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act (No.

2)". (Bill No. 54)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act".

(Bill No. 53)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act". (Bill No.

46)

A bill, "An Act To Promote Economic Diversification And

Growth Enterprises In The Province". (Bill No. 51)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological

Reserves Act". (Bill No. 50)

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Livestock Insurance Act". (Bill

No. 49)

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

33)

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department of Works, Services

And Transportation Act (No. 2)". (Bill No. 31)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Works, Services

And Transportation Act". (Bill No. 16)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act, The Reciprocal

Enforcement Of Support Orders Act And The Support Orders Enforcement Act". (Bill

No. 64)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospital Insurance Agreement

Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act". (Bill No.

61)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Reductions Of Pension

Contributions By Employers In The Public Sector". (Bill No. 58)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act".

(Bill No. 34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991". (Bill No. 44)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act". (Bill No.

32)

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: In Her Majesty's Name, I assent to

these bills.

I would like to thank the members of this hon. House for

their deliberations over the last five weeks on behalf of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. At this festive time of year I would like to wish

each member of the hon. House and their families, a very Merry Christmas, a

happy, healthy and prosperous 1995.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Your Honour, may I, on behalf of all

members of the House, accept Your Honour's kind remarks with gratitude. May I

also extend to Your Honour and Your Honour's family our good wishes for a

healthy, happy and prosperous 1995 and a joyous Christmas season. May I also

take this opportunity to extend to Your Honour and by doing so in this public

forum, also indicate it publicly that I, as Your Honour's first minister, am

very grateful for the warm and cordial relationship that Your Honour and I enjoy

and, in our weekly discussions, I help keep you informed and you help keep me

advised. Between the two of us I think we do our best to discharge our

responsibilities to the people of this Province and I want to publicly

acknowledge Your Honour's contribution in that regard.

Thank you, Your Honour, and again, best wishes for the

season.

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Thank you, Mr. Premier, I

reciprocate your kind remarks.

MR. SULLIVAN: Your Honour, on behalf of the Official

Opposition I extend to you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a Happy

New Year and to all members of the House of Assembly and especially the staff

here of the House of Assembly who have worked hard and diligently to ensure that

the business of the day gets expedited in the proper manner. So I hope there

will be health and happiness in the New Year to all members here. Thank you,

Your Honour.

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Thank you very much for your

remarks.

MR. HARRIS: Your Honour, on behalf of myself and my party

I would like to join with the Premier and the Member for Ferryland to extend to

you my best wishes to you and your family for a Merry Christmas and also to take

the opportunity, while I am on my feet, to wish all hon. members and the staff

of the House the compliments of the season.

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Thank you very much.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, in moving what will be the

final adjournment of the year I would like to add my own word of thanks to all

on both sides who have cooperated from time to time in helping to move the

business of the House forward, and I speak on behalf of the new House Leader, my

friend from St. Barbe. Given the training he had yesterday I am sure he will be

very anxious to take over and I certainly am nominating him for the position. I

commend him to the Leader of the Government for this position. I have to tell

you though Chuck, I have to tell you - the glory is brief.

Your Honour, I wish all a very Happy Christmas and I know I

speak for all in the House. I want to say a particular word of thanks, Sir, to

you and to the Clerks at the table, the Pages and those who work so hard to help

us to do our job here. We at least, who are members of the House, get to take

part in the fun. The others simply have to stand and sit, that is their role, to

wait, and that includes our silent Sergeant-at-Arms today who I understand has

had laryngitis, and thus the Clerk has had to help him announce the Governor,

and to the attendants in the galleries. I don't know if he is still up there but

Jack Oates has been in the House even longer than I have, Mr. Speaker, and has

heard more words said, more words spoken than any member of the House ever in

the history of this Province. So if that isn't worth at least the Order of

Canada, Grade III, I can't think of a thing that is.

Your Honour, I move that when the House adjourns, it stand

adjourned until the call of the Chair, the Speaker, or in his absence from the

Province, the Deputy Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet

at the time and date stated by those of the proposed sitting.

I move the House do now adjourn, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Before pronouncing the adjournment I would

like to just join in the best wishes of the Government House Leader and also our

staff at Hansard, who probably not as long as Jack but certainly bear the

unpleasant duty of listening to us at all times, and the press.

So in any event I would like to invite members to a reception

which, at the courtesy of the Government Caucus, is being held in their room as

soon as we adjourn. So Merry Christmas to all.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned at the call of

the Chair.