November

17, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 63

House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

galleries twenty-nine Level I and Level II students from Fatima Academy, St.

Bride's, accompanied by their teachers, Patricia Dohey and Reggie Green.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

I have a question for the Premier, following up on the line

of questioning by the member for Bonavista South yesterday dealing with the

Minister of Social Services. Now, on November 8, 1994 the Minister of Social

Services issued a public statement, a written press release, where she referred

to the dismissal of one Mr. Mallenby at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth

Center at Whitbourne. In that she talked about the reasons for dismissal, job

performance and work history.

I want to ask the Premer, in light of the minister's public

statement that is clearly a violation of the Freedom of Information Act and the

Privacy Act, but particularly the Freedom Informaiton Act,

section 10 (1) (b):

Does the Premier consider this conduct and behavior of the Minister of Social

Services to be acceptable?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to you that I

haven't seen the release or statement by the minister. I haven't examined it in

the context of the Freedom of Information Act or the Privacy Act. I have had

only a brief conversation with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, and he

tells me he has examined the matter and he sees nothing inappropriate or illegal

about it. I see no reason to puruse a further examination of it. If I hear of

any good reason to pursue it, other than the expression of opinion of the hon.

member, I will have no hesitation in taking a look at it, but I see no reason to

do so today.

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

House leader.

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

Let me enlighten the Premier a bit. Is the Premier aware that

in her written press release, the minister really made a deliberate,

premeditated false statement, when she said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members are not allowed to use the word false or

falsehood in the House. The member should phrase it otherwise.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - and in that written, deliberate

statement pertaining to the situation, she said: Mr. Mallenby was dismissed for

work related problems, job performance. Now the record of employment belonging

to Mr. Mallenby states that he was dismissed for breach of trust and loss of

confidence, so in essence, the minister in her statement, issued a false

statement. The reason was inaccurate and incorrect, so I want to ask the

Premier: does he feel that the conduct of the Minister of Social Services, in

issuing a false, public statement is behaviour and conduct acceptable for a

minister of his Administration or, is he going to allow the standards and

behaviour and conduct of the ministers to sink to an all time low in this

Province, where, individual privacy will no longer be protected?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am hesitant to express an

opinion because I have not looked at this in detail. I will undertake to look at

it in detail but I suggest to the hon. member that his own comments demonstrate

very clearly that he is totally wrong in his approach. It seems to me that he

says that the statement - and I have a copy of the statement here - I don't see

any reason given for it here; I would sooner get the detail and examine it

before I express an opinion but it seems to me that the member's comments

contradict the member, that the statement indicates that the dismissal was for

reasons related to job performance. Well, I thought then, he went on to say that

the employment record indicates it was for breach of trust and inadequate

performance?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well loss of confidence and breach of

trust. Well it seems to me that that is related to performance but I will take a

look at the full file and then I will express a view on it.

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

House Leader.

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

The Premier should also be aware - I mean, the minister's

statement says reasons related to job performance. Now this employee received

very high ranking on job performance just prior, just days before dismissal, I

say to the Premier, so he should be aware of that and that is why I say to the

Premier that the minister's statement is false. A false public statement by a

minister of the Crown that cannot be tolerated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I mention to the Opposition House Leader that the word false

is clearly unparliamentary and I prefer it if you would chose another way of

stating that, otherwise I would have to call you to order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Inaccurate, fabricated statement.

MR. SPEAKER: I think fabricated is not permitted either.

I think inaccurate is acceptable.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier uses it all the time.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Well I called the Premier to order on it the

other day and I think we should try to keep the tone a little better in the

House if we can.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have no problem with that, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks two other Premiers, Premier

Savage and Premier Rae, have demanded the resignation of Cabinet ministers for

similar conduct by ministers in other provinces where really there was a breach

of confidentially, breach of privacy, freedom of information. I want to ask the

Premier: Is he going to tolerate this conduct and behaviour by his Minister of

Social Services and by other members of his Cabinet or is he going to deal with

this? If he is willing to tolerate this kind of behaviour, may I ask the

Premier, what does this really say about your standards and your ethics as

Premier and leader of the government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am prepared to submit my ethics and my

standards to the judgement of the people of this Province and have no fear of

the consequences.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I think the record of

performance of this government to date, and me in that regard, is quite

acceptable to the people of this Province. They endorsed it eighteen months ago

quite soundly so I have no concern about that. Mr. Speaker, what I am not

prepared to do is make precipitate judgements on the basis of allegations by

members of the Opposition which, based on my experience with them in the past,

have indicated they have been all to willing to make such allegations without

having any real foundation for it. So I am not about to express an opinion about

anybody with respect to or on the basis of simple allegations made by the

members opposite. I have told the House I will take a look at the allegations

and if there is anything inappropriate I will take action but I will not jump to

take action now merely because the member raises it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just want to be clear, make sure I

understand the Premier. Are you saying you are going to take action, that you

are going to inquire and look at this situation or are you just going to lightly

dismiss it, I want to ask the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I

would wait until I have had an opportunity to review the letters, the press

release and the documents relating to it, and if there is any basis for taking

action, I will, but if there is no basis for taking action I am not about to

jump because of the allegations of the member.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Last year the minister issued regulations that tightened up the

mandatory inspection of motor vehicles. At that time he said that tougher

inspections by fully qualified mechanics and certified garages was essential to

keep unsafe vehicles off the highways. Now, all of a sudden, a year later, the

minister says we don't need inspections. Can the minister explain his 180 degree

turnabout?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems like `as the world turns', is the best reference to

put to it. Last year we tightened up the regulations. We deregulated the

trucking industry, deregulated the large vehicle industry, and we brought down

safety first. The inspection of all commercial vehicles, including taxis, is

still in place, make no mistake about it. The inspection requirement that is

dropped is on light vehicles only. There will be no change in my position from

last year with respect to commercial vehicles, school buses, trucks, and taxis.

The only inspection requirement we have changed this year is the one on light

vehicles.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Does the auto industry and the insurance

industry agree with the minister? Can he assure the people of the Province that

there will be no increase in automobile insurance rates now that mandatory

inspection has been dropped for older vehicles?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister.

MR. EFFORD: I fail to see what insurance rates would have

to do with annual inspections. It has absolutely nothing to do with inspections.

We have not dropped the requirement for vehicles to be kept in safe condition.

There is no change in the standard for vehicles on the highway. Whether they are

one, ten, or twenty years old there is no drop in the standard. The only drop we

made was the requirement for an individual to go to a service station and pay a

fee to have an inspection done. Everything else stands in place. Regular

inspections will be done by the highway enforcement officers, by the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary, by the RCMP. The onus is on the people themselves to

keep their vehicles in good, safe driving condition. If they are found not to be

in good condition, they will then be charged or fined, and they will have to go

to a garage and then get a vehicle inspection and report back to the proper

authorities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister claims that dropping mandatory inspection will

save car owners about $3 million in this Province. How long will that money stay

in the pockets of car owners? Does the minister plan to increase fees for

vehicles or drivers' licences to vacuum that money back into the coffers of the

Province, and particularly his government?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: How long will the people keep the money in

their pocket? If I can use myself as an analogy, not very long. I don't keep

money in my pocket very long. Money is made round to go 'round, and that is what

keeps the old economy act in full activity.

Mr. Speaker, the $3.5 million that the hon. member is

referring to - it is a fact that many people used to go to a service station of

their choice, pass them $15, $20 or $25, get a certificate and have it ticked

off, without the vehicle ever going into the garage. Everybody in this hon.

House knows that.

As far as highway safety is concerned, we have done nothing

to take away the responsible drivers in this Province. I have confidence enough

in all the drivers of this Province, including myself, that when I go on the

highway I want to make sure that my car is in good shape. Fifteen dollars is not

going to judge that one way or another.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Over the past several years, government has announced, around

this time, an emergency employment program to assist thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in finding much needed work. Is it government's

intention this year to announce such a program?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could elaborate at great length, but let me say that

presently the Minister of Education, the Minister of Social Services and myself,

are looking through the Green Paper from Ottawa, the Axworthy paper, which is

very important to residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. This government, at

this particular point in time, is not prepared to have a stand-alone emergency

response program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr, Speaker, let me remind the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations that he is the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations for this Province, not for the nation of Canada -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - and that there are thousands of

Newfoundlanders right now who are in desperate need of help. Mr. Speaker, let me

ask the minister this: Has he prepared a Cabinet paper on this issue? If he has,

did he present it to Cabinet, when did he present this Cabinet paper regarding

an emergency employment program, and what did Cabinet say at that time?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to the

hon. member, whether he knows it or not, I realize that I am not the minister in

the federal Cabinet, but let me say to him, and let me say to all hon. members,

that a horrendous amount of money, 44.7 per cent of all the dollars that come

into this Province, come in directly and indirectly from the Federal Government.

So, I'm not going to take any approach, I say to the member, that is going to

impact upon, and/or affect negatively, the Federal Government's negotiations

with this Province in addressing the whole social program. If the hon. member

wants to assume that this government is doing nothing, then let him assume that.

This government is doing lots, and the people will see very soon just exactly

what we are doing.

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

for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister dances around the

issue. The fact of the matter is this. In 1990 there were 246,000 people

employed in the workforce. At that time, government announced a $12 million

emergency employment program. This year, right now, there are 230,000 people

employed in the workforce, 16,000 people less than in 1990, and they say they

are about to do something? This is an example of a `do nothing' government. Let

me ask the minister this: Will he stand today with Newfoundlanders who need two

and three and four weeks work. Will he stand and convince his Cabinet colleagues

that an employment program is necessary? And will he admit that the real issue

that there is an employment program this year is because government was not

foresightful enough to provide an allocation of money in its Budget for this

upcoming year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the statistics from the hon. member, but let me

say to the hon. member that we are working hard, working diligently, to bring

permanent employment to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. Member for Burin -

Placentia West, there are 900 people working in his district because of this

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: The hon. member should know, and should

realize, that these jobs are connected with contracts that are able to be

obtained by both yards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: The employment goes up and down, and I say to

the hon. member, this government is working hard. We are closing in on 1,000

jobs through our generation program, and we will continue to work hard until we

bring full-time jobs to the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recently the Premier was quoted as making certain statements

relating to the financial performance of the Province, indicating that the

economy has improved somewhat and that our deficit situation may not be as

predicted by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

Let me ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board: Where

does he see it now? Can he give the House an update as to what the projected

deficit will be at the end of the year if, in fact, there will be a deficit? The

Premier seemed to indicate there may even be a surplus. Would the minister like

to tell us where we are now? Has the RST and other revenues outperformed the

expectations, and have we met our budget expenditure targets?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon.

member for the question. As usual, he is on top of the matters.

Just this morning we were trying to put together a

summary. I

hope to be able to make a statement in the House on Monday as to the exact

financial position of the Province, but things have improved and the extent to

which they have improved will be obvious on Monday.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister, in his Budget

last spring, predicted approximately a $25 million deficit, which was a

significant improvement from the $70 million of the year before. I think he also

predicted that next year we will, in fact, have a surplus - a small surplus - or

at least break even, which is a good target. The $25 million figure was a

reasonable level for this year.

If the Premier's statements are true, and the minister will

confirm on Monday, but if those statements are true, that we have eliminated

that deficit - I will assume that much for now - the minister can correct me if

I am wrong, but if we have eliminated that deficit, and if the $25 million

figure was a good figure, will the minister now take that $25 million windfall

that he has now realized; will he put back some of the cuts that he announced in

his Budget, such as student aid, closing of hospital beds, and $50 million cuts

in government programs? Will he attack some of those painful problems?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is a very good

question.

We had projected in the Budget a deficit of about $195

million, $170 million of that on capital and about $25 million - give or take a

few hundred thousand - on current, so $195 million overspent. I would, by the

end of the year, like to see that get down as much as possible so that we don't

continue to overspend. I would really like to see for instance, us reach the

point a couple years from now or as quickly as possible where we have a complete

balance towards our spending, in other words, we spend only what we take in.

There is no windfall because, regardless of the improvement this year, we will

still end up spending maybe 150, 160, 140 depending on what the numbers are,

million dollars more than we actually take in. I would suggest to the hon.

member that it would be totally counterproductive to, as the revenues improve,

take the improved revenues to simply go out and do more spending. That way you

never ever get control of your deficit, that is the sure way to disaster.

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. Member for

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister can play with

words. He knows as well as I do, that current account and capital account are

two different things, and I realize it is the objective of this government to

try to carry all capital account expenditures out of current revenues. That is a

little bit unrealistic and I would suggest to this government that it is hardly

practical too, to be building highways today that we are going to use for twenty

or thirty years and pay for them today instead of over the next twenty or thirty

years. You do not do that with your own personal finances, neither can you

afford to do it with provincial finances. It is nice if we could, that is Utopia

but there is a level of borrowing that is acceptable as long as we can service

that debt, and I agree with the minister that over the last number of years, our

debt service costs have been higher than what we have actually been taking in

and we should indeed attack that problem and we support him on that.

Let me ask the minister this, along the same lines, if that

deficit is in fact decreased greatly, will he take some of that money and will

he now loosen the purse strings in negotiations with the public sector and more

specifically, was that part of the minister's reaching a settlement with the

nurses union in the last few days and will he now be a little more generous with

other public sectors that have suffered greatly over the past number of years

and in fact were cut back by $30 million this year?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this year we are going to spend a

lot more than we are taking in; in other words we are going further and further

in the hole. Money does not know, does not understand whether that is to pay

current operating costs or to pay for highways. The actual fact is that the hon.

member's analogy is correct if he assumes that we are starting out with a clean

slate and what he is saying is absolutely correct; unfortunately, we have been

subjected to decades of overspending. We are not starting with a clean slate; we

are not starting off with zero balance and at that point we can then satisfy all

of the needs in the Province where we can borrow money and go into debt. We have

gone so far into debt, Mr. Speaker, we cannot go any further.

The equivalent analogy is of the private individual he

referred to, you don't do this with your private finances; the analogy that we

are in now, is, comparable to a private individual who has his credit cards and

he has reached the limit on every one of those credit cards. It is not sensible

for him to assume he can go out and borrow more money so, Mr. Speaker, that is

the analogy. We first of all have to get to the point where we are taking in

more than we are paying out, so we can lower our obligations each year and at

that point in time, perhaps we can then consider some of the measures the hon.

member is suggesting.

I would like to point out to the hon. member, he mentioned

the collective bargaining and again, he knows essentially what is going on. In

the Budget we had projected that we would obtain $50 million reduction in

compensation costs. During the collective bargaining process in May-June, it

became obvious to us that our situation is improving, so part of the deal with

all the unions was, that instead of taking back in compensation $50 million that

we lowered our objective to $25 million, so they have already had the benefit of

the improved revenues, and the unions were obviously given a choice. We wanted a

2.5 per cent I believe it was or a little more than 2.5 per cent reduction in

total compensation, and they had a choice between that and a readjustment later

on or taking only a 1.5 per cent reduction in total compensation and then living

with it for a year and they chose the second option; so the unions already have

the benefit of $25 million of that improvement and I guess we will have to wait

for the spring to see what happens with the rest.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health about a very

grave matter, indeed a matter of life and death for a growing number of people

in this Province, especially, unfortunately, young people. It concerns the

problem of AIDS infection and HIV that was broadcast the other night on CBC in

what would have to be considered a most shocking story about the concerns over

the extent of AIDS infection in this Province and the growing predictions about

how bad it might get.

I want to ask the minister - in that his department has had

since last December a comprehensive HIV-AIDS strategy in hand from a working

group with twenty-three recommendations, how many of those recommendations has

the minister seen fit to implement, and how much money is his department

devoting to the fight against AIDS and HIV infection?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you for the question. Some of the

information contained in the question is factual. There was a significant piece

of work done and a strategy developed with respect to trying to address as best

we can as a department, and as a province I guess, a very serious situation in

that part of the population that is infected with that very unfortunate disease.

I can tell him that as a result of the strategy that was developed a number -

I'm not exactly sure how many of the twenty-three recommendations have been

fully implemented, but I can tell the hon. member that several of them have been

implemented.

I've reviewed them, I've discussed where we are with them,

and the people from the department out in the system who are working at the

community health level are making extra efforts, if you like, and doing yeoman's

service, in terms of addressing what is needed to be done in terms of education

and in terms of prevention, and in terms of support services for those who have

been unfortunately afflicted with AIDS, and in terms of generally trying to let

people know what it is we have on our hands out there. What the various remedies

are for trying to avoid a further preponderance of it, and certainly trying to

deal with the fall-out which involves medical treatment, which involves support

for families, and that sort of thing as a result of that epidemic.

Our new regional health boards which are now coming on stream

will primarily continue to have the mandate to deliver services in the health

care sector at the community level that will address the whole broad spectrum of

unfortunate issues that have related and come forward from the epidemic that the

hon. member just mentioned in his question.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important sets

of recommendations has to do with the issue of education which the minister

seems to think has been addressed. Recommendations two and four suggest that all

professional schools in the Province have training for participants in AIDS

prevention and understanding AIDS, and that AIDS education be a mandatory part

of the curriculum in the school system, in the K to XII system. I want to know

whether the minister can assure the House that all schools in this Province will

have mandatory HIV-AIDS prevention and educational programs. Is that a part of

the minister's mandate, and has that been worked out with the Minister of

Education and Training and the schools?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the question

of education vis--vis this matter in the system, I can tell the hon. member

that the steps that are being taken from Health's perspective with respect to

education is part of a broader and a fuller package of health education that is

currently being delivered in the system and it will continue to be delivered in

the system. To the extent that we can influence and help, it will be expanded in

terms of what we will be doing in the future throughout the educational system.

It is part of the educational program.

Education vis--vis health and that sort of thing is

delivered as a subject in the schools. The extent to which emphasis is put on

that as a particular subject varies of course from school to school, depending

on the size of the school, the level of education that institution is

delivering, and of course the emphasis I guess that is put on it by a particular

school board even that has responsibility for the school that he might or might

not be thinking of. Health education is a part of the education curriculum and

will continue to play a very important role as far as I am concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

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

galleries sixteen career orientation students and their instructors, Joanne

Dalton and Tina Lidstone from Career Plus, Trepassey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Amend the Pippy Park Commission Act."

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Member for Burin

- Placentia West asked the Premier a number of questions. There were three

questions dealing with the mechanical outfitting contract, the Kvaerner role in

the drilling modules contract and the changes with respect to engineering

design. I mentioned it to the member before the House opened, if there is

further elaboration required I will be happy to do so, Mr. Speaker, and I will

table these answers then.

Petitions

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to present a petition from

constituents from my district, specifically from the community of Middle Arm. I

will read the prayer of the petition and make a few comments.

`We, the undersigned residents of the district of Baie Verte

- White Bay, 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 which exist currently, we find

ourselves in a desperate situation. We ask the minister and his government to

show compassion and understanding in this urgent matter.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, this petition is timely, with the questions

that were asked today by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. Listening to his answers, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that people in this

Province right now do not take any comfort from that. Now, I am sure I speak for

a lot of members on both sides of the House, in all sincerity, in view of the

calls that you get as members and we get as members, especially in the last

month or last few weeks, actually. At this time of year we find out that a lot

of people in this Province are in a desperate, desperate state.

I have a list here from a development association in my area,

for example, 250 people and a list of how many insurable weeks they need to

qualify for unemployment insurance for this winter. I was told, of these 250

names - they did a little statistics of their own - of those 250, which is only

a small portion that comes from my district, by the way, over 80 per cent of

these people have never been to welfare before and never used social assistance.

I have a list here, I will just go through numbers as in - they need three

insurable weeks, five, seven, six, nine, two and it goes on and on. Mr. Speaker,

this is the reality of what is happening here today. Of all the issues we bring

up in this House, of all the issues that have come up in these last few days,

all the issues that we will be raising, I don't think there is any member in

this hon. House who will say there is a more important issue right now, today,

as we speak in this Province, than the issue of emergency employment projects.

Mr. Speaker, calls have come into my office and I am sure

that if we talked together, with our own hon. colleagues here on both sides of

the House, they can tell you of calls they received. I will just relate one call

and I am sure you can relate to him. Last week a man called me and he broke down

in tears on the phone talking to me about a situation that he finds himself in

today. He was actually forced by his wife to call me because he did not want to

do it. For the first time in his life, at forty-two years of age, with four

children, he has had no income whatsoever for four weeks and he had to call me

because there was no food in his house and he was too proud to go to Social

Services and ask for assistance. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is no fabrication. That

is the reality that we face, all of us here as elected members of this House of

Assembly. And I say to the minister, to this government and to this Premier,

don't put it off for a week or another ten days. We have people in this Province

right now who do not have food on their tables. I know this is not the long-term

solution, we all say that every day, but I am talking about right now.

One constituent said to me and I quote, `I realize that this

is not the solution for the Year 2000 for this Province but it is the solution

for my dinner table tonight.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: It is the only thing that will get them

through these tough times right now. Mr. Speaker, I call on every member in this

House of Assembly today, the Premier and the minister, in particular - all

parties aside, this is the grim reality that we face here, right now, today. On

this very date there are people in desperate situations who can't wait for a

week or ten days. I ask every member to support this petition and to support

these people in this Province, and not wait for the Federal Government, but for

this government to act so that we can put people in this Province in a situation

where they will at least have the dignity to feed their own families.

We are facing a crisis in this Province this very day, very

week, right now. As another constituent said to me, if there was ever a need in

this Province for employment and make-work projects, whatever you want to call

it, the key word is emergency. Mr. Speaker, the word is `emergency' and the word

is `immediate'. Those are the two words. Let us put everything else aside. I ask

the members, and the Cabinet ministers, in particular, to support the minister

if he requests in Cabinet, funding for emergency response projects. It is

needed. There is not one member who can stand in his place today and tell me it

is not needed and to tell me that I am exaggerating the situation. I am not

exaggerating the situation. I have talked to members on both sides of the House

and I know you get the calls that I get, too, and it really bothers you in the

pit of your stomach when you hear a man say he doesn't have food in the House

tonight. You would like to go down and give him $20 so that he can go and get

some groceries.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: If I could just clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: So, in all sincerity, I ask every member in

this hon. House and every minister to act immediately and support your minister

and the Premier to put funding - I don't care where it comes from -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Leave has been withdrawn.

MR. SHELLEY: - put it into this department.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. TOBIN: Did someone withdraw leave?

MR. SHELLEY: Was leave withdrawn?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, it was withdrawn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How can I speak when members opposite are hooting and

hollering? I say to the Member for St. John's East that as long as people over

there are screaming and shouting I am not going to respond. You might as well

understand that now. If you are going to hoot and holler, and the Member for

Humber East is going scream, shout, rant and rave, then I will just stop.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: A little bit, probably, I say to the member,

a little bit out, but that's alright.

I understand exactly what the hon. member has just said, but

let me try to give the hon. member some understanding. First of all, let me say,

I understand the problems out there, that you are getting from your district and

I am getting from all over the Province. I understand what the hon. member is

saying and I know the need, but let me say this to the hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: And to the people.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, and to the people. When I say it to the

hon. member, obviously - and I don't know if he is aware of it or not - I do say

it to the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, don't be questioning, listen. Give your

ears a chance. If this government had to provide the funding that people are

looking for to fulfil 100 per cent response to an emergency program, let me tell

you, the Minister of Finance could not find that money, there is no way. Now,

what makes it even more critical, I say to the member, is come January 1, we are

going to have, probably, somewhere in the vicinity of 3,000 Newfoundlanders,

3,000 to 4,000, who are coming off the TAGS program.

Now, just to run up some quick figures, I say to the member,

in order to look after those who would need emergency response, it would take in

excess of $45 million or $46 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Just a minute, now, just a minute! The member

can make comments but I have done up the numbers. Now, if you want to do up the

Ferryland calculus again you can do it, that is entirely up to you. This

government has to approach the Federal Government to put our position forward so

we -

MR. HEWLETT: It's late.

MR. MURPHY: Well, it may be late, I say to the Member for

Green Bay. It may very well be late. It is awfully late, but I say you can't

spend money you don't have.

Now, we have a paper coming out of Ottawa that is emphatic

about UI, about reducing the number of weeks that will be payable for more weeks

that you need to get, so the ten or twelve weeks is only going to go on for a

short time longer unless we approach the Federal Government with a proposal that

is specific to the needs of the people in this Province.

Now, I don't mind saying to hon. members that if you review

the Axworthy paper - and I look forward to hon. members' presentation to the

Standing Committee. I really want to hear the constructive end of the Opposition

when they appear before the Standing Committee coming down on the Axworthy

paper. I want to hear from the Member for Kilbride. As a matter of fact, I would

love to see all hon. members support the people in this Province, and this

government, because it is going to be an exceptionally difficult problem to pass

on to the Members of the House of Commons that Newfoundland and Labrador is

unique in this problem because of our natural resource-based Province. We depend

so much on the fishery; this is not new. As the fishery collapsed, so did all

segments of our society - financial society and other parts of our society -

collapse with it.

The Member for Humber Valley well knows what is happening to

the forest industry, what is happening to the trees in the Province. So, we are

going to have to make a very concerted effort on behalf of all the people in

this Province to convince the Federal Government that we are unique, we do have

a different problem.

I sense that that paper may be a little Central Canada

directed, but we are not going to solve our problems - I know what the hon.

member is saying, that there are people tonight, if they were going to work

tomorrow morning, would be just elated beyond - to what? To garner up the twelve

weeks and draw UI for another thirty or thirty-six weeks, whatever.

I am saying to the hon. member: Remember, for every single

dollar that goes out of this Province in UI, $3.58 comes back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The member makes a point, but I don't want to

get into a debate or dialogue about yesterdays, because we could throw that

stuff back and forth, I say to the hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member's time has

elapsed.

MR. MURPHY: Just a couple of more minutes, Mr. Speaker,

by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

There is no argument against the larger issue that the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has presented here today. They are

large issues that have faced this Province year after year, decade after decade,

and they are more serious today than they ever were.

Now, the minister points out that you cannot spend money that

you don't have. Government found $8 million to $9 million to spend on the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that the people didn't want -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - and the people still don't want. And they

can't find at least $6 million, as they did last year, to help people live,

survive, pay rent, pay mortgages, on a program that people need today? That is

the immediate issue.

The minister says you can't spend money you don't have. My

colleague, the Member for Green Bay pointed out correctly, you can't eat supper

if you don't have it either, Minister, and that is what the people of the

Province are asking for today.

I have over 325 people who have talked to my office, to me

directly, from my district, who are in need of short-term work to get them

qualifying weeks for UI. Now let's address this issue, and the former Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations knows it well. He should know it well. What

will the cost to the Province be in actual dollars if we do not - and I repeat -

if we do not proceed with such a program? Has the minister done his own homework

in terms of the cost to the Social Services budget and the increase in social

services over the next six or seven months from the people in this Province?

What will those figures represent? Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that they would

be far more costly than an emergency employment program response that this

government should have brought in months ago!

The reality is this: even if government decided today to

bring in this program, how long would it take for such a program to get up and

running? It would be well into January. The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, from a district where many people have qualified for such a

program, can he stand today and say that he has not received a call from his

constituents? Can the Premier of this Province stand today and say that the

people in Bay of Islands have not phoned him regarding an emergency response

program? What about the Member for Windsor - Buchans? Can he stand in his place

today and say that the people in his district have not phoned him about such a

program?

The reality is that all members have received calls from

their constituents relating to this immediate emergency that exists today. The

minister knows. He and I talked five weeks ago in his office about the problem

and he said to me: I am attempting to get some emergency response money from

Cabinet to put bread and molasses on the tables of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. He did say it to me in -

MR. WOODFORD: In his office?

MR. E. BYRNE: Indeed he did. We talked about the problem.

MR. WOODFORD: What!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: The hon. member was in my office and we

discussed the need for emergency response, but the hon. member shouldn't say

that I had a Cabinet paper. Now, that is not -

MR. E. BYRNE: I didn't say that.

MR. MURPHY: Oh, that is what I thought you said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Alright, I'm sorry.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the

minister said he had a Cabinet paper, but I cannot say that the issue may or may

not have arisen. The reality is this. What the minister and I spoke about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No. Mr. Speaker, what the minister and I

spoke about was the need for such a program. He didn't tell me whether he had a

Cabinet paper or not, that wasn't the issue, that wasn't a topic of discussion.

He is right. But we spoke about the need, and the minister told me then that he

was attempting, he understood it, and he would like to get some money to put

bread and molasses on the tables of Newfoundlanders. He knows what I'm saying is

right.

Mr. Speaker, let me clue up by asking this: Have we, as a

Legislative Assembly, come to the point, as members, where we stand by and idly

watch an emergency situation get worse, an emergency situation become more

drastic as time goes on?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. E. BYRNE: If we have, Mr. Speaker, it is not an

Assembly that I wish to be part of, I can assure you of that. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we got along to such a good

start -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your tie.

MR. ROBERTS: I recommend this tie, Mr. Speaker, to my

friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West. He would no doubt share, the same

reason I do. I say he should wear it because it doesn't show the gravy spots, so

I recommend it to him. Actually, it was given to me by my daughter, whose taste

is obviously better than mine, so I cherish it.

Your Honour, my friend, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation made such a good start on the amendments to the Highway Traffic

Act on Tuesday that we should carry on. It is Order No. 13, Bill No. 30, at

second reading, if we could, Sir.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I adjourned the

debate on Tuesday afternoon, I was summing up my remarks about amendments to the

Highway Traffic Act set out in Bill 30. I expressed support for some of the

provisions of the bill which will probably improve highway safety and result in

fewer drunk drivers being in circulation, but I expressed concerns about the

provision that essentially creates a new provincial, impaired driving offense,

the provisions which will result in drivers with a blood alcohol content below

the federal criminal code .08, being hauled off the road and having their

licenses suspended for twenty-four hours and then, being obligated to pay a $100

reinstatement fee.

Mr. Speaker, I expressed concerns about those provisions,

first of all, because I have not been shown that there will be any beneficial

results. The minister, I would suggest, if he has done research has not shared

it with members of this Assembly or the public. The minister's opening statement

was pathetic, was empty of any content. Mr. Speaker, I said up front, that I

have not done any amount of research about the appropriate blood alcohol content

level; I've always accepted the point .08 in the Criminal Code of Canada as

being the appropriate standard. I have never had any reason to doubt that or

question it.

Now that the question has been raised, I have indicated that

I have an open mind on the subject. So far, in the few days since we have been

debating this, I have seen the submission of the Provincial Hospitality

Association quoting research findings indicating that there is no appreciable

risk to public safety through having on the roads, drivers with a blood alcohol

content below .08. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the minister that if he has

contrary research findings, do not hide them any longer.

I would say to the Member for Gander, the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board, who is not in his seat now but who indicated an interest in

this topic when we were debating it on Tuesday, that if he has any research

findings showing that drivers with a blood alcohol content below .08 are a

danger to public safety, bring them forward, let us look at them, but my main

point, Mr. Speaker, is that, if there is good reason to lower the permitted

blood alcohol content below what is now in the Criminal Code of Canada, then

instead of creating a new provincial standard which will be a second standard

for our citizens, let us unite and call on the federal Parliament to amend the

Criminal Code of Canada, by reducing the level in the impaired driving offenses

below .08 and, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is now a Liberal

administration made up of political brothers and sisters of the members

opposite.

Now I would like to ask the minister, who is so boisterous

and who takes every opportunity to heckle, I would like to ask the minister if

he has made any submission to the federal Minister of Justice, Mr. Rock,

suggesting that .08 is no longer the appropriate standard for impaired driving

offenses in the Criminal Code of Canada. Has the provincial minister called on

the federal government to amend the Criminal Code of Canada? Mr. Speaker, why

should we impose on our citizens two standards, why should we make the law more

complicated? After all, we live in Canada, why can't we have one standard?

Mr. Speaker, apart from the undesirability of having two

standards, I ask the Minister of Justice about possible constitutional and legal

difficulties associated with these provincial provisions. Is it within the

constitutional authority or the legislative competence of this Assembly to

create a provincial impaired driving offense? Is it within the constitutional

power of this House of Assembly to suspend the drivers' licenses of motorists

with a blood alcohol content of above .05? Mr. Speaker, I would seriously doubt

that it is legal to enact this amendment and I would suggest that it would

likely fall with a constitutional challenge.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand that seven or eight other

provinces have provisions in their provincial legislation authorizing their

provincial officials to haul motorists, with a blood alcohol content below .08,

off the roads. Those provisions may or may not have been tested in court, I

don't know. I would like the Minister of Justice to comment on that but, Mr.

Speaker, to the best of my knowledge no other province imposes a fine by that

name or any other name,

whereas the minister's proposal involves a $100 fine or

what he will call reinstatement fee but a rose is a rose is rose and a $100

reinstatement fee is a fine.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when my colleague from Mount Pearl asked

the minister on Tuesday where he would get the authority for the $100 fine he

could not answer. Now perhaps the minister has consulted Mr. Beckett in his

department in the interim and perhaps the minister can now tell us where he

would find that authority. Is it in regulations that are made in secret by the

Cabinet? Mr. Speaker, we are told that within the last year in this Province the

police had something like 8,000 readings on their compact alert machines in

their cruisers of between .05 and .08 blood alcohol content. Now if that is

true, Mr. Speaker, and I would assume the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation can give us the accurate figure, then should his proposal be

implemented, then he and his government will be collecting $100 from each such

motorist. A money grab of $800,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister is being totally inconsistent

in his performance as minister. After having launched this initiative of

cracking down, suspending licenses and collecting $100 fines from motorists who

have had one glass of wine or two glasses of wine or a couple of beers, the

minister announces that he is going to do away with the requirement for annual

motor vehicle inspections on ordinary regular vehicles that are more than four

years old. He says that he's confident that motorists who own older vehicles are

responsible. Now, Mr. Speaker, he cannot have it both ways. His proposals are

extremely controversial and, Mr. Speaker, several people have asked me in the

last day how I can explain the ministers' conflicting announcements. Where is

the consistency? Well the only commonality I can see is that the minister is

getting publicity. Now we all know that this is a minister who loves the

limelight. The minister is going to have the limelight and he is going to have

some heat applied to him too, I would say.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Premier left because

the Premier is going to have to rein in this minister. This is a minister who is

a loose cannon, a minister who is out of control and who needs to be reined in.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the ministers option for making announcements and getting

himself some publicity are pretty limited. The government doesn't have much

money to spend, so he seems to be going to extraordinary lengths to make

controversial announcements to attract some publicity to himself. Well, he is

succeeding in doing that, but it may not be the kind of publicity that the

Premier and the government as a whole desires.

Mr. Speaker, there are serious concerns about the legality of

these provisions of the bill, the constitutional validity of them, as I have

mentioned, and also the infringement on ordinary citizens rights.

I ask the minister: What is the recourse for a citizen who

has had a couple of glasses of wine, who is stopped by the police, and who

registers yellow on the alert machine, who is accused by the police of having a

blood alcohol content of between .05 and .08, and who is ordered to hand over

his or her driver's licence and do without his or her vehicle, and then who is

told that he or she will have to pay $100 to get the driver's licence back? What

is the recourse for that citizen if a citizen believes that the police officer

is incorrect, and that the alert machine is defective? What is the recourse for

that citizen? Because this is an offence by another name. There is a little bit

of an attempt here to pretend that it is not really an offence, to dress it up

in another guise, but I would suggest that if these provisions are ever

implemented and subjected to a legal challenge, that they will fall.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in announcing cancellation of the

requirement for motor vehicle annual inspections, talked about the amount of

money consumers would save. He didn't say anything about the effect on highway

safety. Is the minister going to get that money back from consumers in the form

of additional revenue for his government by these .05 provisions?

Mr. Speaker, the minister hasn't even attempted to

demonstrate that there is a need for reducing the blood alcohol content

standard. He hasn't indicated that he has ever made any representation to the

federal government, now his political brothers and sisters, to have the Criminal

Code amended, to have the .08 standard in the Criminal Code lowered.

Neither the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

nor the Minister of Justice have addressed the constitutional question, or the

legal question: Is this really an infringement on the federal criminal law

power? Neither has either of the ministers answered the accusation that this is

really a money grab. So I have all those concerns about the impaired driving

provisions of this bill.

Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I raise the constructive

suggestion - and I did it with the Minister of Justice last spring - that in

addition to empowering the Registry of Motor Vehicles to share registry

information with other government agencies and research agencies, that the

Highway Traffic Act and the Justice Support Enforcement Agency legislation be

amended to empower the Justice Support Enforcement Agencies to suspend or cancel

the drivers licences of people who default under their court ordered obligations

to pay child support or maintenance. This is an enforcement tool which has been

given to some state maintenance enforcement agencies in the United States and it

is being proposed for the new Nova Scotia collection agency due to start in

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. Opposition House Leader rising to speak?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Carried.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Government

House Leader that I do not know what he wants carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Anything the hon. gentleman wants carried I

will carry.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, I cannot say the same to the

hon. gentleman because he would want the Order Paper carried, Mr. Speaker, and

the way the bills are coming out today I say this is the year we are going to

carve the turkey on the clerk's table.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I want to have a few words on Bill 30,

the bill introduced by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on

Tuesday, I believe, not know what he was introducing. The minister did not have

a clue as to what he was introducing. It was the weakest introduction of a bill

that I have seen in this House in about ten years. It was not prepared. He did

not have anything to substantiate the legislation, no statistics. He had not

consulted with interest groups that should have been consulted on the issue. He

misinformed his colleagues and is still misinforming them.

I hope the Minister of Social Services is not taking advice

from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation because by the end of

the week, that's tomorrow, she surely will be gone.

MR. TOBIN: What happened to him in Social Services?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is what he is telling her, how to

get kicked out of Social Services. That is what the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation is telling her, how to get removed from the ministry of

Social Services, by one John Efford. That is the advice he is giving the

minister, how to get removed from the Department of Social Services by one John

Efford.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is giving her the questions.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I want to say to the minister that the

top number one piece of legislation, the government's priority on the

legislative agenda for this fall, that the minister was not even prepared to

introduce and now we are here debating because we know more about the bill than

the minister, and he is over there now not even listening to what we have to say

to him.

I say to the minister that by the time you speak again you

will have about three weeks to read some notes. He will not speak again for

another two weeks for sure so he will have time to be briefed and do his

research and hopefully when he stands the next time he will know something about

the bill that stands in his name, Bill 30,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic

Act.

I want to say to the minister that I was totally amazed to

hear his statement about doing away with the inspections. There were two things

he talked about when he introduced the bill. One was drinking and driving on

highways, which no one supports, no one in their right mind supports, and public

safety. He talked so much about public safety, but what does he do now? He goes

out and makes our highways less safe for people in this Province by the action

he is taking.

This minister will do anything. I do not know who is advising

him. It is time for a shake-up amongst his top officials in the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation. The minister is getting some bad advice. He

is out targeting the wrong group of people when it comes to drinking and

driving.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not demolishing the wrong building

is he?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He knocked down the wrong building. The

brakes were not working on his car and he ran into a moose, and now he is over

there advocating doing away with inspections. He has the security system ruined

since he became Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - the security is

gone in the buildings.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I suppose. Well, Buddy Wasisname

said he would wing it with his car and I guess the minister took him for his

word and he went out and did it. Winged it with his car.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister is used to being out in the

dark, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources. We know about the minister

being out in the dark but it is usually with a flashlight. Usually with a

flashlight groping down around Pleasantville and the youth correctional centres,

in the basements and tunnels.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, he usually does. Here he is

targeting the wrong group of people, I say to the Minister of Health. This group

of people that the minister is going to bother and annoy here are those that are

responsible, really responsible people. The minister wants to annoy them now by

having the police pull them over, whack a sticker on their licence plates and

leave their car for twenty-four hours. Then of course, most importantly for the

minister and the government, they will charge you $100 for reinstating your

licence. That is what it is all about, the $100.

What we are doing to the enforcement agency - the police just

won't be able to keep up with it. They are going to be able to pull over the

driver now, suspend their licence, convict them on the spot, say you are guilty,

check cars for mechanical problems, determine whether they should go to the

garage or not. Seriously, I say to the minister, what are you doing to the

police forces in this Province? You will have the police pull them over, say

they are guilty right on the spot -

MR. EFFORD: Are you talking about this bill or another

one?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm talking about this one. I'm talking

about public safety, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry? I'm talking about drinking and

driving. Well, really what I'm talking about is people who really don't drink

and drive, I would say to the minister. Those people who are responsible people

that you are now going to bother and annoy and torture the life out of.

MR. EFFORD: If they don't drink and drive they haven't

got a problem!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is not the group of people you

should be putting your emphasis on, I say to him. The sooner you read some

statistics and get informed on this the better you will be. You won't make such

a fool of yourself as you did on Tuesday. Such a fool you made of yourself, and

again this morning you made another fool of yourself. The minister tries to

justify doing away with the inspections because he says: What are we worried

about? It is only - what was it he said? - 1 per cent or something problems,

what was it he said?

MR. SULLIVAN: One per cent.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: One per cent, what was that?

MR. SULLIVAN: There is only 1 per cent of cars with

defects which have accidents.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: With car defects.

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct. Less than 1 per cent.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You should be proud of that! You should

not be doing something -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You should not be doing something that

is going to increase the percentage of defective automobiles on the road which

you are doing. You stand up here and say you are sincere about public safety.

MR. SULLIVAN: A defective minister we have.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the minister is very defective. He

should be inspected immediately. Someone said he was a loose cannon. It is not

the loose cannon, I'm worried about the loose cannonball, I say to the minister.

The cannonball and where it is going to go, what damage he is going to cause

before the Premier decides to take him out again and give him another rest.

MR. TOBIN: He almost took him out in the shuffle.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He was just about out. Not as close as

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, not quite as far out as him, but

he came close. He hung on. No minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I tell you, I say to the minister, if

you don't be a little more careful of what you are doing - this ping-pong

legislation is what I would call it. I said the minister is like a small

ping-pong ball, he is bouncing all over the place. You don't know what he is

going to come up with next. I suppose the next thing we will have a bill

allowing motorists to only have three lugs on their wheels, I say the next thing

we see.

MR. MANNING: Bill, he's like an oopee ball. You throw him

up, you don't know where he is going to land.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm telling you, he is a dangerous

minister, especially in the portfolio he is in. Very dangerous.

MR. EFFORD: You be careful or you won't get any pavement.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Another threat now. There is a threat to

the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Now you know why you are not getting any

pavement.

MR. MANNING: You needn't threaten me. (Inaudible) out our

way (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You better pave it, I say to the

minister, you had better pave every road in the Province if you keep diminishing

safety on the highways as you are doing. Now there are some very good things in

this bill that we support, Mr. Speaker, we are not totally against this piece of

legislation, we raise concerns about - I know the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board was quite interested on Tuesday by the facts and statistics given

by the Member for Mount Pearl. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board became

quite enthused and interested and I believe he had a copy and I bet he read it -

well, I don't know if he read it or not but I am sure he will.

MR. BAKER: I read it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He read it, so a lot of things we are

saying to the minister, he should listen to them. The Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board has already listened to and read it, but the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation has not; the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

has looked at the statistics, he understands the situation and I am telling you,

he is a bit taken back by what you are doing.

MR. SULLIVAN: Talk to him Wins, tell him he is wrong.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Tell him he is wrong, tell him he is

targeting the wrong group of people; it is those who are up at .15 who are the

real problems on our highways and those are whom the minister should be trying

to get off the roads, and should be putting money into programs of education and

rehabilitation for those people if he is sincere about making our highways a

safer place, that is what he should do. I am sure the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation must have some concerns about what the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation is doing. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation is reading very seriously over there; I hope it is a note from some

of the Hospitality Newfoundland people.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is the sheriff's office.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sheriff's office. It is a note of

delegates to the leadership convention. He is going through every district, but

certainly, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, he must

have some concerns about that great industry which employs about 15,000 people,

I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, if he would listen to

me. I wish he would stop trying to ignore me. There are about 15,000 people

involved in the hospitality industry and they are saying that - not that they

are against trying to get drivers who drink off the highway, nobody is against

that, but what they are saying is, it is going to have a detrimental effect on

their industry; as I said there are about 15,000 people employed and this is

going to make a difference to them, this piece of legislation.

They say that people will go in to have a drink of wine, a

beer, but they are going to drop off, they will not do it and they are not a

problem on the roads. I do not know if the minister has looked at their

statistics or not, that they have accumulated - it is a very good package by the

way, it is a very good package, a very, very good package and they point out

some very interesting things in it, Mr. Speaker, about all of this, really, what

the danger level is of blood alcohol, the BAC, and it is not at .05. It is after

it gets to .1 that there is a dramatic increase in the impairment level once it

gets to .10, not at .03 or 4 or 5 or 6.

As a matter of fact it was a very interesting thing that they

informed us of yesterday, that even today, when you are pulled in the

breathalyser machine is set, I think at .11 or .10, you are not charged unless

it is -

MR. EFFORD: You should be charged.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am not saying that, I say to the

minister. The minister should be charged too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You don't get charged at .9?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, at .10 you are charged,

which I did not know before but you know, that was interesting; so what are we

really trying to accomplish by lowering it to .05, is the question? What are we

going to accomplish? According to statistics, it is not going to make any

difference to highway safety because these are not the people who are the

problems, and the people who fall in that level up to .08 are responsible

drivers, they are not the problem. The problem is with those drivers who are at

.1 and above, .15 and so on, are extremely dangerous on the highways and the

minister, won't listen, but he is targeting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He is a hard man, yes. I know he is a

hard man but he is targeting the wrong group of people is our point, not that we

support drinking and driving, because we don't. Most of us, I would think, are

very responsible that way. We watch what we drink, and if we drink a bit more,

we get somebody to drive us; and by far the majority of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians do the same.

I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, I don't

really think he is behind this but perhaps he is. It looks like there could be

about $1 million in revenue here. I don't know if that is what is behind this or

not, for those people who get pulled over, have to leave their cars, and pay the

$100 to get reinstated. Maybe that is what is behind it all - maybe. Maybe the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board will tell us if he is the one who has

plotted and schemed this, if this is another way to get a few bucks. I don't

know. Maybe it is, but certainly there has to be a better way to do it. You

might get your million dollars that way, I say to the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but you

are going to lose it in another way. You are going to lose $1 million plus in

revenues from your hospitality industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: People are going to stop drinking?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They are not going to stop totally, but

it will make a difference. The same as .08 made a difference, .05 is going to

make another difference. That is my belief.

AN HON. MEMBER: .08 made a really big difference.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: .08 made a really big difference.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, sure it did, and I think most

people today are very conscious about drinking and driving - seriously. There

are those, we know, who abuse it. We all know people who abuse it but, like it

has been pointed out, it is people who have alcohol related problems -

alcoholics, for the most part. That is the problem area, and I think now most

people will not take a chance on having a drink and driving - at all - and that

is going to have an impact on the hospitality industry and on the economy of the

Province. It is going to mean that people are going to be laid off. There are

15,000 employed. There are going to be less than that employed in the

hospitality industry, so if the government is looking at this from a revenue

generation point of view, they may be surprised. It may reduce government

revenues by more than that, because people won't spend the same money, having a

drink on their way home, or having a glass of wine with lunch. It just might

not. People might not take the chance any more, I say to the Member for Fortune

- Hermitage.

The government might lose more than $1 million revenue

because people now will not have that glass of wine or that beer before they

drive. They are not the problem, if they have the glass of wine or the beer. So

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board might have to tell us next year that

he has lost revenue in that area that government depends on so heavily. He might

have picked up $800,000 to $1 million from licence reinstatement for those whose

cars have been parked for twenty-four hours, but he might lose it the other way.

Our concern is greater than that. Our concern is addressing

the issue of real public safety, and that is those who drink in excess of .08

and .15, where most of our fatal accidents are caused by drivers who have an

alcohol blood level of more than .15, or 1.5 and up, I think the Member for

Ferryland will tell us in a little while. I believe he has some statistics there

that he will delve into, as the Member for Mount Pearl did.

I suggest to all members that they should look at the

statistics. They should look at the brief done by Hospitality Newfoundland. I

think most members have been provided with a copy. It makes for some interesting

reading. Of course, Hospitality Newfoundland does not condone drinking and

driving either, but they have some very serious concerns about what the minister

is doing, and why he is doing it. They think he has been ill-advised on the

issue, poorly advised.

Of course, listening to and watching the minister introduce

the legislation on Tuesday certainly confirmed that. Honestly, if I had not had

a copy of the bill, and knew what legislation was being called, I would have had

to question: What is the minister introducing? What piece of legislation is he

introducing? What is it about? You could never tell from what the minister said

on Tuesday - a very poor job.

Now, I hope he gets briefed before he speaks again, and he

answers some of the questions that have been legitimately raised by members on

this side, and there will be more questions that will be raised over the next

while.

The other contradiction in it all is to hear what the

minister has done, as of yesterday, with the vehicle inspection process. You

cannot be so concerned about public safety on our highways to do what the

minister did yesterday. It is a total contradiction. One piece of legislation,

and the other to be dealt with in regulation, totally contradictory, when you

look at the aspect of public safety.

There he comes in now, the walking contradiction himself. Two

notes, two different pieces of advice from the same department, I would suspect,

the minister is getting. He needs a big shake-up down there, I say to him, big

shake-up.

MR. TOBIN: No, no, all he has to do is listen.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Really, whoever is advising the minister

on this, I mean I don't know how long they have been at it or how long they have

been trying to get this to come about - I don't know but they have given the

minister poor advice.

MR. TOBIN: Bad advice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Bad advice and the minister swallowed it

hook, line and sinker. Sometimes, minister, you have to question the advice that

officials give you.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, well I know the minister can be very

convincing. I know he can be very convincing. He convinced Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians he was concerned about the fishery when he was out of Cabinet and

when he got back in he forgot about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Completely forgot about it, he has not

opened his mouth about it since, very convincing. He had the Icelanders over

there with the big scissors, going to cut the nets off everything on the Grand

Banks. Yes, very convincing. He had the Icelandic people over here with the big

scissors, going to cut up the Grand Banks, every net out there he was going to

have them cut off. John the defender - knocking Richard Cashin.

MR. SULLIVAN: Like your Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture said, there are more boats out there now then there has ever been.

He said that in the paper yesterday.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the minister is giving a

good speech now, I must say. He is giving a good speech now, the minister, at

least we woke him up. At least we woke the minister up, Mr. Speaker. He dozed

off and we woke him up. We will see, as we have seen the last - how long is it

now that he has been put back in the Cabinet? A very quiet minister. He is

making a bit of noise the last couple of days but bad noise. It does not make

any sense, contradictory what the minister is doing.

MR. EFFORD: I wish your constituents could hear what you

say about drinking and driving.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: My constituents? I don't know why you

are bringing up my constituents about drinking and driving. Perhaps that is

another plot by the minister, perhaps he wants to do away with the only Burin

Peninsula industry - they got the shipyard killed altogether. They got the

shipyard wiped out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Grand Bank is the home of temperance.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I was in a Temperance Organization,

proud to be to.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should have stayed with it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well I probably should have.

MR. TOBIN: He is going back.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is what I am going to do after

politics, start up a Temperance Society on the Burin Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No I say to the minister my time is not

up. The minister's time will soon be up if he keeps doing what he has been doing

in the last three or four days, not targeting the right area - going out to

torment and torture responsible citizens of this Province.

MR. EFFORD: There is no such thing as responsible

drinking and driving.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There is, I say to the minister, there

is.

MR. EFFORD: There is not.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Okay, well if the minister wants to say

that, why doesn't he say it and tell the 95 or 96 per cent of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians they are not responsible. I think they are responsible.

MR. EFFORD: Don't go drinking and driving.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You have to set a level, I say to the

minister, there is a level of impairment over which no one should drive -

MR. EFFORD: And that's the level I am bringing in.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - and that level - get serious minister,

whether you know it or not the real impairment takes place from .1 upward and

the increase is so dramatic after .1 that it is frightening, I say to the

minister, but the minister does not know that. From 0 to .05 it has no affect,

no affect whatsoever on ones driving ability. Statistics back it up, I say to

the minister.

MR. EFFORD: You must be listening to the (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No I am not, I say to the minister, but

the minister is not listening to any statistics only his own obsession because

he made a promise to a group of people who have a very legitimate concern and so

they should have an emotional concern because some of them have had loss of life

in their families and nobody can knock that.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. EFFORD: When you are finished I will prove to you all

the statistics saying that .05 is an impairment to driving, backed up by

research (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Connected with the felonies (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the minister, you did such a

lousy job introducing the piece of legislation - if you had done a thorough job,

if you had known your topic, if you had been armed with proper information -

AN HON. MEMBER: He was afraid to put his cards on the

table.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) drinking and driving (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the minister that maybe I

wouldn't be here today -

MR. TOBIN: If you (inaudible) support it there would be

no tolerance. If what you are saying is the case, then there would be no

tolerance, it wouldn't be .05, it would be nothing.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) drinking and driving.

MR. TOBIN: So you must support it, too, you are going to

.05. If you don't support it (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, exactly. Why not set it at .0? say

there is zero tolerance on the highways. If you are sincere about what you are

saying now, then let's have zero tolerance on the highways. You cannot have any

drink at all and drive your car. Why don't you go all the way, Minister? Why

didn't you go all the way, Minister, if you sincerely believe what you just

said?

MR. EFFORD: Another day, another day.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Another day what? See. That is the

problem with the minister, you can't take him seriously. You can't take the

minister seriously. Because if he believed what he just said, he wouldn't allow

- it would be zero tolerance.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Time is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the Minister of Health, you

wish my time was up. I'm sure the minister will give me leave, because I'm

finally getting the minister to see the light.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I (inaudible) leave.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the other Matthews over there

now, he had best be quiet, should not get too frisky. I might sic my colleague,

the Member for Ferryland on him. I might sic my colleague, the Member for

Ferryland on some controversial health issues to tear him to shreds, chew him up

and spit him out. I've been keeping him back the last while, he wants to go. I

said: No, let the minister get his seat warm, don't cause any problems.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was up yesterday.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You don't know when I'm protecting you,

I say to the minister.

MS. YOUNG: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I don't blame you. With one of them on

each side (inaudible), very accommodating.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes I am. The Minister of Social

Services knows how accommodating I am. Just look how hard I could have been on

her today with the Premier. I was very calm and collected, didn't want to be too

hard on the minister. I know she didn't know what she was doing.

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister didn't have many answers

yesterday. There is no point in going to the minister with questions.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not (inaudible), she said, I am not

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, totally ineffective. I would like to

see some other members opposite stand up and tell us what they think about this

piece of legislation that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has

before us. I would like to hear the true feelings of the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation. I would like to hear the true feelings of the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board outside of the financial concerns that he thinks

he is going to get $1 million in his right pocket, and lose $3 million out of

his left, which he hasn't thought about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't your time up?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, time is almost up, I say to the

minister. I've enjoyed this so much, I think the minister will give me leave.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Are you (inaudible) `Bill', or what?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, you know I am, I say to the Minister

of Health. I always advocate that. Don't you know?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: That's an expense on the health care

system.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is, I agree. But if you can get

everyone in the Province at .05 or below .08 it won't be too detrimental to your

health care budget. That's not where the problem is, it is those people who are

above .08, .1 and .15, I say to the minister, that is putting the drain on his

health care budget - the same as those who smoke. That's the problem.

What we are doing here in this bill is we are getting after a

group of people who are responsible, who would only have the beer or two before

they drive home, or the glass of wine. Those are the people we are nailing in

this bill, not the .15s, the guys who go out on the highway recklessly drunk and

kill people, or if they don't it is only because of sheer luck.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: You have to start somewhere.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the minister, we should be

starting with the chronic drinker who drives.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: They are covered.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, they are covered. What do you mean,

they are covered?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Point zero five will take care of

everybody.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But it is not taking care of it at .08,

Minister, don't you understand? It is not going to take care of the .05 if it is

not taking care of the big problem at .08. You have to beef up your enforcement,

you have to get education and rehabilitation programs for those people who have

alcohol-related problems, alcoholics who are driving continuously - that is the

problem.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I can't see what you are advocating.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I am advocating just that. If the

Minister of Health has problems with that I feel sorry for him. He should go to

church every Sunday and sing in the choir. So, you don't take communion, but as

the Member for Burin - Placentia West said, you won't be able to have wine at

communion and drive home now. That's how ridiculous we're making it, you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: I never could -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I know you couldn't.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: How many drinks have you taken?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have never had a drink at communion, I

say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. member I want to

rule on a point raised earlier this week, specifically on Tuesday, November 15.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader raised a point of order concerning the

priority of the Deputy Chairman of Committees occupying that position in light

of his recent appointment as the Legislative Assistant to the Minister of

Education and Training. In addition, of course, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition raised a point of privilege concerning the same and I want to deal

with both of these now.

On the point of order raised, I guess a question of order is

one that concerns departure from the Standing Orders, or departure from the

customary modes of proceeding in the debate, or in the customary mode of dealing

with legislative or parliamentary business. A point of order, of course, is

raised when departure of this nature results in a disorder in the House.

Clearly, of course, the matter raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader

doesn't fall into that category.

On the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition on the

point of privilege, well, a point of privilege may be raised when members are

impeded by the action of another in carrying out their legislative duties. The

point of privilege raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleges no

specific incidents of partisanship on the part of the Deputy Chairman of

Committees, therefore, at this moment it would be a hypothetical question.

In any event, the action of the Speaker, or his or her

delegates cannot be called into question by any form of proceeding except by a

substantive motion, and I refer hon. members to Erskine May, 21st Edition, Page

325 and, as well, Beauchesne 6th Edition, paragraph 168. In a ruling on a

question of privilege raised in the House of Commons in Ottawa concerning the

constraints which applied to the Deputy Speaker, this is what the Speaker said:

`Whenever the question that is being raised is the conduct of a member of the

House in his capacity as a member, or in any other capacity as a presiding

officer, our traditions have been that privilege is not the route by which the

motion can be put. If the hon. member wants to pursue the matter, either in the

subject of impartiality of the Chair or that of the conduct of another member,

either of those matters have to be pursued by a substantive motion. Let me add

that the presiding officers of the House were appointed by the House. Matters

relating to the conduct of the occupants of the Chair are therefore properly

within the jurisdiction of the House and not the Speaker or his or her

delegates.'

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this piece of

legislation that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has brought

before the House because I think the minister is making a grave mistake in

putting forth this legislation. We heard no argument from the minister upon his

introduction of the legislation, merely to suggest that six or seven other

provinces have this legislation and, in his view, statistics showed that people

with .05 per cent alcohol in their blood may have some degree of impairment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what he did not say was that the other

provinces, the seven provinces that have this lower alcohol level restriction

for driving, have no statistics to prove that it has made any difference

whatsoever to the number of driver accident fatalities. The minister, in his

press release, and in his comments to the public, has said that in twenty

accident fatalities in the Province of Newfoundland last year, alcohol was

involved.

I don't have any doubt about the truth of that, but of the

total accidents in Newfoundland and Labrador last year, some 8,000 accidents,

only 3 per cent of those accidents involved the use of alcohol. Only 3 per cent

of those accidents in Newfoundland involved fatalities.

MR. EFFORD: How many fatalities?

MR. HARRIS: There were sixteen fatal accidents.

MR. EFFORD: Caused by what?

MR. HARRIS: Sixteen fatal accidents involving alcohol,

out of a total of forty fatal accidents.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) caused by alcohol.

MR. HARRIS: Caused by alcohol of in excess of 1.5 per

cent, not alcohol between .05 per cent and .08 per cent - of alcohol in excess -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There were sixteen fatal accidents. There

were twenty fatalities, but they involved the use of alcohol to the extent of

over 1.5 per cent.

MR. EFFORD: And there is nothing wrong with that, is

there?

MR. HARRIS: That is a criminal act, a travesty, and there

is very much wrong with it. So what is the minister doing? He says: Well, there

are fatalities in cases where people are very drunk, so we will make a rule that

says between .05 and .08.

Right now, as the last speaker said, the Mounties and the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary don't even charge people who blow .09 - they

don't even charge them - yet the alcohol limit is .08 per cent.

MR. EFFORD: They will now.

MR. HARRIS: And they don't charge them because the

statistics and the evidence show that the real impairment goes up with the

amount of alcohol consumed, and it becomes a serious problem at a higher level.

Now, the minister has introduced this legislation without any

support for it. The minister says he is going to come up with all these

statistics at the end. He is going to give us all these statistics at the end. I

want to ask him: In the provinces that have this, how many accidents have been

prevented by this legislation? How many? I think the minister cannot come up

with any statistics, because they don't exist. The provinces that have this

legislation cannot say that they have reduced accidents.

In fact, one of the few groups that he mentioned when he got

up to introduce this legislation was Mothers Against Drunk Driving. He said that

it was in response to groups like this that this legislation was brought in.

Yes, I agree that Mothers Against Drunk Driving have a very important cause to

fight; but, you know, the Mothers Against Drunk Driving group don't agree that

this legislation is the right response to the problem.

MR. EFFORD: Where do you get your information, `Jack'?

MR. HARRIS: They recognize that the targeted group have

to be the people who are causing the accidents, not the people who happen to be

drinking and driving.

Now, if the minister were truly against all drinking and

driving, what he would be doing is bringing in a rule for zero tolerance - no

drinking and driving whatsoever. What we have seen in this Province over the

last ten or fifteen years is a great reduction in the amount of drinking and

driving. The systems that have been in place, the criminal law, the increasing

of the fines, increasing public awareness, some of the advertising of his own

predecessors in terms of promoting safe driving habits, have all had a

considerable effect, and the number of drinking and driving offenses has

decreased substantially over the years because people are taking the issue far,

far more seriously than they ever did.

At one time, Mr. Speaker, it was very acceptable for people

to be drinking and driving, and drink all night and drive home half drunk, not

remembering where they were going. That was considered socially acceptable at

one time. People did it, and told jokes about it, but now that does not happen.

That does not happen because it is not socially acceptable. The designated

driver program which has been promoted by the minister's department before he

was minister, has had an effect. Every time you go to a liquor store and buy a

bottle of liquor or a bottle of wine you will get a bag, and on the bag is a

picture of a set of car keys and an X through it, saying no drinking and

driving. These programs, Mr. Speaker, are having their effect and the number of

drinking and driving offenses have gone way, way down.

This legislation is a little bit of grandstanding on the part

of the minister. If the minister wants to have some effect on the number of

accidents being caused, he would be doing something very different from what he

is doing here today and very different from what he did yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

This minister has the wrong end of every stick he picks up. He decides he wants

to do something about alcohol and driving, and instead of dealing with the

problem, he causes more problems for the police. He gives the police more work

to do, we are going to dilute the efforts of the police. The police are now

going to have to look after the drivers who are drunk, they will have to look

after drivers who might be drinking between .05 and .08, and they are going to

have to be inspecting automobiles to see whether the brakes work or not, because

the minister has changed all the policies in the matter of a couple of days. So

I think the minister should really examine what he is doing from a commonsense,

practical, rational point of view, and he hasn't done that.

I will give you an example of the minister's logic, Mr.

Speaker: yesterday when he decided he was going to get rid of all the mandatory

inspection of vehicles, he said, `well, only 1 per cent of the accidents are

caused by defective vehicles.' That is what he said, he said, only 1 per cent of

the accidents, so therefore it is not a really big deal, never mind the

inspections, it is only 1 per cent. Now, there is the logic of this minister,

Mr. Speaker. I mean, to me, if only 1 per cent of the accidents are caused by

defective vehicles, I would say the system is working. I would say that is

pretty good. What does the minister want to do, have 4 per cent, 5 per cent, 6

per cent? Is that what he wants to do, by having more defective vehicles on the

road? because that is what's going to happen.

Now, Mr. Speaker, three percent of all accidents are

alcohol-related, and these are accidents that are like 1.5 per cent or more.

Now, he is using that as excuse to introduce a new piece of legislation that is

going to go after drivers who have between .05 and .08 alcohol in their blood.

Now, that is the logic of this minister. On the one hand, when he has a program

that is working, he destroys it by taking away the mandatory testing of older

vehicles, so he wants to increase the number of accidents on the one hand, or

what he is doing will increase the number of accidents. In this case here he is

doing something that has not been shown to decrease the number of accidents at

all. And this is not an experiment, Mr. Speaker, this has been tried in seven

provinces, and not one of these provinces can tell you that they have decreased

the number of accidents by virtue of this policy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the minister really wanted to decrease

the number of accidents there are some things that could work. Some other

provinces have done it and they have the statistics to prove that it does work.

We do know, Mr. Speaker - we are going to ask for the minister's statistics now

in a minute. I would be very interested in seeing the minister's statistics

because the Insurance Bureau of Canada has said, the statistics show that new

drivers of any age, whatever age they are, are five times more likely to be

involved in road accidents simply due to lack of experience. We also know, Mr.

Speaker, that death and injury from traffic accidents are the largest risk

facing young people between sixteen and twenty-four - car accidents, the largest

risk. Those accidents can be reduced, Mr. Speaker, by 30 per cent. You can

reduce the risk of accidents by 30 per cent by introducing a program which would

be a good thing and that would be a graduated licensing program for new drivers.

As part of that program, Mr. Speaker, there would be a zero tolerance from

alcohol as part of such a program for a new driver; there would be a zero

tolerance of alcohol drinking and driving for the first two years of a person

holding a license. There would be restrictions on the kind of driving that the

person could do -

MR. EFFORD: Do you know of any graduated licensing

program?

MR. HARRIS: A graduated licensing program -

MR. EFFORD: What has that to do with this piece of

legislation?

MR. HARRIS: That is something that the minster could be

doing if he wanted to reduce road accidents instead of bringing in this

legislation which is merely grandstanding. I am going to ask the minister to

tell us where it has been shown that this will reduce-

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) graduated licensing.

MR. HARRIS: Where will the minister show us that this

program that he is introducing in this legislation is going to reduce road

accidents? He has no statistics to back that up and if he wanted to do something

he could be doing something useful by introducing a system of graduated

licensing that would reduce the number of accidents, reduce insurance costs

particularly for young people trying to get a license, where a young person, the

most responsible young person, the most responsible new driver and young person

pays the exact, same, insurance premium is paid by the most responsible new

driver as it is by the person who is out driving around all hours of the day and

night, drinking and driving and doing it all and that needs to be fixed.

I agree with some of the earlier statements. We have a

dangerous minister over there; he is running roughshod over policy. He changes

things on a whim, his department is knocking down buildings that should be left

standing, and he has to try and make up for loss time by introducing legislation

in such a haphazard way as he did the other day.

MR. EFFORD: Did you say we are knocking down buildings?

MR. HARRIS: The minister is out there knocking down the

wrong buildings, he has his bulldozers out tearing down buildings, burying years

and years of research into the ground. The minister was out knocking down

buildings, destroying the work of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very poorly thought

out. I think if the minister is reasonable about this, he will say: Look maybe I

have made a mistake here, maybe I have gone too far, let us send it out to a

committee, see what the people of the Province think of this, see whether or not

his so-called statistics will stand the light of day, see whether public debate

will accept what the minister has to say or whether the public will reject it.

Let us not do like what he did yesterday morning, make an announcement, as of

today no more mandatory licenses, let us not do that, let us have a public

discussion about it, Mr. Speaker, and see whether or not the minister can

convince the people of this Province that this should be done. Let us see if he

can convince them of that.

There are some other bad things in this legislation and we

have to sort of overlook them in the big issue about the major changes that are

being brought in and the $100 fine or fee grab.

MR. EFFORD: It is not a fine.

MR. HARRIS: Well, it may not be a fine to the minister,

it is money to the minister but it is a fine for an individual, it is money to

the minister. He calls it a relicensing or reapplication fee or something like

that.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) reinstatement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just wonder if the hon. member will take his seat for one

moment so I can give the questions to the House for the Late Show:

Question I: I am not satisfied with the answer given by the

hon. Premier regarding moving work from Marystown to St. John, New Brunswick and

that is from the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.

Question 2: I am not satisfied with the answer provided by

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation regarding vehicle inspection,

and that is from the hon. Member for Placentia.

Question 3: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations regarding the emergency employment

program and that is the hon. Member for Kilbride.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On this act to amend

the highway traffic act there are a number of amendments to

section 6 of this

act which I find a little bit disturbing, and that has to do with the making

available information to individuals, companies, research groups, study groups,

et cetera.

It says here in Clause 1: "... where the information is not

to be used for solicitation purposes." I would have some doubts as to whether or

not the minister has any means of controlling the information that might be made

available to various groups. I'm sure there are an awful lot of people who would

pay money to get access to a list of this nature so that they can solicit a

particular target and market groups, owners of certain vehicles. People who want

to target certain income sectors would pay a lot of money for information

contained in the driver's licence.

Why doesn't the minister say that information with the

exception of information as to the names and addresses of these individuals? If

they want statistical information on people's driving records, or research on

individuals, the information that is contained there about driving habits or

whatever, I don't see any problem with that. Why does the minister have to give

names and addresses to research groups and market analysis companies and other

groups? Why does he have to give them names and addresses? If it is a market

analysis group, what are they going to do? If they want a name and address

aren't they going to use them to make random solicitations of information? Isn't

that the purpose?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), Jack?

MR. HARRIS: I say to the minister, I'm looking at the

proposed amendment to

section 6 on page 7, clause 1 of the bill.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: It says that the information contained in a

driver or vehicle record or an entry in these records, where it is requested a

copy may be released to: "(

b) research groups, market analysis companies, study

groups and similar organizations, where the information is not to be used for

solicitation purposes," and: "(

d) another individual, group or agency where in

the opinion of the minister the release of the information is not contrary to

the public interest."

MR. EFFORD: That is right. What is wrong with that?

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, who does the minister propose to

give this information to? If a research group wants to conduct research on the

motor vehicle statistics I have no problem with that, but if what they want are

the names and addresses of all the people who have registered motor vehicles in

Newfoundland so they can conduct a market study - which is what is written here,

market analysis companies. It says: "... where the information is not to be used

for solicitation purposes." Surely they are going to be using it for

solicitation purposes. They are going to be soliciting people's opinions, they

are going to be phoning them up at home, they are going to be sending them

survey information. The minister is stumbling into another sinkhole.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's run amok.

MR. HARRIS: It has been suggested that he has run amok.

What he hits in the sinkhole I don't know, but he is certainly stumbling around

in policy areas that he hasn't really thought through. I think, Mr. Speaker,

that this legislation has a number of things in it, a serious number of problems

that require it to be subjected to the scrutiny of a legislative committee. I

think that the public interest requires that this legislation not be passed

speedily as the minister - every time somebody sits down the minister stands up

wanting to end debate. He is awfully anxious to get this legislation through

without any public discussion. So it seems.

Unless the minister is saying that he is directing this

matter to be going to a special committee of the House or going to the

legislative review committee for widespread public discussion, then I have to

assume that the minister doesn't want any, and what he wants to do is rush this

through the House. He tried to rush it through the House last June. He wanted to

rush it through in the last day of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He tried, that is right. That is what he is

essentially saying. In fact, the legislation itself says that it is going to be

implemented, come into effect, on August 15, 1994. This act shall come into

force on August 15, 1994. So the minister was so anxious to get this done he

wanted no public discussion on it. The flagship bill of this session of the

House is this piece of legislation. It has not been thought out properly. There

has not been any public discussion on it. The master of illusion over there,

trying to create an illusion of activity, trying to suggest that he is doing

something, trying to make it look like he is actually doing something by

changing regulations, passing this stuff. I suppose he will get up now and try

and tell us this is part of the Strategic Economic Plan as well, like

yesterday's plan to increase the number of unsafe vehicles on the roads, part of

the Strategic Economic Plan.

What we will do, if you keep your vehicle, as long as you

don't sell it to someone else, you can drive around with that as long as you are

prepared to, as long as you can get away with it. That is what the minister is

saying, and he should know that thousands and thousands and thousands of people

rely on these annual inspections to find out what is wrong with their car. If

you had a brake light not working, or a tail-light not working, or a front

tie-rod end was loose, all of that -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) annual inspection?

MR. HARRIS: I would say to the minister: Ask the garage

owners how much business they do at the time of the inspections, because that is

the time when people discover that their vehicles are not safe, and they have

work done.

Mr. Speaker, this minister is running amok. He is making some

wild changes in legislation without proper public discussion and consideration,

and I suggest to the minister that this legislation be put on hold until there

is a proper public discussion about it, whether the discussion comes from the

lounge owners or not.

If the lounge owners have facts that deserve to be

considered, then they should be considered. If lounge owners have evidence that

deserves consideration, then it should be listened to, and if the minister has

something worth considering then that should be considered, too, but we haven't

heard anything yet except some sort of appeal to the Mothers Against Drunk

Driving group by displaying the fact that yes, we do have fatalities due to

drunk drivers, but this bill has nothing to do with drunk drivers. This bill has

to do with people who are driving with between .05 and .08 blood alcohol. It has

nothing to do with drunk drivers, nothing to do with protecting people from

serious drinking and driving.

I say to the minister that the existing programs are working,

and they are working well, and this is nothing more than a grandstanding act by

the minister, and I think it is being seen as that by the public. If the

minister had the courage to put this legislation to the public then he would

have a chance to back up what he is saying instead of just rushing this through

the House, using the majority that they have here, in the absence of proper

public debate on it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Those are my remarks at second

reading.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the minister not to be in too much haste. He will

get an opportunity next week to conclude debate on second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is only prudent, when legislation is

presented to this House, that it be presented with the proper research and

documentation to show how it is working in other jurisdictions. Now, the purpose

of having a control on the age which you can drink - I have no relatives with

lounges. I owned one myself until 1987, which I closed, I tell the minister. I

closed up in 1987 a lounge I owned since 1980.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I sold it in 1987.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bankrupt?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, check my financial records, you will

find out if it was bankrupt, I tell the minister, I can assure you. I will give

you permission to talk to my bank.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No you can, if you so wish. My money was

hard earned money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sure you can, delighted. I will be

delighted and I would stand and compare the record of anyone else around.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Table what? Yes, it is up to you. I have no

problems whatsoever.

Now I would like to make special reference to clause 6, of

this bill and

Section II, it is lacking upon basic scientific information to

support the ministers assumption that a person at .05 is suffering a level of

impairment where he cannot operate a motor vehicle.

Now I will also ask the minister, if an individual who has a

visual impairment from some medical dysfunction or visual impairment and had no

alcohol in their system that equated with .05, would that person be permitted to

drive a motor vehicle in this Province or .06 and .07? I say yes they would. Had

a person with a physical disability that impairs their motor functioning to a

level that does not exceed .08, a person with a motor impairment, a .05, .06 or

.07 without having any alcohol in their system, they technically might be no

more impaired than a person with an alcohol level at that same level. So these

are some questions that need to be researched and an opportunity into a forum to

be able to look at the aspects.

I am going to take some time today and hopefully, if I don't

conclude today, tomorrow - first of all I will just give a little overview of

some points, in a little more detail as I go on in the discussion here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the lounge owner one is right here. If

you want to read it I will give you a copy. I also got some information - I

informed the minister too and he should have provided information to this House

on presentation of that bill, that supported his claim that this is a problem. I

will refer to some information in other countries and make references to other

provinces that have reduced the alcohol at various levels, from .12 to .10, down

to .08, .05 and .02 in certain jurisdictions and the effect that it has on

fatalities because the purpose of the bill is to protect the public interest and

safety on the roads in our Province. There is a level at which this government

should go or any government that would be prudent and fair to a certain extent

where there is a cutoff point.

Now the federal government has seen .08 as a level in which a

person could be reasonably impaired that it may jeopardize their ability to

operate a motor vehicle within Canada and they give a tolerance level in that.

They give a tolerance level because different individuals have different

abilities and different motor functions so therefore they give a little leeway

of a couple of points where the person would be deemed to be impaired enough to

take their license, regardless of each individual difference that people have

and that level is .10 - it goes beyond that, they give a tolerance level.

Now there is two hundred to 600 hundred times greater chance

of a person at .15 of getting involved in a motor accident than a person who is

sober. Two hundred up to - some sources up to 600 times the chance as a sober

individual. Now I am not in favour of drunk driving, I did not take a drink

until I was up into my thirties. I don't support drunk driving.

AN HON. MEMBER: A couple of years ago.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, probably last week.

I don't support it at all. I think we have to protect the

public interest in that regard.

Now in 1993, in St. John's - and there are statistics that

are readily available - 27 per cent of drivers involved in single vehicle

crashes had been drinking, 27 per cent. Of these, 100 per cent of those tested

had alcohol levels above .15, 100 per cent of those tested. That tells us that

the people who are abusing the system today and are creating hazards, problems

and traffic accidents on the highroads today are those with alcohol levels above

.15. That is what statistics are showing.

There is nothing to indicate that an alcohol level, a lower

level than .05, or .08, there is no conclusive evidence to indicate that it

places that driver in danger of having a fatal traffic accident in this

Province, in Canada, or in other countries that have legislation and that have

dealt with this, and I will get into those in a little more detail.

Now, the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, back in

1980 when a thirteen year old was killed in an accident, has indicated that it

is not those people you should be after, the prudent drivers. You should use

government's scarce resources today to focus on the people that are abusing the

system today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not care whether or not I look silly,

it is if I do not feel silly that is fine with me, and I do not feel silly, and

if you can make me feel silly with your statistics I will stand up and I will

support them if I see documented evidence to support them.

The minister has failed in his responsibility as minister to

inform this House of the background substantiating information here. You have an

obligation as a minister of this Province to point out the pros in this

legislation but you have failed miserably. You stood up for five minutes and

gave a feeble introduction to a bill, the worst I have seen since I was here.

The Member for Mount Pearl said it was the worst he has seen in twenty years.

Well, I can assure it was the worst I have seen.

He sits down and holds up a bundle of sheets. I ask him to

give me a copy. I will read it by tomorrow and if it is positive and it is

documented I will get up and support it in my concluding comments tomorrow. I

ask you to do that, but until I see something that refutes information that is

documented I will stand on what information I have seen.

Now, the minister said in the media, I think, that there were

sixteen fatal accidents in this Province. That is what the minister stated and

out of every one of those where there were fatalities it was over .15. There are

no statistics in this Province to substantiate lowering the alcohol level to .05

to reduce fatalities. The minister must have an ulterior motive to reduce it,

and here is the ulterior motive.

Now, in this Province there were 8000 people who tested

within that range. Now, if you lower the alcohol level to .05 we are not going

to have 8000 we are going to have 15,000, 20,000 or 25,000 people, and multiply

that by 100. It is not your 8000 anymore, it is your $2 million tax grab from

people. Also, a downside of that, if I registered .12 on the breathalyser and I

want to appeal my case to the court I can show up in person and put forth a

defence. This legislation here now has made a police officer a judge and a jury.

There is no avenue for me, if I am in that warning category, to take my appeal

to court.

MR. EFFORD: There is an avenue for you.

MR. SULLIVAN: What is it? Where is it?

MR. EFFORD: Do not drink and drive.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister has no defence. Every person

who is duly charged in this country and this Province should have a right to

have an appeal of the charge brought against him. You are automatically guilty

and you could wait forever if you do not pay $100 to get your license back. That

is improper, it is wrong, and I doubt and challenge its constitutionality. In

fact I do not think you can carry it without the proper constitutional framework

to do it.

The minister is going to get up next week when he gets the

opportunity and try to show that at .05 you are at a level of impairment that is

unsafe to operate a motor vehicle. Now, that is a pile of hogwash. The minister

should give the right reasons. A person at .01 is less impaired than .02, but

when does the level of impairment get to a certain point where it can

significantly effect a persons's ability to operate a vehicle and reduce the

possibility of fatalities in this Province. That is the debatable question here.

MR. EFFORD: You define risk now?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to risk in a second now. You

give me a few minutes and I will get the risk. The problem today is that the

people who are chronic abusers the minister is ignoring, and not putting the

proper emphasis where he should. He is trying to make criminals out of people

who are honest, law abiding people, responsible individuals.

Forty per cent of people who are drunk drivers have alcohol

levels above .20. Sixty-four per cent above .15. We have 80 per cent who are

abo